Lucille Roybal-Allard

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to understand how a Make America Secure Appropriations minibus does not include the bill for the Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for security at our borders, security in the coastal maritime environment, security for air and surface transportation, security of cyber networks and critical infrastructure, and helping State and local jurisdictions prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Instead of including the entire DHS funding bill in the minibus, the majority is expected to use a second rule to insert just one part of that bill--funding for the President's border wall--ignoring much more pressing and immediate security needs. Furthermore, because the Department has failed to submit to Congress a required report laying out the long-term plan and justification for border infrastructure, Members of Congress are unable to responsibly evaluate the long-term border security strategy and comprehensively assess its costs, benefits, and trade-offs. Given this enormous $1.6 billion initial price tag, Members should, at a minimum, have the opportunity to vote on it separately and in the context of the entire Homeland Security bill. I submitted an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for border wall construction, and I hope the Rules Committee will make it in order. While I do not support the DHS bill in its current form, I firmly believe the House would be in a stronger position to make a more informed and responsible decision on how best to invest these $1.6 billion in the context of debating and amending the entire Department of Homeland Security funding bill. For example, instead of using $1.6 billion of taxpayer money for just 74 miles of border wall, we could pay for the first two heavy Coast Guard icebreakers which are critically needed to help the United States better counter the ever-increasing Russian presence in the Arctic. Or we could invest in additional technology and hire thousands of new customs officers at every air, land, and sea port of entry in the United States, reducing wait times for travelers, better facilitating the flow of commerce and contributing to economic growth. This would also enhance our ability to intercept more illegal narcotics and other contraband because, contrary to what some may think, the vast majority of the worst illicit drugs flowing into our country arrive through the ports of entry, not between the ports. In 2016, 86 percent of the heroin and 81 percent of the cocaine and methamphetamine came through the ports of entry. In other words, more physical barriers at the border--in addition to the 654 miles of fencing already in place--is a misguided and ineffective strategy to address drug smuggling. In addition to the fact that we could be using these $1.6 billion for more pressing security needs, I am concerned that, by including only border wall funding from the DHS Appropriations bill, we would be sending a terrible message to frontline homeland security personnel-- many of whom routinely put their personal safety at risk to serve our country--that the President's border wall is more important than all the work they do. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the security of our Nation and the American people, we in Congress have an obligation to act in their best interests and to invest their tax dollars wisely. If the only homeland security item in this bill is funding for 74 miles of border wall, we will fail to meet that obligation. This bill should not include funding for a border wall, and the House should have an opportunity to vote on this funding in the context of the entire Homeland Security funding bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to two punitive, anti-immigrant bills: H.R. 3003, the so-called ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, the so-called ``Kate's Law.'' These cruel and unnecessary bills help to convert Donald Trump's vicious immigration rhetoric into policy that threatens the safety of our country and our communities. H.R. 3003 coerces states and localities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and bans them from receiving crucial federal funds if these jurisdictions don't comply. The bill also expands DHS's authority to detain individuals, even allowing them to be held in detention indefinitely, a provision which may violate the Fourth Amendment. H.R. 3004 expands prosecutions for individuals for unauthorized re- entry and attempted re-entry into the United States. Under this bill, even asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking could be prosecuted by the federal government for simply entering the country. It would even allow prosecution of individuals who seek to re-enter the U.S. with legal authorization to do so. These bills do clear and direct damage to America's safety and America's values. We do not make America more secure by holding ransom local law enforcement funds that keep us safe. We don't fight crime by making residents less likely to report crime. We do not honor America's humanitarian history by prosecuting asylum seekers and human trafficking victims. We do not honor family values by keeping immigrant families separated. We do not preserve America's strength as a thriving nation of immigrants by encouraging fear of those who have come to make our nation stronger. We do not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution by letting law enforcement flout the Fourth Amendment, or by detaining individuals indefinitely. These bills leave American communities less protected in the face of threats large and small. These bills insult America's reputation as a welcoming beacon for every nation, race, and faith. We must keep America safe, but we will not do so by demonizing and persecuting innocent immigrants. We need a sensible immigration policy, not one rooted in fear and hate. I call on Republicans to join me and my Democratic colleagues in developing a comprehensive immigration reform plan that keeps our borders secure, addresses the need for temporary workers, resolves the status of DREAMers and millions of other undocumented immigrants, and provides a path to citizenship. