Congressional Record H3839-H3846

     

 

June 23. 1982

‘(0 minimums regulatory burden emaci-
eted with participation in the sent pro-
gram {or the smell business concern which
rill stimulate the coet-eiiective conduct oi
Federal research and development and the
likelihood oi commercialintion oi the re-
sults oi research and development conduct
ed under the 5813 program: and a

‘15) simplified. standardized. and timely
annual report on the SEER program to the
Small Business Ada-illustration end the
Oiiioe oi Science and Technoloey Policy.

"ik) The Director oi the Office oi Science
end Technology Policy. in consultation with
the Peder-e] Coordinating Council ior Sci-
ence. Wang end Research. shall. in
addition to such other raponslbilltia lino
posedupoohimbytheSmailBtuixsmInno-
ration Development Act oi 1982-

"(ll Independently survey and monitor all
phases oi the implementation and opration
oi 53m programs within agencies required
to ateblish en $3112 program. including

compliance with the expenditures oi funds
according to the requirements oi subsection
(0 oi this section: and

“(2) report not ices than annually. and at
such other tima es the Director may deem
appropriate. to the Committee on Small
Businma oi the Senate and House or more»
sentativu on all phase oi the implementa-
tion and operation oi sum programs within
egencim required to mtablish an 5313 pro-
gram. toeether with such recommendations
as the Director may deem appropriate”.

Sm. 5. Eiiective October 1. 1988. par»
graphs (4) through (1’) oi section 9(b) oi the
Small B‘usines Act (as added by section 3)
and subsections (e) through (k) oi section 9
oi the Small Busines Act (as added by sec-
tion 4) are repealed.

Sn: 6. The Comptroller General shall. not
more than ilve years aiter the date oi enact-
ment at this Act. transmit a. report to the
Senate end the House oi Representativm on
the implementation oi. and nature oi re-
search conducted under this Act. including
the judgments oi the heads oi Departments
end agencies as to the eiiect oi this Act on
rmarch programs

The motion was agreed to.

The Senate bill was ordered to be

read a third time. was read the third
time. and passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.

A similar House bill (3.12.1326) was
laid on the table.

 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. DLNARDIS. Mr. Speaker. on the
roilcali on HR. 1328. the Small Busi-
nem Innovation Development Act. I
was unavoidably detained at a meeting
and unable to cast my vote.

Had I been pracnt I would have
voted in the affirmative.

 

AUTHORIZING CLERK TO M
CORRECTIONS m ENGROSS-
m1? 0? HOUSE WNIENT
TO 3. 381. SMALL BUSINESS IN-
NgVATION DEMOPMENT ACT
0 1981

Mr. MALCE. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that the Clerk be
authorized to correct section numbers.
cross-references. and punctuation in
the engrosrnent oi the House amend-
ment to S. 881.

/

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — nuuon

'I'he SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request oi the
gentleman irom New York?

There was no objection.

 

DEW-15810}! OP THANKS IN
CONSIDERATION OF SMALL
BUSINESS INNOVATION DEVEL-
OPMENT ACI'

(Mr. 14PM asked and was given
permission to address the House ior 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. ALCE. Mr. Speaker. I would
iiketothanksomebiembers oithis
House ior their role in the passage oi
the Small Business Innovation Re-
search and Development Act. It is dii-
ilcult ior me to enumerate all.

Certainly I want to thank the chair-
man oi the full committee. the gentle-
man from Maryland (Mr. Mia-cans.)
the ranking minority member. the
gentleman iorm Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDeon) the ranking minority
member oi my subcommittee. the gen-
tlemam irom Ohio (Mr. Srmon): the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Beam):
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Sins-n).

Ialsowanttog'ivespecialthanksto
the stall oi the Small Businem Com-
mittee. both the majority and minor-
ity. iuil committee and my subcommit-
tee.

I also want to thank a tremendous
number oi small businms groups. the
National Council For Industrial Inno-
vation. the National Institute of En-
trepreneurial Technology. the Cham~
ber of Commerce. the National Small
Busincm Asociation. Small Business
United. the National Federation oi In-
dependent Businmses. and other. all
oi whom were most helpiui in bringing
about passage at this bill.

I especially want to thank Milt Stew-
art. former Chici Counsel for Advoca-
ay oi the Small Businsa Administra-

on.

 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
mm

Mr. EDWARDS oi California. Mr.
Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker‘s table the bill
(HR. 3112) to amend the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 to extend the ciicct
oi certain provisions. and for other
purposes. with a Senate amendment
thereto. and concur in the Senate
amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment as iollows:

Strike out all alter the enacting clause
and insert: .
That this Act may be cited at the “Voting
Rights Act Amendment oi 1.932”.

Soc. 2. (e) Subsection (a) at section 4 oi
the Voting Rights Act oi 1965 is amended
by striking out "seventeen years" each place
it appears and inserting in lieu thereoi
"nineteen years".

(b) Eriective on and aiter August 5. 1984.
subsection (a) of section 4 oi the Voting
Rights Act oi 1965 is amended—

(1) by inserting “(l)” alter “(a)“.

(2) by inserting “or in an

vision oi such State (a sue; Efiflgi’ffigfl-
isted on the date such determination: 1.1,;
made with respect to such State}. though
such determinations were not made with re.

m such subdivision as a separate
unit.” beiore "or in any polltlml subdivision
with rupect to which” each place it ap-

pears:

(3) by striking out “in an action for a de-
claratory judgment“ the (inn piece it ap-
peem end all that follows through “color
through the use oi such tests or devices
have occurred anywhere in the territory oi
such plaintiii.”. end in setting in lieu thereh
oi “issues a declaratory judgment under this
section". ‘

(4) by striking out “in an action ior a de-
claratory judgmcn " the second place it ap-
pears and all that iollowa through "section
«mm-through the use oi tests or devices
have occurred anywhere in the territory oi
such plaintiiL”. and inserting in lieu thereoi
the (allowing:

“isues a declaratory inclement undu this
section. A declaratory judgment under this
section shall isue only it such court deter-
minu that during the ten years preceding
the tiling oi the action. and during the
pendency oi such ee'doo- ~

“(Al no such tat or device has been used
within such State or poiltiml subdivision ice
the purpose or with the eil'cct oi denying or
ebrldging the right to vote on amount oi
raceorcolororunthemseoieStateor
subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment
under the second sentence oi this suboec~
tion) in contravention oi the guarantees oi
subsection (1X2):

"(3) no iinal judgment oi any court oi the
United States. other than the denial oi dc-
claratory judgment under this section. has
determined that denials or abridgements oi
the right to vote on account oi raw or color
have cams-red anywhere in the territory oi
such State or political subdivision or (in the
case oi a. State or subdivision seeking a tie
claratory judgment under the second sen-
tence oi this subsection) that denials or
ebridgements oi the right to vote in contra!
vention oi the guarantee oi subsection
(ix!) have occurred when in the terri-
tory oi such State or subdivision and no
consent decree. settlement. or agreement
has been entered into resulting in any aban-
donment oi a voting practice challenged on
such grounds: and no declaratory judgment
under this section shall be entered during
the pendency oi an ection commenced
bciore the illing oi an action under this sec-
tion and alleging such denials or abridge-
ments oi the right to vote:

“(C) no Federal examiners under this Act
have been mined to such State or political
subdivision:

“(9) such State or political subdivision
end all governmental units within its terri-
tory have complied with section 5 ol this
Act. including compliance with the requxrc-
ment that no change covered by section 5
has been eniorced without preciearance
under section 5. and have repealed all
changes covered by section 5 to which the
Attorney General h successiuny objected
or as to which the United States District
Court for the District oi Columbia has
denied a declaratory judgment:

"(2) the Attorney General has not inter
posed any objection (that has not been over-
turned by a final judgment oi a court) and
no declaratory judgment has been denied
under section 5. with respect to any submis-
s;on by or on behali oi the plaintii! or any
governmental unit 21min its territory under
section 5. end no such submissions or de:
claratory judgment actions are pending: and

l

H 3839 l

‘L

...-..,- --

.,,_.,......,..