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 271.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Angel Del Villar on his service as founder and CEO of DEL Records, a flourishing music company located in Bell Gardens, California, in my 40th Congressional District. Since his launch of DEL Records in 2008, Angel has built the label into a place where young and independent Regional Mexican artists can develop their talents and find success. Angel's passion for music, his business acumen, and his civic and philanthropic efforts have built DEL Records into a vibrant, thriving part of the local community. DEL Records exists because of Angel's vision: he knew that the entertainment industry was full of talented artists who were not signed to a label and were not receiving the support they needed in order to build a career. When he began DEL Records, Angel spent time searching YouTube for young musicians. In the years since, his hard work has paid off: today, the label boasts a broad slate of major artists. Musicians like Gerardo Ortiz, Luis Coronel, Chiquis, Jose Manuel Lopez, and the late Ariel Camacho are just a few of those who have been a part of the DEL Records family. Angel has used his success at DEL Records as a driving force to create positive change in the community. He has been tireless in giving back time, effort, and resources to help his neighbors. Angel and DEL Records work to lift up the less fortunate, and to give individuals of all ages the opportunity to thrive and excel. As we work to build communities that protect the vulnerable and support those in need, the good works of civic-minded community leaders like Angel are invaluable to that endeavor. With the help of his sister Maria, and guided always by the inspirational example of his parents Jose Angel and Frances, Angel Del Villar has made DEL Records a key Southeast LA County business and a vital voice in the Regional Mexican music scene. I commend Angel and his team at DEL Records for their achievements in music and contributions to the community, and wish them all the best for the future.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate mark! Lopez, a tireless environmental advocate and the executive director of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, on his receipt of this year's Goldman Environmental Prize for North America. mark! has played an integral role in the fight to test and clean up the contaminated homes of families living near the former Exide battery recycling plant, which is situated in my 40th Congressional District. Though mark! is just 32 years old, his activism and passion have already made a clear and positive mark on our community, richly deserving of this global recognition. mark! was born to a family of activists, and was raised in the midst of the activities of Madres del Este de Los Angeles Santa Isabel (Mothers of East LA Santa Isabel), an organization cofounded by his grandparents, my good friends Juana Beatriz Gutierrez and Ricardo Gutierrez, and continued by his mother, Elsa Lopez. Protesting and organizing were familiar sights to him from an early age, and during his years as an environmental studies major at UC Santa Cruz, he showed his commitment to this family tradition as a community organizer and activist for the needs of minority students and service workers. His dedication to advocacy and the environment foreshadowed his work in the fight to close the Exide plant and clean up the polluted lands surrounding the facility. Exide finally agreed to shut down this plant in 2015, but properties for miles around remained contaminated with high levels of lead and arsenic. The work of mark! and his colleagues at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice was invaluable in compelling the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to expand its testing of properties around the plant, and in helping secure a state commitment of $176.6 million to test and clean up contaminated homes. All families, regardless of their background, regardless of their neighborhood, deserve to raise their loved ones in a safe and clean environment. Activists like mark! Lopez not only help to make that goal a reality, they inspire other citizens to act through their example. As testing and cleanup efforts around Exide continue, I have no doubt that mark! will be at the forefront of the fight to support and protect families imperiled by this terrible contamination, and to ensure a pristine environment for all. Mr. Speaker, as mark! Lopez is honored with the Goldman Environmental Prize, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in commending him on receiving this prestigious award and in saluting his commitment to environmental justice.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, for my constituents and all Americans, Trumpcare would result in higher costs, less coverage, a crushing age tax for persons 50 to 64, a shorter Medicare life span, and the ransacking of the Medicaid funds that enable seniors to get the long term care they need. And last night, Republicans added a provision that would prohibit our veterans who are eligible to receive VA care from receiving any tax credits to help pay for their care outside the VA, even if they are not enrolled in the VA. In my congressional district, the uninsured rate dropped from 31.7 to 17.5 percent due to Obamacare. Among my constituents who benefited are a young mother from Bell Gardens, California, and her 15-month-old daughter, Olivia, who was born with Down Syndrome. Because of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion in California, Olivia was able to have her congenital heart defect repaired shortly after birth. She is now being followed by a cardiologist to ensure her ongoing care for a healthy heart. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion also makes it possible for baby Olivia to receive early intervention and physical therapy services to enhance and accelerate her development. Olivia's mom is terrified that if Trumpcare passes, her daughter may not be able to receive these services, which help her remain healthy and make it possible for her to reach critical developmental milestones. Republicans like to call Obamacare a failed disaster. That is simply one more example of their ``alternative facts.'' The Republican Trumpcare bill before us is the disaster waiting to unfold for countless families like Olivia's, and millions of Americans across our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on behalf of the American people.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 162.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, President Trump and the Republican Congress promised a better plan for health care that would be good for all Americans. Now that we have seen their plan, we know the truth. Passage of the American Health Care Act will not improve health care or reduce healthcare costs. Instead, it will cut critical health access and benefits for children, older adults, pregnant women, communities of color, and people living with disabilities. If TrumpCare becomes law, it will destroy Medicaid as we know it, while also increasing costs of health care for working class families across the country. It is unconscionable that this kind of destructive legislation should be shoved through Congress without hearings or stakeholder input. I urge my Republican colleagues to reject this shortsighted bill and work with Democrats to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, a healthcare plan that is working well for millions of Americans.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 154. Stated against:

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the title X resolution of disapproval that will be on the floor later today. This misguided resolution will limit access to critical healthcare services by allowing States to cherry-pick which family planning providers they want to participate in the title X program. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans rely on family planning clinics for cancer screenings, well-woman exams, birth control, and sexually transmitted disease screenings and treatment. Eighty-five percent of the people served by these clinics have incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, and 48 percent of them are uninsured. Furthermore, at least half of family planning clinics are located in rural and underserved communities already with limited access to health care. If this resolution passes, politicians in any State or community will be able to interfere with eligible and competent title X providers who care for the most vulnerable and underserved in our country. The only factors that should ever dictate eligibility to provide family planning health services are professional competency and State licensure. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 43 and protect healthcare access for 4 million Americans who rely on the title X clinics for their care.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Downey resident, Mr. Kenneth William Thompson on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Ken was born on February 9, 1917, to William and Eleanor Thompson in Virginia, Minnesota. The third of four boys, he spent his childhood in nearby Duluth, where the Thompson family survived the many challenges of the Great Depression. In 1940, the family moved west to California. In 1942, at the outbreak of World War II, Ken was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as a Radar Technician (T5). Two of his brothers also served in World War II, in the U.S. Navy. During his tour of duty from 1942 to 1945, Ken served overseas in France, Belgium, and Germany. He fought in five major battles, including the Battle of the Bulge and at Bastogne. When the war in Europe ended, he was one of four in his unit who was scheduled to go to Japan because of his radar training, but the war ended before he shipped out. After the war ended, Ken returned to California, where he met Vivian Laura Oden of St. Paul, Minnesota. They were married in 1948, and settled in Downey, California, where they raised their three beautiful daughters: Joan, Kathy, and Mary. Ken was employed by Maytag for 35 years, where he worked in many positions until he retired in 1982. His loving wife, Vivian, died on February 19, 2000. Today, their family includes nine grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Ken has made his home in Downey for 67 years, and has been very active in the community schools, for which he was awarded the Honorary Service Award. He has also been actively involved with the Evangelical Free Church in Fullerton and the Trinity Baptist Church in Downey. According to people who know Ken, and that is quite a large group, his life is built on love for faith, family, friends, a good wit, laughter, service to others, hard work, and a deep and abiding passion for his country. Ken became 100 years old on February 9, 2017, and is celebrating this significant milestone on Saturday, February 18, 2017, at the Trinity Baptist Church. I am honored to join with local leaders, and with Mr. Thompson's family and friends, in wishing him a very happy 100th birthday.