 

 

as...

“we“...-

r

. -
”flwowwv -

.._.i..-..

 

 

H 3840

up such State or political subdivision
and all governmental units within its terri-

“(1) have eliminated voting procedures and
methods oi election which inhibit or dilute
equal axes to the electoral procua:

“(11) have engaged in constructive eiiorts
to eliminate intimidation and harassment oi
person exercising rights protected under
this Act: and

‘(iili have engaged in other constructive
eiiorts. such an expanded opportunity for
convenient registration and young ior every
person oi voting age and. the appointment
oi minority persons as election oiilciala
throughout the jurisdiction and at all stages
oi the election and registration process.

'12) To shirt the cur: in determining
whether in lane a declaratory judgment
under this subsection. the plaintiii shall
praent evidence oi minority participation.
including evidence of the levels of minority.
group registration and voting. changes in
such levels over time. and disparities be-
tween minority-group and non-minority-
group participation.

“(3) No declaratory judgment shall Laue
underthissubsectionwithrapecttosuch
State or political subdivision ii such plain-
tiii and governmental units within its terri-
tory have. during the period beginning ten

.. years beiore the date the judgment is
imued. engaged in violations oi any provi-
sion oi the Constitution or law oi the
United States or any State or poiitial sub-
division with respect to discrimination in
voting on account oi race or color or (in the
caseoiaStsiteorsubdivisionseekinsade~
claratory judgment under the second sen-
tence oi this sumection) is contravention oi
the guarantees oi subsection (1X2) unless
the palintiii mtablisha that any such viola.-
tlons were trivial. were promptly corrected.
and were not repeated.

“(4) The State or political subdivision
bringing such action shall publicize the in-
tended commencement and any proposed
settlement oi such action in the media serv-
ing such State or polltiml subdivision and in
appropriate United States post oiiices. Any
aggrieved party may as oi right intervene at
any stage in such action":

(5) in the second paragraph—

(A) by inserting “(5)" beiore "An action".
and

(B) by striking out "five" and all that fol-
lows through “section “002).": and insert
ing in lieu threoi "ten years alter judgment
and shall reopen the action upon motion oi
the Attorney General or any aggrieved
person alleging that conduct has occurred
which. had that conduct occurred during
the ten-year periods reierred to in this sub.
section. would have precluded the issuance
oi a declaratory judgment under this sub-
section The court. upon such reopening.
shall vacate the declaratory judgment
issued under this section l1. aiter the issu-
ance of such declaratory Judgment. s ilnal
Judgment against the State or subdivision
with respect to which such declaratory
judgment was issued. or against any govern-
mental unit within that State or subdivi-
sion. determines that denials or abridge-
inents oi the right to vote on account oi
race or color have occurred anywhere in the
territory oi such State or political subdivi-
sion or (in the case oi a State or subdivision
which sought a declaratory Judgment. under
the second sentence oi this subsection) that
denials or tbridgements of the right to vote
in contravention oi the guarantea of sub-
section (0(2) have occurred anywhere in the
territory oi such State or subdivision. or ii.
titer the isuance oi such declaratory judg-
ment. a consent decree. settlement or agree-
ment has been entered into resulting in any

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- HOUSE

abandonment oi a voting practice chal.
longed on such grounds". and

(I) by striking out “11 the Attorney Gen-
eral“ the first place it appears and all that
iollowa through the end oi such subsection
and inserting in lieu thereoi the following:

“(6) li. alter two years iron the date oi
the filing at a declaratory judgment under
this subsection. no date has been set for a
hearinginsuchactiortandthssdelayhaa
not been the rmult oi an avoidable delay on
the part oi counsel ior any party. the chic!
lodge oi the United States-District Court
for the District oi Columbia may request
the Judicial Council for the Circuit oi the
District oi Columbia to provide the neces—
sary Judicial resourca to expedite any
action filed under this section. I: such re-
source are unvai‘lable within the circuit.
the chiei Judge shall file a certiilcate oi ne-
caity in amordance with section 2920:!) oi
title 28 oi the United States Code.

“(7) The Congrss shall reconsider the
provisions oi this section at the end oi the
flitecn-year period following the eiiective
date at the amendments made by the
Voting Rights Act Amendments oi 1932.

“(8) The provisions oi this section shall
expire at the end oi the twenty-live-year
period. iollowing the eiiective date oi the
amendments made by the Voting Rights A“
Amendments oi 1981

“(9) Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the Attorney General irom consenting to an
entry oi Judgment ii based upon a showing
oi objective and compelling evidence by the
pialntifi. and upon investigation. he is satis.
tied that the State or political subdivision
has wmplied with the requirements oi sec-
tion «axll. Any aggrieved party may as oi

.rlght intervene at any stage in such

action”. . -

(e) Section" 4(1)“) of the Voting Rights
Act‘oi ms is amended by inserting titer
“unwritten" in the proviso the following:
"or in the case oi Alaskan Native and
American Indians. ii the predominate lan-
guage is historically unwritten".

(d) Section 203(c) oi such Act is amended
by inserting titer "Natives" in the proviso
the followinc “and Amerimn lndians".

Soc. 3. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
at 1965 is amended to read as follows:

“Soc. 2. (a) No voting qualification or pre-
requisite to voting or standard. practice. or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridge-
meot oi the right oi any citizen oi the
United States to vote on account oi race or
color. or in contravention oi the guarantea
set forth in section «0(2). as provided in
subsection (bi.

“(bi A violation oi subsection (a) is estab-
lished ii. based on the totality oi circum-
stances. it is shown that the political proc-
esses leading to nomination or election in
the State or political subdivision are not
equally open to participation by members oi
a class oi citizens protected by subsection
(a) in that its members have less opportuni-
ty than other members of the electorate to
participate in the political procen and to
elect representatives oi their choice. The
extent to which members oi a protected
class have been elected to oflice in the State
or political subdivision is one circumstance
which may be consxdered: Provided That
nothing in this section mtablishes a right to
have members oi a protected class elected in
humbem equal to their proportion in the
population”.

Std. 4. Section 203th) oi the Voting Rights
Act oi 1965 is amended by striking out
“August 5. 1985" and inserting in lieu there-
oi “August 6. 1992". and the extension made
by this section shall apply only to determi-
nations made by the Director of the Census

June 23, 1.982

under clause (i) oi section 203(1)) for mem-
bers oi a single language minority who do
not speak or understand English adequately
enough to participate in the.electoral proc-
as when such a determination can be made
by the Director oi the Census based on the
1980 and subsequent census data.