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against H.J. Res. 57 and H.J. Res. 58, two pieces of legislation which threaten students' right to a high-quality education. In 2015, I was proud to vote for the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized federal regulations for K-12 education. It is shocking that scarcely one year after ESSA was signed into law, Congress is trying to pass these resolutions which will devastate public education, particularly for minority and vulnerable children. H.J. Res. 57 prevents the federal government from uncovering discrimination and civil rights abuses in our schools. Under this resolution, the U.S. Department of Education cannot require states to provide data about vulnerable student groups. This prevents the department from holding schools accountable for academic performance and disciplinary practices. H.J. Res. 58 makes it more difficult for prospective teachers to find programs that will prepare them for success in the classroom. It also removes incentives to make our teaching workforce more diverse. This is especially troubling at a time when California is suffering from a teacher shortage. Sadly, these resolutions arrive on the same day that the United States Senate voted to confirm Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans ignored grave concerns from parents, teachers, and students nationwide about her lack of familiarity with basic public education issues, federal laws, and her refusal to protect public education and civil rights. As the Congresswoman for California's 40th District, I will fight against any policy that jeopardizes the ability of students to receive an excellent education. That is why I oppose H.J. Res. 57 and H.J. Res. 58.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ivelisse R. Estrada on the end of her tenure as Senior Vice President of Corporate and Community Relations for Univision Communications Inc. (UCI). In her role as Senior Vice President, Ms. Estrada was responsible for the overall development and coordination of community relations strategies for the company, including the Univision Network, UniMas Network, Univision Cable Networks, as well as Univision Local Media, including TV, radio, and digital. She coordinated all philanthropic contributions and served as a liaison between UCI and community organizations. She also planned, directed, and supervised the execution of the company's community empowerment platform Univision Contigo, promoting awareness and providing greater access to Education, Health, Prosperity, and Civic Participation resources. Ms. Estrada developed and launched Univision Educacion, a comprehensive, multi-year national education initiative, in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, educators, and civic and community leaders from around the country. The initiative was aimed at improving academic achievement among K-12 Hispanic students with a specific focus on high school graduation and college readiness. In 2007, she worked with the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) in an unprecedented national civic engagement campaign developed to inform, educate, and motivate Hispanics to participate in the American political dialogue. ``Ya es Hora . . . ¡Ciudadania!'' (``It's Time . . . Citizenship!'') was done in collaboration with hundreds of Hispanic-serving organizations across the U.S. and mobilized more than one million eligible immigrants to apply for citizenship. In 2008, the campaign was honored with a Peabody Award. In 2003, she was responsible for the creation of a multi-year, cross- platform health initiative entitled ``Salud es Vida . . . ¡Enterate!'' (``Lead a Healthy Life: Get the Facts!'') to promote healthy lifestyles and encourage the early detection and aggressive management of chronic health conditions affecting U.S. Hispanics. In 2004, ``¡Enterate!'' was honored with a Peabody Award, the first ever for a Spanish-language broadcast company. Ms. Estrada started her career with Univision in 1991, where she initiated her career as Director of Communications at KMEX-TV, Channel 34, the flagship station of the Univision Television Group, Inc. in Los Angeles. During her tenure at KMEX, she launched numerous community projects that focused on health, education, and art initiatives. She also served as Director of Corporate and Community Relations for Univision Television Group, where she supervised the public affairs and community efforts of the company's owned and operated stations. Outside of UCI, Ms. Estrada is a prominent advocate and supporter of the community. She serves on several boards, including the Board of Directors of the Washington Center, the Women's Leadership Board at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the Los Angeles Fund for Public Education, Friends of the National Museum of the American Latino, and the Smithsonian Latino Center. She also serves on the Excelencia in Education Honorary Board, the Corporate Board of Advisors of the Cuban American National Council, the Latino Communications Initiative Roundtable, College of Communications at Cal State Fullerton, the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame, and is a member of the International Women's Forum, where she serves in the Hall of Fame Task Force. In addition, she was a member of the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. Mr. Speaker, as Ivelisse Estrada leaves her position at Univision Communications Inc., I want to recognize her long and distinguished career of empowering Latinos across the United States. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the outstanding work she has done to empower and advocate for our Latino community, not only in Los Angeles, but across the U.S. at large. We wish her the very best as she moves on to new and exciting endeavors.