Soc. 5. Effective January 1. 1984. title I] oi
the Voting Rights Act oi 1965 is amended
by adding at the end the following section:

‘vcrrmo um:

“Soc. 208. Any voter who requirVu mist-g
ance to vote by reason of blindness. disabil-
ity. or inability to read or write my be
given asistance by a. person of the voters~
choice. other than the voter’s employer or
agent oi that employer or oiiicer or agent of
the voter‘s union".

Soc. s. Except as otherwise provided in
this Act. the amendments made by this Act
ahalltalteeiiectonthedateoitheenactn
ment at this Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the
reading). Mr. Speaker. I aslt unani-
mous consent that the Senate amend-
ment be considered as read and print-
ed in the Reopen. ‘

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the requat oi the gentleman from
Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

The mm Is there objection
to the original request oi the gentle
man from California.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speak-
er. reserving the right to object. I
would aslt the chairman oi the sub-
committee to please explain the pur-
pose oi hi's unanimous-consent re.
quest.

Mr. EDWARDS oi California Mr.
Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SEINSBQ‘BREN’NER. I yield to
the gentleman from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Speaker. ER. 3112. as amended. re-
flects the- overwhelming bipartisan
support which exists in both Houses of
Congress and in the White House not
only for the extension oi the key pro-
visions oi the Voting Rights Act but
also for the form which the extension
should take.

Basically. the amendments to SLR.
3112 would:

First. continue the act’s special pro-
visions. lncluding the pro-clearance re-
quirement. for 25 years while at the
same time maintaining the incentives
adopted earlier by the House. for
States and counties to bail out. from
the pre~clearance requirement.

Second. require Congress to review
the new bailout provisions at the end
oi 15 years in order to insure that they
are used in a fair and effective
manner. The special provisions would
remain in effect for the full 25 years
unless this 15.yca.r review results in
the Congress amending the act.

Third. amend section 2 to clarify the
basic intent of the section 2 amend-
ment adopted previously by the
House.

The amendment is designed to make
clear that prooi oi discriminatory
intent is not required to establish a.
section 2 violation. In fact. the imposi-
tion oi an intent standard under sec.

 

' made to Eli. 3112 so that we can com-

 

June 2-}. 1.982

tion 2 has been specifically and decio
sively rejected by both the House and
the Senate '

A new subsection has been added to
section 2 codifying the standard set
forth in White against Regeater. the
leading pre-Bolden voting case.

Fourth. retain the House provision
for a 7-year extension oi the language
minority provisions. M minor
changes were made to these provi-
sions.

Fifth. amended 3.2. 3112 adds a sec-
tion 208 to the act providing that
voters requiring voting assistance -by

reason of blindnes. disability. or illitr

eracy may be given such assistance by
a person at their own choosing except
for their employer or employer's agent
or an official or agent oi their union.
This new section would not be effec-
tive until January 1984.

Additional technical amendments
are also incorporated in the revised
3.1-1. 3112.

The other body as a whole is to be

commended for its deliberative action .

on this matter. The sponsors of the
companion bill in the other body and
the author of the main revisions made
to that. bill are to be particularly ap-
plauded for their leadership.

Those Members were able to main-
tain the basic lntemty and intent of
the House-passed bill while at the
same time finding language which
more effectively. addresses the concern
that the results test would lead to pro-
portional representation in every juris-
diction throughout the country and
which delineates more specifically the
legal standard to be used under section
2.

I urge my colleagues to loin me in
adopting the revisions that have been

plete action on one of the most imporo
tant civil rights bills of this Conga-m

Mr. SENSBTBRBWNER. Mr. Speak-
er. further reserving the right to

object. let me ask the gentleman from
California whether he concurs with
my interpretation of section 2 of the
bill as follows:

Let there be no question then. We
. g in

3:! law 1.133675

1m

“2
.8235 8!.

  
    
   

at Court in the and—or a majority o
the Court—conclude there is a purpos
element in White. then the committee
nonetheless has drafted a bill that
does not incorporate this requirement,
and that is the ultimate legislative
intent of the bill we are adopting here
today.

The bill. of course. has many fea-
tures. but I would like to emphasize
several key points for the considera-
tion of the House.

F‘lrst. addressing the amendment to
section 2. which incorporates the “re-
sults" test in place of the “intent" test
set out in the plurality opinion in

  

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —— HOUSE

Mobile against Bolden. there is an ex-
tensive discumion of how this test is to
be applied in the Senate committee
report.
The test to be applied against the to-
tality oi circumstancm as set out in
White against Reguter and the case
law under it. That test does not
depend upon any finding or inierence
of intent. nor does it require—Is some
have erroneously suggested—a ilndlng
that there are barriers to the process
of registration and voting. themelvea.
Thus. the- problems of discriminatory
stating and language difficulties in the
White against Regester case are im-‘
portant factors to-be considered along
with other factors such as racial bloc
voting and the other type of factors.
but they are not essential prerequi-
sitm. if other relevant factors can be
shown which in the aggregate add up
to the discriminatory result.
.ionz. unlike t. b ~

:.rr-:.am:rn|. 2' t. e --—
tely. and will. of course. ao-ly
' ' ' 'Casa I 3.1.1. -o‘ .‘l
- > , - blished rinciples of
Ura~ v. Cit of " mon- - a .
' -m-m‘mm -

I U 1 0

Also. it should be clear that section 2
applies in appropriate cases to episodic
or one-time practices. not simply to
structural situations.

W ’2 etnhflard Is not the

 

H 3841

than to advert to the above general
precepts. It is unnecessary and beyond
the scope oi the proposed amendment
to section 2 to prescribe any mechanis-
tic or predetermined rules for formu-
lating remedies in cases which neces-
sarily depend upon widely varied proof
and local circumstances. The fashion-
ing of remedies must be left to the tra-
ditional. equitable powers oi the‘local
Federal courts having jurisdiction over
particular controversies to determine
on the facts of each cue a remedy
that provides a fair opportunity for
minorities to participate in the politi-

cal process. and fully remedies the vio- .

lation.

Dan the distinguiShe'd gentleman
from California (Mr. Ebwms) concur
with that interpretation?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSDFBRENNEB. I yield to
the gentleman from California.

.Mr. EDWARDS of Callio’rnia. The
response is that I concur with the
statement read by the gentleman from
Wisconsin.

Mr. SEISENBRDTNER. I certainly
thank the gentleman from California
for his support of this interpretation.

Further reserving the right to
object. will the gentlewoman from
Colorado kindly explain the mmority
language assistance provisions in the

 

ear—in an 9‘1; else-Nam S gated-1rd This

bill?

 

 

 

 

 

mm: section '~’ ‘5 E0“

 

u- u 1

WW “5

 

steam

t nl—n when: that!

 

array-d Hnr
:

 

 

which is not retrogressive. it would b
objected to only if the new. practic
itself violated the Constitution 0
amended section 2.

Mr. Speaker. the remedy for any
voting right violation must be com-
mensurate with the right that has

been violated. For this reason. the.

courts in correcting section 2 viola-
ti ns are to exercise their traditional
equitable powers to implement reilei
that completely remedies the prior
violations or dilution of minority
voting strength. Based upon estab-
lished and accepted concepts of equity
and existing case law, the courts have
a duty in section 2 cases to provide
equal opportunity for minority citi~
22:5 to participate in the electorate
and to select candidates of their
choice. They must fully and complete-
ly eliminate the prior dilution of the
minority voting strength.