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, since its implementation in 1965, Medicare has excluded coverage for hearing aids and related audiology services, routine dental care, and routine eye exams and eyeglasses despite the fact that large numbers of older Americans need these essential items and services. Today, with well over 100 original cosponsors, I will be introducing the Seniors Have Eyes, Ears, and Teeth bill, which will lift these terribly unfair restrictions on the population most in need of these services. We know that hearing loss affects more than 40 percent of persons over 60 years old, more than 60 percent of those over 70, and almost 80 percent of those over 80 years of age. Yet, sadly, only one in five seniors currently diagnosed with hearing issues uses a hearing aid, which can range in cost from $1,000 to $6,000. For the more than half of Medicare beneficiaries who live on incomes below $24,150 per year, these high, out-of-pocket expenses are out of their reach. We also know seniors account for approximately 80 percent of the 2.8 million Americans with low vision. Routine eye exams for these seniors can cost from $50 to $300 or more, and the average cost for a pair of prescription glasses is $196. Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly well documented that untreated vision and hearing loss not only diminishes quality of life, but also increases the risk for costly health outcomes such as falls and resulting disability, depression, and dementia. Also tragic is that nearly 70 percent of older Americans currently have no form of dental insurance. This lack of insurance has been identified as the major barrier to accessing dental care for seniors. It is a well-known fact that neglect of oral health can result in the deterioration of overall physical health and that the lack of access to even routine dental exams and cleanings can exacerbate serious and complicated overall health problems that increase with age. Expanding Medicare to cover vision, dental, and hearing services is a cost-effective intervention because it will prevent healthcare costs due to accidents, falls, cognitive impairments and increases in chronic conditions and oral cancer. But most importantly, giving our seniors the gift of hearing, vision, and oral health will go a long way toward helping our seniors enjoy their golden years free from depression and social isolation. Mr. Speaker, few bills are ever introduced with this overwhelming support. Additionally, it has the strong support from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I invite my colleagues to join me and the over 100 original cosponsors of this legislation in supporting dental, vision, and hearing care for our seniors. National Committee To Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Washington, DC, January 11, 2017. Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Roybal-Allard: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I am writing to endorse, the ``Seniors Have Eyes, Ears and Teeth Act.'' It is our hope that action will be taken on your legislation during the current 115th Congress. The ``Seniors Have Eyes, Ears and Teeth Act'' would help millions of Medicare beneficiaries who need vision, hearing and dental care, which is not covered by Medicare. Paying for these services is a hardship for many Medicare beneficiaries, half of whom live on incomes below $24,150 per year. Medicare households spend on average 15 percent of their income, over two times more than younger households, on Medicare cost sharing and for services not covered by Medicare. Routine dental services are very important to the overall health of Medicare beneficiaries, and today, many Medicare beneficiaries suffer isolation and severe health problems because they cannot afford to pay for vision and hearing examinations or to buy eyeglasses or hearing aids. For these reasons, the National Committee's current Legislative Agenda includes support for expanding Medicare benefits to cover vision, hearing and dental health services and equipment, which are important for healthy aging. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. We look forward to working with you to secure enactment of the ``Seniors Have Eyes, Ears and Teeth Act,'' which would improve the Medicare program for today's seniors as well as future generations of beneficiaries. Sincerely, Max Richtman, President and CEO.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for House Resolution 11, ``Objecting to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace,'' because I believe the UN resolution was not objective, but rather one-sided by placing the blame solely on Israel as the obstacle to peace. For years, I have strongly advocated for direct peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine because I firmly believe peace can be achieved only if Israel and Palestine negotiate directly in good faith and on fair terms. I remain hopeful this will happen. While I deeply oppose the continued building of settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, I believe the United Nations Security Council Resolution does more harm than good. Here's why: First, Resolution 2334 passed by the UNSC does nothing to advance peace. Instead it bolsters Israel's enemies and pushes the two state solution to peace further out of reach by forcing nations to choose between supporting Israel or Palestine. Second, while I agree the settlements serve as one of many obstacles to peace, the UNSC resolution singles out the settlements and ignores Palestinian violence, the role of Hamas and its refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. These are essential and critical issues that must be addressed to achieve lasting peace. This omission is unacceptable. My vote on Resolution 11 illustrates this belief and my strong desire for fairness and peace between Israelis and Palestinians which will enable Israel to protect its security and its existence as a Jewish and democratic state. This can only be achieved by a two state solution.