Given the existing body of case:
clearly establishing these equitable re-
medial concepts. and given the fact
that the amendment to section 2 deals
solely with whether or not there has
been a substantive violation of voting
rights. it is wholly unnecessary to do
more in addressing the remedy Lssue

. El 1245

Mrs. SCEROEDER. I want to ex-
plain what transpired on the bilingual
provisions in the bill.

It is the committee’ 5 understanding

that the Senate amendment concern-
ing the provision of bilingual elections
under section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act is designed to improve upon the
method of providing assistance to lan—
guage minority voters by using updat-
ed and accurate census data if and
when it is available.

The intention or this amendment is
to direct the Census Bureau to more
accurately define ”single language ini-
nority." The amendment asks the
Census Bureau to examine the infor-
mation obtained from the 1980 census
with an eye toward using such infor-
mation to more accurately define
“single language minority."

At this point. it is too early to deter-
mine to‘ what extent. if any. the Eng-
lish proficiency questions and other
1980 census data can be used in identi-
fying ”single language minorities."
Thus. the language in the amendment
states. "when such a determination
can be made." allowing for the time
needed by the Bureau in this matter.
It should clear. also. that there is to be
no change in what areas are covered
under section 203 until or unless the
Director of the Census finds that we
can more accurately target those who
need bilingual assistance.

Mr. SENSENBREXN‘ER. I thank
the gentlewoman from Colorado for
her contribution.

 

"L

...-_..-.—.——

e... ......v——<...— -..e._.._.,-

H 3842

Further reserving the right to
obiect. Mr. Speaker. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roomo).

(Mr. RODDFO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his rc-
marks.)

Mr. ODINO. Mr. Speaker. today is
indeed a great day’ for all Americans
and especially for those citizens who
began their march in Alabama and
have arrived in the Capitol today to
find that there is continued support
for the Voting Rights Act in the Con-
greee. I wish to commend every
Member oi this August body for their
diligence in moving this legislation
toward final passage.

I was a Member of the House when
this historic legislation was enacted in
1965. By them passage of the Voting
Rights Act and other important civil
rights legislation was e painiul ac-
knowxedgment by the Congres that
the rights embodied in our great Con-
stitution were denied to black Ameri-
cans and that such extraordinary de—
nials demanded extraordinary reme-
dies. ‘ -

In subsequent efforts to extend the
act.ltbecamecleartoailthatthe
right to vote was being denied citizens
on the basis of membership in a lan-
guage minority group as well.

Today. after thorough and careiul
consideration. we recognise that dis-
crimination in voting continues
againstpersons on the basis of racial
or language minority group member-
ship. The bill before us not only pro.
hibits such discrimination but provides
for clear guidance to the courts on
_ how violations under this act will be

established sets forth the parties‘ bur-
dens of proof. and suggests the param-
eters for eiiective remedial reliei.

I commend our colleagues in the
other body [or their'thorough hear-
ing: and deliberations on this legisla-
tion. They have adopted in spirit and
purpose the bill enacted by this House
last October. HR. 3112. They have
further clarilled its purpose and provi-
sions. Such clarification is eloquently
set forth by the original sponsors of
the bill—~the Senators of Maryland
and Mamachusetts—and the architect
of the committee compromise—the
Senator iron: the great State of
Kansas.

My special appreciation goes out to
the members‘oi the Committee on the
Judiciary for its continued leadership
in civil rights. and my thanks to each
House Member for the support you
will give this bill today. Today is truly
a great day.

Mr. SETSENBRHN'N'ER. Mr. Speak-
er. I withdraw my reservation of objec-
tion.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
' to the request of the gentleman from
Calliomia?

Mr. HYDE. Reserving the right to
object. Mr. Speaker. I should like to
ask the chairman of the subcommittee
a question or two.

This procedure which we are going
forward under today. which eifectively

forecloees debate. did the gentleman
discuss that with anybody on our side
of the aisle? '

Mr. EDWARDS oi‘ California I! the
gentleman will yield. yes.

Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman
tell me with whom he discussed this
procedure?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. The
gentleman irom Wisconsin (Mr. Sm-
am

3.
Mr. HYDE. Oh. I thank the gentle-

man.

Further reserving the right
object. Mr. Speaker. I would like to
ask the gentleman from California
about the test which the Senate incor-
porated in the proposed section 2 of
the act. I have read the language. and
I believe it comes virtually word for
word from page 768 of the Supreme
Court‘s 1973 decision in White against
Regester. and I would like to ask the
gentleman whether I am correct.

Mr. EDWARDS or California. It the
gentlemen will yield. the gentleman
Iron: Illinois is correct. It comes right
out of the Supreme Court's decision in
White against Roaster.

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given per-
missiontoreviseandextendhisre—
marn.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I am
pleased to see that the Senate and the
President have been able to come to a.
compromise on the 1982 amendments
to the Voting Rights Act of 1966. I
must say. however. that while I have
consistently supported this 333:. both
in 1975 and during the debate on the
House floor last fall. I am still trou—
bled by some oi the provisions con-
tained in the new bailout mechanism
passed by this body and endorsed by
the Senate. My {ears relating to the
unconstitutionallty of an open-ended
“impossible" bailout have been molli-
ied somewhat by the 25-year ceiling
which was placed on the preclearance
provisions in the Senate. Given the
fact that previous extensions have
been for 5 years in 1965. 5 more years
in 1970. and 7 years in 1975. a. court.
probably the Supreme Court. will have
to determine ii. in light at what many
believe to be an inescapable bailout
procedure. the 25-year mp imposed by
the Senate is constitutionally iustiil-
able.

In addition. many of the apprehen-
sions I expressed in my supplemental
views in the House Judiciary Commit-
tee report. and some of the concerns
which were so articulately outlined by
Congressman mem Bum in his
dissenting views. remain outstanding.

I am generally pleased. though. by
the changes which the Senate made to
section 2 of the bill. Under the Senate
amendments. the “results” test re
mains in the statute but. since it has
no precursor in the law. it is explained
by the adoption of clarining language.
Specifically. the amendments provide
that a violation of the results test can
be shown by an examination or the to-
tality oI the circumtances surround-

CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD — HQUSE

   
 

June 23, 1.982

ing the alleged discrimination. and the
determination that "the political proc-
esses leading to nomination or election
in the State or political subdivision are
not equally open to participation by
members of the clan of citizens pro-
tected" by the Voting Rights Act.
While this language may give the ap-
pearance to some of being an “effects"
tat. and indeed has been marketed as
such in some quarters. i has been
taken. virtu w r

t e upreme ‘ ' '

case which. according to its author.
Justice Byron White. underscored the
requirement that an "invidious dis-
criminatory purpose [must] be in~
ierred from the totality of facts" to
constitute a violation. Mobile v.
Bowen. 466 US. 55. 95 (1980).

It is also worth noting that the lano
guage adopted in the Senate was sug-
gested during the House debate by the
minority (see Home hearings. Due
2053) but was rejected and. during ne-
gotiations for a compromise in which I
was intimately' involved. no one would
consider it. Thereiore. it is clear. and I
suspect will be clear by a reviewing
court. that the language adopted
through the Senate compromise is lan-
guage which was rejected in the House
and which. thereiore. represents the
intent standard articulated by White.
not an eiiects standard as some would
suggest.