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Maternity Care Caucus, I rise on behalf of mothers and babies who will suffer if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act. It is undisputable that, with prenatal care, babies are born healthier. Before the ACA, approximately 10 percent of childbearing women had no health insurance, and the plans of 60 percent of all insured women had no maternity coverage. With ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies, more than half of these women who were uninsured became eligible for maternity care. In addition, the ACA also requires health plans to cover maternity care and preexisting conditions. All of this will be lost with ACA repeal. Women will also lose coverage for lactation counseling and the cost of breast pumps, a known barrier to successful breastfeeding which is one of the most effective ways to protect the health of babies. I urge my Republican colleagues to consider the negative impacts repealing ObamaCare will have on our Nation's mothers and babies. We must protect the future health of our children by ensuring all moms have access to maternity care and breastfeeding support.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the bipartisan Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, which combines parts of the House and Senate Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bills passed through each chamber earlier this year. The WIIN Act takes an important step forward in addressing the water needs of Southern California by reauthorizing infrastructure projects nationwide to reduce flood damage, replenish our water supply, and restore our ecosystem. This final bill includes many bright spots. I was particularly pleased that, following the efforts of Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congressman Adam Schiff, and myself, this bill reflects a strong commitment to the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration project. The project will rejuvenate Los Angeles park space and wetlands, build new public spaces, create recreational opportunities, and boost the regional economy, creating a healthier, revitalized Los Angeles River. I am also heartened that this bill contains significant improvements for local water suppliers to complete water reuse and recycling projects, and authorizes long-overdue aid to combat the Flint water crisis. This bill is not perfect. For example, I would have liked it to have shown a much deeper commitment to protecting the Endangered Species Act. However, it was urgent that we pass this bill instead of waiting until next year and the uncertainties of a new Congress and new President. My vote for the WIlN Act is a vote for our state's long-term water infrastructure. I believe this legislation will provide California with critical help in addressing our ongoing drought crisis.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I am proud today to vote for the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, which reauthorizes water infrastructure projects nationwide. I am heartened that after several months of inaction, Republican leaders included aid in this bill to the citizens of Flint, Michigan, who have been afflicted by devastating environmental health risks. As an Angelena, I am also pleased that this WRDA authorizes an equal cost-share between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Los Angeles for the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration project. I fought alongside my colleagues Congressman Xavier Becerra and Congressman Adam Schiff to include this cost-share agreement in the final bill. With this cost-share, the city and the Corps become true partners in the LA River revitalization project to restore park space and wetlands, build new public spaces, create recreational opportunities, improve public health, strengthen the regional economy, and bolster civic pride. This WRDA is an important step in our efforts to make Los Angeles a greener and more vibrant place to live.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, to help our constituents gain a better understanding of the negative impact of the Supreme Court decision, on May 20, 2016, I hosted a forum titled ``Protect Your Future: Restore the Vote.'' My co-chairs were Representative Linda Sanchez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus; and special guest, Representative Karen Bass. The event was organized to educate constituents on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court decision, Shelby County vs. Holder. Members from our communities heard expert testimony from the National Association for Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) regarding the devastating impacts of the decision upon the Voting Rights Act. I include in the Record the expert testimony of Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of NALEO. Written Testimony By Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund, Before the Congressional Field Forum Entitled ``Protect Your Future: Restore the Vote''--Los Angeles, CA May 20, 2016 U.S. Representative Roybal-Allard, U.S. Representative Chu, U.S. Representative Sanchez, U.S. Representative Bass: thank you for extending the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the status of Latino voting rights and protection of all Americans' equal right to vote. The NALEO Educational Fund is the nation's leading non- profit, non-partisan organization that promotes full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. Our constituency encompasses the more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide, and includes Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. For several decades, the NALEO Educational Fund has been at the forefront of efforts to advance policies that protect Latino voting rights, and ensure that Latinos are fully engaged as voters and have a fair opportunity to choose their elected leaders. We have advocated passage of state and federal voting rights legislation including the reauthorization of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). We have also provided direct assistance to voters encountering barriers to casting ballots through our year- round, bilingual hotline, 888-VE-Y-VOTA, and through nationwide dissemination of bilingual voting rights public service announcements, palm cards, and other materials. discriminatory voting laws threaten election 2016 As the 2016 Presidential election approaches, we are extremely concerned about policy developments that will severely impede the robust participation of Latinos and all Americans in our nation's democracy. The legal landscape against which the election will play out has rarely changed as dramatically as it did between the 2012 and 2016 election cycles. For almost 50 years, the VRA's signature provision protected voters in jurisdictions that had a demonstrated propensity to adopt discriminatory policies. During Election 2012, in nine entire states and selected towns and counties in seven additional states, no new voting law or administrative change in voting procedures could be implemented unless the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court first determined it to be free of discriminatory motive and impact. This VRA-mandated preclearance procedure stopped more than 1,000 problematic provisions from taking effect between 1965 and 2013, when the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder. When it effectively ended most jurisdictions' preclearance obligations, the Court's Shelby County decision inspired a wave of restrictive election lawmaking, and rapid implementation of laws that had been on hold, in states in which the potential influence of underrepresented voters has been dramatically increasing. For example, nine of the 12 states whose Latino populations grew most rapidly between 2000 and 2010 enacted laws that made it harder to register and vote between 2010 and 2014. In six of the nine states that saw more than a 100% increase in their Latino populations between the 2000 and 2010 decennial Censuses, there are new provisions in effect that will make voting in 2016 more difficult than it was in 2012. Moreover, nine of the 15 states covered in whole or part by preclearance procedures at the time of the Shelby County decision adopted new statewide voting restrictions between 2008 and 2016. Restrictive election lawmaking and administrative practices continue to have a disproportionately negative effect on Latinos' ability and propensity to be active participants i our democracy. The confluence between places where Latino and other underrepresented voters' political influence is increasing and places that have impaired access to the ballot strongly suggests that the discriminatory chilling impact of restrictive policies is not a coincidence, but a motivating factor behind their enactment. Restrictive voting policies implemented since 2012 include barriers to voter registration, measures that leave registrants with less opportunity to vote, and changes that reduce the potential influence of underrepresented communities' votes. New statewide laws alone, which have been implemented in at least 19 states, will make it more difficult for more than 875,000 eligible Latino voters to cast ballots in November 2016. In addition to enacted laws, some elections officials' administrative choices will impede Latino access to the ballot in 2016. For example, a decision to close two-thirds of polling places in Maricopa County, Arizona, just a few short weeks in advance of the 2016 Presidential primary produced hours-long lines to vote, particularly in neighborhoods with large populations of underrepresented voters. Set forth below is a summary of these restrictive policies; attached to this testimony is our report, Latino Voters at Risk: Assessing the Impact of Restrictive Voting Changes in Election 2016, which provides a detailed description of the policies and their impact on the Latino electorate. Verification of Citizenship at Registration: Since 2012, multiple states have begun to regularly check registrants' citizenship. Some states will not process new registration applications until receiving documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, while other states review their existing registration lists to identify possible non-citizen registrants. Latinos are disproportionately likely to be wrongly singled out as suspected non-citizens, because a larger-than-average share of the Latino electorate is composed of naturalized citizens who interacted with government agencies prior to naturalizing and who frequently appear in outdated records as non-citizens. Eligible Latino voters are also overrepresented among U.S. citizens who lack documents concerning their citizenship, and who face steep barriers to obtaining that documentation. As a result, Latinos are more likely than people of other races and ethnicities to be prevented from registering or maintaining registration by citizenship verification procedures. Earlier Registration Deadlines: Although advanced technology has reduced the practical need to compile lists of eligible voters in advance of voting periods, some jurisdictions have nonetheless moved voter registration deadlines to earlier dates for 2016. Shortening the available period for voter registration impairs the Latino vote because Latino voters frequently lack basic information about the voting process. Young and naturalized voters who are the least