I regret that this device—asking for
unanimous consent to accept the
Senate amendments—is being used to
foreclose further debate in the House
on this most important civil rights
issue.

I understand that an agreement to
proceed in this manner was arrived at
during a meeting with the Democrat
majority and the gentleman from Wise
consin (Mr. Smsmmnmzm). I regret
this decision as many Members want
to be heard on this legislation and
they are hereby foreclosed.

In any event. I do support this im-
perfect legislation as better than no
legislation at all. However. I look for—
ward to the Supreme Court’s early rec
consideration of the issues of constitu-
tionality of a 25-year extension cou-
pled with an impossible bailout for
covered jurisdictions. I had hoped for
a workable bailout which would pro-
vide effective incentives to covered Ju~
risdlcticns. I am unconvinced that
what we have here an meet the test.

The right to vote is the basic civil
right of all citizens. Insofar as this bill
advances that right I wholeheartedly
support it.

Mr. McCIDRY. Mr. Speaker. will
the gentleman yield? _

Mr. HYDE. Further reserving the
right to object. Mr. Speaker. I yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.

(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker. I
would like to support the provisions oi

 
 
 

 

, .4..v _,_ "

 

 

June 23, 1.982

the Senate amendments to the Voting
Rights Act. for I believe they are an
improvement over what the House
adopted last fall. However. I would
like to expres my concern over the
presence oi one word in the deiinition
oi “results.” The Senate amendment.
in proposed section 2(h) oi the House
bill. stat: that “results" may be
proven by a showing. based on a total-
ity oi the circumstances. that the “pa
lltic-al procmsee" leading to “nomina-
tion or election” are not “equally
open" to participation by members oi
a.“claan" protected by the act. and the
members oi that class have "15 op-
portunity" than other members oi the»
electorate to participate in the politi-
ml process and to elect representatives
oi their choice. Throughout the House
debate. we were told that the principal
aim oi the proponents oi change in
the ao-called Mobile intent test was
the adoption oi a standard oi prooi
iden to that articulated in White
v. Repeater, 412 us. 155 (1973). This
claim persisted throughout the hear-
ing process in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. In iact. prominent amne-
micians irom both sides oi the philo-
sophiml aisle. among them Prois. Wil-
liam VanAlstyne. James Blunstein.
Irving Younger. Donald Horowiu.
George Corcoran. William White. and
Abigail Thernstrom. opposed the
adoption oi the "eiiecfs" test clearly
embraced by the House language. As a
consequence. Senator Don: and others
were able to develop a compromise
which clarified the House language
and reiterated the precise language oi
White against Regester. with one very
important difference. That is the use
oi the word “clam" in place oi the
word "group." The latter is the word
used by the Supreme Court on page
763 oi its opinion in White. Ii the pur-
pose really is to clariiy the law by the
adoption oi the White test. a goal: do
not oppose. why. then. did "group”
become "clam." a word with clear enti.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

litiml alienation. not the traditional
assimilation into the mainstream oi
American society we have come to
expect. It is far easier to speak and:
own language than it is to learn an-
other. in this case English. and I have
no doubt that politicians will play to
that preierence in solicit-in: votes. ior
example. irom the Hispanic communi-
ty in the Southwest and will ultimate-
ly participate in the cultural segregar
tion oi our society.

Since the bilingual portions oi the
Voting Rights Act do not expire until
1985. and since the basis ior this part
at the act is totally distinct irom the
original 1965 act. it would have been
preierable to omit those provisions
irom. the amendments we are now con-
aidering.

Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentle-
man ior yielding. -

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I withdraw
my reservation oi objection.

The SP Is there objection
to the request oi the gentleman irom
California? , ’

Mr. FISH. Reserving the right to
object. Mr. Speaker. the passage of the
Voting Rights Act Extension at 1982 is
another significant milestone in our
eiiorts to provide equal rights for all
American citizens. The Voting Rights
Act is the most successful civil rights
legislation ever enacted. and the Con-
gress can be proud today that it has
taken the steps necessary to continue
providing equal opportunity to vote to
all American citizens.

As one of the original'sponsors oi
H3. 3112. I join my colleagues on the
Judiciary Committee in commending
the leadership oi the other body in
working out a meaningful compromise
that meets the requirements oi our
legislation. The deieat oi all weaken-
ing amendments in the other body i.1:li
dicatm the strength oi the support oi
the Voting Rights Act in the Congress.

The changes in H49. 3112 have been
explained in depth by any colleagues

tlement connotations? It may be that. from California and Wisconsin. Mr.

this is merely a drafting error. and is
indeed a narrowing oi a test. especially
since blaclu are already protected as a
“suspect” class under the Constitu-
don. .

Second. I wish to once again express
my concern {or the provisions oi title
II oi the act which continue the bilin-
gual ballot provisions irom 1985 until
1992. I have long believed that bilin-
gualism as a policy. however attractive
it might be to politicians and an elec-
torate which cannot speak English.
will. it carried to its logical conclusion.
ultimately result in two societim
within one country. We have seen
bilingualism intrude into the school
system and now it has intruded into
the voting booth: under this act. bilin-
gual ballots will be required even Li
the voter can read and speak English;
In the future we will doubtles see
other eiiorts to iederaily mandate
bilingualism throughout the South-
west. In the long term. this can only
result in cultural segregation and po-

mwms and Mr. Sasmm I
congratulate them on their eiiorts in
passing the extension oi the Voting
Rights Act. I also would like to mm-
mend my friends in the leadership
conierence on civil rights. who have
worked diligently and persistently in
the past year to make certain that the
Voting Rights Act would be extended.

Mr. Speaker. the right to vote is es-
.sential to the preservation oi our
democratic society. The advances
made in providing equal opportunity
for all Americans to vote since the en.
actment oi the Voting Rights Act oi
1965 have been extraordinary—but the
Congress has recognized that more
needs to be done to achieve true equal-
ity; The continuation oi preclearance
provisions under section 5 indimtm
congressional concern that discrimina-
tory voting changes by State and local
governments that would dilute minor-
ity voting opportunities not be made.
The bailout provisions oi the bill we
are voting on today are fair and will

H 3843

enable those jurisdictions which have
proven their ability to provide equal
opportunity to the polls to get out
from under the coverage oi the law.
Finally. the minority language provi-
sions. extended ior another 10 years.
will provide iurther opportunity for
those American citizens who speak an-
other language to fully participate in
the electoral process. ~

Iwouldllketoaddmyspeciiicen—
dorsement oi language added in the
Senate to provide the blind. disabled.
and illiterate voters‘assistance at the
polls through and individual oi the
voter‘s choice. This represents an ad-
vance in providing equal acces to the
polls for all Americans oi which we
can all be proud. However. one critical
issue remains—insuring that the blind
and the disabled can register to vote
eiiectively and can be assured oi phys-
ical accw to the polls. This matter. al.
though not appropriate as an amend-
ment to the Voting Rights Act exten-
sion. should be considered carefully by
my colleagues in separate legislation
which I have introduced to mandate
access to registration and polling
places ior handicapped and elderly
voters.

Mr. Speaker. this is a very historic
occasion. I have been pment on the
floor oi the House ior the 1970 and
1975 extensions oi the Voting Rights
Act. and I am proud to Join my col-
leagues today ior another extension oi
this critical civil rights legislation. It is
matters such as this which makes serv-
ice in the Congres and on the Judici-
ary Committee so rewarding.

(Mr. FISH asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) .

Mr. EnwimDS of Galiiomia. Mr.
Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. Further reserving the
right to object. Mr. Speaker. I yield to
the gentleman from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. I
thank the gentleman ior yielding.

Mr. Speaker. I will take just a.
moment to say that we really could
not have enacted this bill and had the
success that we had in the House and
in the Senate without quite a number
oi people. The gentleman irom Illinois
(Mr. Hrnr). right from day one. in our
hearings. went to great lengths to in-
terrogate the witnesses and came out
iorthn'ghtly within the first few days
at our deliberations for a strong re-
newal oi the Voting Rights Act.

The chairman oi the full committee.
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Roomo), made his usual massive con-
tribution. as well as the other Mem-
bers of the subcommittee. the gentle
man irom Wisconsin (Mr. Kasrzs-
aonra). the gentlewoman irom Colora-
do (Mrs. Samoan). the gentleman
irom Illinois (Mr. Wasnrscron). the
gentleman irom Wisconsin (Mr. Smi-
sz-munnrn) and the gentleman irom
California (Mr. Linoleum). "

 

H

 

H 3844

The gentleman from New York (Mr.
mnlassttieduslnmsssivewaysin
the final consideration of the bill.

As chairman of the subcommittee. I
want to show my gratitude to all of
them and to thank them for a job well
done. .

Mr. BOEING. Mr. Speaker. will the

Mr. FISH. Further reserving the
right to object. Mr. Speaker. I yield to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Roomo). the chairman of the'Commlto
toe on the Judiciary. ,

Mr. RODINO. I thank the gentle-
man from NewYork for yielding.

Mr.Speaker.I.too.wanttox-ise.as
chairman of the committee. and pay a
real compliment to the members of
the subcommittee. especially the
chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking minority member of the sub-'
committee. the gentleman from Illi-
nois (Mr. Eros). and the other mem-
bers. * -

I specifically want to commend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Eros)
the ranking member of the Subcom-
mittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights. who has worked long and hard
in order to forge a. viable and just ex-
tension of the Voting Rights Act. It is
due in large measure to his dedication
that this long awaited moment has fi-
nally come to pas. «

I believe their diligence made possi-
ble the bringing together of the maso
sive evidence that persuaded the Con-
gr-esstoactinthisparacularmiles-
tone piece of legislation

I want to also compliment the Mem-
bers of the other body who acted as
architects of the compromise. and I
want to particularly compliment each
and every Member who participated in
bringing to the House of Rem-menta-
tives this kind of legislation that is in
keeoing with our comminnent to a
basic constitutional right to guarantee
the right to vote to every black Ameri-
can. to every language minority
American. and to all people in these
great United State.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker.
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. Further reserving the
right to object. Mr. Speaker. I yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. WASHINGTON. I thank the
gentleman for yielding. '

Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of
the Senate amendment and to extend
my heartfelt thanks to all of the Mem-
bers delineated by the illustrious
chairman of our subcommittee. the
gentleman from California (Mr. Eo-
wanna).

Just one brief remark in reference to
section 208. As you may recall. the
voter assistance section was added by
the House to prohibit assistance in the
polling place except for blind voters.
The Senate added clan'fying language
to the section and provided that such
assistance will also be available to dis-
abled. blind. or illiterate voters by a
person of their choice. not an employ-
er or an agent or union officer.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

The whole purpose of this last provi-
sion was to prevent fraud and to pro-
tect those persons covered by this pro-
vision from any harassment. .

I again wtsh to exprem my support
of the revised House bill.

(Mr. WASHINGTON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker. I withdraw
my resa'ution of objection. .

The Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California? .

Mr. LEVI'I'AS. Reserving the right
to object. Mr. Speaker. I do so in order
to inquire of the gentleman from Cali—
fornia whether there is any portion of
this legislation that changes section 5
of the act. of the Voting Rights Act. or
changes the tests contained therein.
Does it or does it not affect section 5?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. If the
gentleman will yield. I believe the gen-
tleman is referring to preciearance.
section 5.

Mr. LEVITAS. That is right.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. No
change was made. '

Mr. ISV'I‘I‘AS. I thank the gentle-
man.

F‘urther reserving the right to
object. I have one further question:
Does the legislation contain any nu-

'mericai percentage of what would con-

stitute a minority district. congression-
al district?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. If the
gentleman will yield. the bill contains
no such provision.

Mr. IEVITAS. I thank the gentle-
man.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection. . _.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California? .

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Speaker. I re-
serve the right to object.

(Mr. LUNGREN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) -

Mr. LUNGRHN. Mr. Speaker. as a.
member of the subcommittee I am
proud of the fact that we have this bill
now before us. I am. however. con-
cerned with the manner in which it is
brought ‘forward. . This effectively
eliminates the possibility of debate on
this floor.

I have been shown just today a flier
that is being circulated in one of the
States of our Union. specifically-
making reference to four Members on
my side of the aisle who supported the
Voting Rights Act in its final form as
it passed out of this House. However.
it identifies them as members of an
enemy's list and as hypocrites because
they dared to support certain amend‘
mu?“ during the consideration of this
b

The reason I am mentioning this in
this context is that when we delay
debate or do not allow debate fully on
differnces of opinion within a consen-
sus goal of Voting Rights Act exten-
sion. we allow some misunderstanding

June 23, 1.982

and misapprehensions to occur con-
cerning some of our Members. I think
it is totally unfair that such political
sheets are being passed around identi-
ilying some Members as hypocrites
just because they may have had differ-
ences of opinion with respect to parts
of this bill.

There are still differences of opinion

withrespecttopartsofthisbilland

with interpretations of parts of this
bill. I am not wholly satisfied that we
have achieved the best vehicle that we

could achieve. but such is usually the-

csse‘with the legislative process.
Nonetheles. I think it is a sad day

for America and a sad day for Mem-

bers of the House of representatives

when they cannot in good conscience '

dispute certain language within the
context of a. general consensus with-
out being attacked in such partisan
and unfortunate terms as I have seen
on one sheet that was passed around
the House earlier today.

U 1300

In that regard I think we do our-
selves a diservice by bringing up the
Senate amendment under this proce-
dure. where we do not have an oppor-
tunity for all . Members to express
their differences of opinion. or per-
haps to explain why they may have
thought slightly different language in
a section of the bill would be prefer-
able to what we may have confronting

us.

I think the vote that we had in the
House when the original bill came
through wn a strong indication of the
overwhelming support for voting
rights in this country. whether it be
from Republican. Democrat. liberal or
conservative perspective or whether it
be expressed by somebody from the
North. the Midwest. the South. West.
or East. I am sorry we brought it up
under this procedure with a lack of a
rule thereby not allowing us to enter
tain any meaningful debate.

Mr. Speaker. while I support the
Senate amendments to the Voting
Rights Act. and intend to vote for
them. I am concerned that a number
of the problems contained in the bail-
out provisions have not been ad.
dressed. but I am pleased that the
White test has been substitued for the
so-cailed effects test endorsed by the
House last fall. It is clear from the
comments of Justice Byron White.
who authored White against Regester.
that White represents a type of intent
test. Justice White made his views of
that test clear by dissenting in Mobile
with the claim that:

A plurality oi the Court today agrem with
the courts below that maintenance of Mo-
bile's at-large system for election of city
commissioners Violates the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments only if if ‘4 notice:-
ed by a. readily discriminator-y purpose.
The plurallw also apparently reaffirms the
vitality of White v. Recast" . . . which as-
ta‘clLshed standards for determining whom-
er atlarze election systems are unconstitu-
tionally discriminatory. (italics added.)

 

June 23, 1.982

The language in the Senate compro-
mise to section 2 clearly incorporates
the test found on page 756 of White
against Regester. a test which has
never been considered. even by its
author. as anything. less than a type of
intent test. Unfortunately. the Mobile
decision muddled the waters. and
prompted some to suggest that any
intent testis impossible to prove. I be-
lieve the opposite is true. but the Dole
compromise in the Senate has clarified
the standard. I therefore support the
compromise in the bfll. with‘ reserva-
tiom stated in my supplemental View:
last fall.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my raer'np
tion of objection. '

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Eowaans)?

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker. reserv-

lngtherlghttoobject.iflmayask~

the distinguished chairman. is it true
that the proposed amendments sent
over by the other body do not change
in any way section 5 of the current
Voting Rights Act?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOWLER. I yield to the gentle-1
man from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. That
is correct: the preciearance provisions
are not changed.

Mr. FOWLER. And I ask that. if
that is the ase. and I certainly accept
the chairman's statement—any pend-
ing litigation throughout the land
that is under a section 5 challenge and
actively being considered by Federal
courts could not be affected in any
way. shape or form by the adoption of
the amendments and the ultimate pas.
sage of this act: is that correct?

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my reservap
tion of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the requst of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Enwaans)?

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker. reserv-
ing the right to object. the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Wasmoron). called
our attention to section 208. the voter
assistance section of ‘ the legislation
before us.

I would appreciate the attention of
the gentleman from California to ask.
first. would the voter assistance sec—
tions apply to all elections or Just Fed-
eral elections?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Will
the gentleman repeat the question.

Mr. BUTLER. Does it apply to all
elections or just the Federal elections?

Mr. EDWARDS of California It ap-
plies to all elections.

Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentle-
man.

We have had some question raised in
my State because we already have
voter assistance provisions in the Vir~
ginia code which does not exactly
track what will be in the Federal code.

-.-—.~,_...- -

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

We do gain comfort from the fact
that. as I understand it. section 208
will not become effective until Janu-
ary l. 1984. I would ask the gentleman
from California since there is no
record. and there have been no hear-
ings on this issue. if problems do arise.
can we be assured that the gentle-
man's committee will explore these
problems in hearings?

-EDMr. EDWARDS of California. If the
gentleman will yield further. I assure
the gentleman from Virginia that inasc
much as there were no hearing: on
this issue. that in the event any prob-
lems arise on this section that the sub-
committee wlll hold oversight hearings
promptly.

Mr. BUTIER. I thank the gentle-
man. '

Mr. Speaker; the Senate has made
substantial improvements in this bill. I
still have strong reservations about it.
and particularly its impact on my
State.

Mr. Speaker. on October 5. the
House of Representatives passed legis—
lation. over my strenuous objection. to
amend the Voting Rights Act. Since
that time. the issues raised by that
legislation have been debated at
length. both in the Senate and in the
pres. I am satisfied. at this time. that
both sides of the debate have had the
opportunity to present their views and
it is apparent that the preference of
the Congas and the public-at-large is
for legislation such as that before us
today.

I am disappointed in my own- efforts
to improve this legislation, and similar
efforts. made in the other body.

My reservations about this legisla-
tion. specifically its treatment of bail-
out and of section 2. remain strong. ~

I was author of‘ the first and unsuc.
cmsful bailout attempt in 1975.. The
theory of bailout. then’ and now. is to
provide incentive for compliance with
the act by relieving political subdivi-
sions from the yoke of preciearance if
they an demonstrate their conform-
ance with the letter and the spirit of
the law: and in so doing encouraging
localities not in full compliance to spe.
cial efforts to improve their own per-
formance. This legislation will be an.
extreme test of that theory. It places a
burden on State and local govern.
ments which. I believe. will make bail-
out extremely difficult if not impossi-
ble to achieve. Nonetheless. as it still
holds out the faint hope of salvation. I
am hopeful it will encourage public of-
ficials to redouble their efforts to abol-
ish any semblance of voting discrimi-
nation within their jurisdiction: I will
certainly encourage them to be unre-
lenting in this regard.

My principle objection to the bailout
provision of this legislation. is that the
opportunity for bailout can be forfeit-
ed or lost for many reasons unrelated
to a determination orlinding of a pur<
pose to discriminate. For example.
bailout may be denied for the follow-
ing: The appointment of Federal ex.
aminers even in the absence of any

H 3845

evidence of discrimination: acceptance
of settlement of voting rights litiga-
tion to avoid the expense of litigation;
inadvertent failure to make timely
submisions under section 5; or the in-
terposition by the Department of Jus-
tice of an unsubstantiated objection to
a proposed change in the voting laws.
Bailout can still be denied for failure
to make constructive efforts to elimi-
nate discrimination in voting even
though there is no finding or evidence
of discrimination to begin with: and in
addition. poUtlcal subdivisions seeking
bailout must still go through the ex-
pense and inconvenience of bringing
suit in the District Court of the Dis.
trict of Columbia.

Although this new legislation pro-
vides. first for a review of the bailout
provision after 15 years. and second.
for the bailout provision to expire
after 25 years. this is no consolation
for what I believe is poorly conceived
legislation. In my mind. these provi-
sions fit a pattern of temporary exten-
sions of the special provisions which
has characterized Cong-rm previous
considerations of the act: in 1970 they
were extended 5 years to 1975: in 1975
they were extended 7 years to 1982:
and in 1982 they will be extended 25
years to 2007; thus making the total
sentence of preclearance. imposed on
Virginia and other Southern States. 45
years. ‘

After 17 years of experience with.
and progress under. the Voting Rights
Act. Congress should have and could

have developed legislation as a final

response to the problem of voting dis-
crimination. I am indeed disappointed
that we have instead chosen to defer
the issues we fail to reconcile today to
a future Congrm

The principle area of disagreement
during Senate debate of the act was
the proposed amendment to section}.
concerning the proper standard to de-
termine discrimination in voting rights
litigation; otherwise known as the
question of intent versus effect. It is
unfortunate that this issue passed
through the House largely unnoticed.
In my view. it is the most significant
amendment to the act and I believe
the Members of the House would have
benefited from a thorough and open
debate of the issue.

I remain convinced that intent is the
appropriate standard by which to
judge voting discrimination. As such. I-
am not satisfied that the Supreme
Court erred in.ii’s decision of Mobile
against Holden; nor do I believe that
the decision constituted a reversal of
previous decisions concerning 14th and
15th amendment claims. However.
given the polarity of views in this con-
troversy. a compromise was clearly in-
dicated. I applaud my colleagues in
the Senate for their tireless efforts in
this regard and believe that the bill
before us represents the only possible
compromise between the competing
views.

._._. r._,,_,~_~——._.._.._ . 1

H 3846

The Senate amendment to section 2
is what we might call a qualiiled re-
sults test. Although it diiiers irom the
House amendment more cosmetically
than substantively. it is apparent that
the bill will be accompanied by a legis-
lative history which makes clear the
intent oi Cong-r5 and which puts it

' on record asreieeting the notion that

the objective oi the Voting Rights Act

will provide a reliable guide ior the ad-
ministration oi the law in the future. '

Undoubtedly. amended section 2 will
provide greater flexibility in both the _
Department at Justice and the courts
to attach pockets oi voter discrimina-
tion wherever they may exist. Like-
wise. it will make it easier tor a citizen
to successiully challenge the iairnem
oi a voting practice or electoral law. In
short. it is an invitation to endless liti-
gation. but as one about to reenter the
private sector. any objection I might
offer on that basis is clearly suspect.

Oi iinal concern to me is section 208
oi the bill which provides ior voting
assistance to be given to blind. dis—
abled. or illiterate voters. Section 208
statm: ‘ -

Any voter who requires ambiance to vote
by reason oi blindnem disability. or inabil-
itytoreadorwritemaybegivenassistance
by a person oi the voter's choice. other than
the voter’s employer or agent at that em.
player. or oiiicer or agent oi the voter's
umoo. _

The abuse of voting assistance
cannot be taken lightly. In Virginia.
we have iought long and hard to
assure secrecy of the ballot so that
each individual may vote 'his con-
science. Those needing assistance are
given aid. but by an officer oi election
under oath to act in amordance with
the law. . -

In my view. the adoption oi section
208 will intrude on and weaken the
election laws oi Virginia. as well as
other States which have passed de-
tailed and eiiective voting assistance
laws. Section 208 would permit nearly
anyone to enter the booth with a voter
qualifying ior assistance. thereby pre-
senting an opportunity ior iraud and
abuse which we do not need.

Although I view it as a very real

threat to eiiective administration oi
voting laws. no one appears to share
this concern and I am disappointed in
that. .
In the absence oi a legislative histo-
ry or evidence on the record or any ex-
premlon oi legislative intent. who an
say whether this applies to Federal
elections alone: or all elections: and. ii
so. by what constitutional authority?

This is but one more example oi the
generally sloppy legislative draiisman-
ship that permeates this legislation.

I am influenced to support this legis-

lation. in part. by the shameiul experi~ '

ence in the past year oi the general as-
sembly oi my own State. which on
tour diiierent occasions declined to
yield to the judgment oi the Depart-

.—__.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE. .

merit oi Justice as to the discriminato-

ry nature oi its legislative redistrict-

ing. In light oi this action. I cannot

stand beiore you and again boast oi

Virginia's periormance. even though

its record oi compliance in all other
cular: has been exemplary.

The attention which has been given
to the present eiiorts to amend the
Voting Rights Act has obscured the
fact that the permanent parts oi the
Voting Rights Act will not expire but
willremaininthelaw.Asaruult.thls
legislation has assumed a meaning in
the eya oi minority group citizens out
oi all proportion to its true signifi-
cance: the Voting Rights Act has
become a symbol oi Government's on-
going commitment to the interests of
minoritia. A

Alter 20 years in public cities. I am
quite comiortable with my own record
on civil rights. Likewise. the Republi-
can Party has no demonstnt-
ed its sensitivity to the concerns oi ml-
nority group citizens and its commit,
ment to assuring that their constitu-
tional rights are not denied or
abridged. I am most anxious that Re-
publicans continue to be identiiled
with that eiiort.

Nevertheless. I still insist there were
better. more eiiective ways to do this
job. and I am indeed disappointed in
the choice presented us today.

(Mr. BUTLER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) '

Mr. am Mr. Speaker. I with-

draw my reservation oi objection.
0 Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Speaker. as a
strong supporter oi the Voting Rights
Act. I am pleased that the other body
has taken action to extend this act.
and that today we will have the oppor-
tunity to agree to their amendments

The support that this extension has
accumulated during its journey
through the legislative process has
been tremendous. and it indicates to
me that there is a wide-spread consen-
sus that there is still a need ior the
preclearance provisions oi this act.

I am delighted that the substantial
progress in giving minorities the right
and opportunity to vote brought about
since the 1965 enactment oi the
Voting Rights Act will be continued. I
urge my colleagues to join me in
agreeing to the amendments made by
the other body in order to bring about
the prompt enactment oi this vital ex-
tension oi the Voting Rights Act.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request oi the gentleman from
California (Mr. Eowaaos)?

There was no objection.

A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. '-

 

HUMANITARIAN AID TO
LEBANON

Mr. ZABLOCE Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration oi the bill (83. 6631) to
authorize humanitarian assistance ior
the people oi Lebanon.

June 23, 1.982

The Clerk read the title oi the bill.

The mam pro tempore (Mr.
Bonn-rt Is there objection to the re-
quest oi the gentleman from Wiscon-

sin?

Mr. BROOMI-‘IELD. Mr. Speaker.
reserving the right to object. I air the
chairman at our committee to explain
the purpose oi this legislation.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker. will
the gentleman yield? ‘ '

Mr. 3300mm. I yield to the
gentleman irom Wisconsin.

Mr. “BLOCK: Mr. Speaker. this
bill. ER. 6831. to authorize humani-
tarian asistance for the people oi Leb-
anon. is an urgent measure which de-
serves—and I am sure will receive—the
overwhelming support oi the House.

I will not take much oi the time oi
the House to explain SLR. 5831 be-
cause its need is obvious and it is a
very simple. straightiorward bill.

3.3.. 6531 is an emergency measure
which authorizes $50 million ior
urgent humanitarian reliei. rehabilita.
tion. and reconstruction assistance to
the victims oi the striie in Lebanon.

We have daily accounts oi the fight-
ing in Lebanon and oi the suiiering oi
the people who live in Lebanon. We do
not have any precise figures. but it is
obvious that there have been large
numbers oi innocent civilians killed
and injured. that many have been
made homelem and that there has
been extensive damage to homes and
facilities in Lebanon. .

Lebanon is a. small country. with a
population of about 3 million. The
Lebanese Government has asked ior
USN. humanitarian asistance {or
300.000 families. some 1.5 million
people. which is about hail the popu-
lation oi the country. " ,

President Reagan originally asked
on June 9 for a :20 million emergency
aid author'mtion ior Lebanon. The
question immediately arose during
committee consideration oi the bill
whether this was enough. ior clearly
the amounts needed ior humanitarian
assistance for reliei. rehabilitation.
and reconstruction in Lebanon will ‘ce
far greater.

We decided $50 million is a more re-
alistic figure at this time. This also
was the judgment of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee in the other body
when that committee considered the
measure late last week. We will oi
course continue to review develop-
ments in Lebanon in the event that
any iurther legislation is needed.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker.'I
withdraw my reservation oi objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request oi the
gentleman from Wisconsin?

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker. reserv-
ing the right (to object. can the gentle
man tell me whether there will be an
opportunity for debate?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker. will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FINDIEJY. I yield to the gentle—
man Irom Wisconsin . i