likely to have meaningful voting experience constitute much larger percentages of the Latino electorate than of voters of other races and ethnicities, for example. Latinos are also more highly mobile than voters of other races and ethnicities, and thus more likely to have to re-register at a new address to preserve their right to vote in any given election year. In states that are tightening registration deadlines, the relatively large number of Latinos who must take action well in advance of Election Day are at heightened risk of exclusion from the political process. Expanded Reasons for Cancellation or Rejection of Registrations: Since 2012, some states have adopted new provisions that expand the circumstances in which election officials must cancel existing registration records or reject new registration applications. As is the case with earlier registration deadlines, these measures make it more likely that Latinos and other people who are less knowledgeable about and experienced with the voting process will be excluded from participating in elections merely because of a technical requirement and not for any substantive reason. Restrictions on Third Party Voter Registration Activities: In the past four years, jurisdictions have continued to make it more difficult for community-based organizations and individuals not affiliated with a government entity to help register new voters. Restrictions on third party registration activities are likely to exacerbate the troubling gap between white and Latino voter registration rates, since disproportionately large percentages of Latinos indicate that they register to vote at a public location associated with a community registration drive, such as a school or shopping center. Moreover, community-based organizations that are known and trusted also have more incentive and opportunity to reach and engage low-propensity voters than government officials and politicians. Hindering their efforts may significantly reduce the likelihood that eligible, unregistered Latinos will be asked by anyone to take part in an election. Imposition of Strict Voter ID Requirements: The strict voter ID laws implemented in a number of jurisdictions around the country since 2012 inhibit qualified members of the electorate from casting ballots, because millions of American adults do not possess any of the personal identification documents that strict ID laws require. Individuals who do not already hold a valid form of voter ID face numerous potential barriers to obtaining a qualifying document, including inability to pay application fees, difficulty arranging transportation to identification- issuing locations during business hours, and lack of access to documents like birth certificates that are mandatory precursors to obtaining ID. Eligible Latino voters account for disproportionate shares of both those without ID and those who confront significant or insurmountable barriers to obtaining ID. In addition, studies indicate that Latinos are disproportionately likely to mistakenly presume they lack the ID required to vote, and to decline to attempt to vote as a result of apprehension about the scrutiny they will face at the polls. Shortened In-Person Early Voting Periods: In recognition of the increasing demands on Americans' time, many jurisdictions have extended voting days and hours in the past fifteen years, and many voters have taken advantage of early voting periods. Against this backdrop, jurisdictions that have moved in the opposite direction to limit the voting options available to their citizens stand out for their recalcitrance. Latino voters are more likely than others to lack workplace flexibility, and also to shoulder childcare responsibilities, both factors that leave potential Latino voters with less ability to vote where polling places are open on fewer days and for fewer hours. Unsurprisingly, the states with the highest early voting rates are disproportionately Latino: the nine jurisdictions whose citizen were most likely to vote early in 2008 and 2012 are home to less than 26% of all of the nation's voters, but 36% of all Latino voters in the country. Where early voting is constrained, Latinos are disproportionately likely to be negatively affected. Restrictions on Absentee Voting: Provisions that have made it more difficult to vote by mail also stand out as a contrast to the wider voting opportunities that improved technology generally has made possible. Several states implemented new laws between November 2012 and Election Day 2016 that impose tighter deadlines on mail ballots, restrict assistors' ability to deliver ballots for people with limited mobility, and make it more likely that mail ballots will be rejected. These and other measures that have made it more difficult to vote by mail are likely to have a disproportionate impact on Latino voters, because their demanding schedules and heightened likelihood of lacking access to personal transportation may force many to rely on mail balloting as the only logistically feasible voting option. Heightened Qualifications to Vote and Restrictions on Counting Ballots: Restrictions on registration and voting mechanisms have gained currency among legislators from many different states in the years following the contentious Presidential election of 2000. Voter advocates have begun to win high-profile victories in legal challenges to voter ID laws, proof of citizenship requirements, and shortened early voting periods. However, simultaneously, jurisdictions have successfully pursued alternative legislative provisions that have not yet been the subject of successful anti-discrimination enforcement actions. Examples of other voting restrictions likely to disproportionately impair Latino voters in November 2016 include felon disfranchisement in Kentucky; refusal to count any votes cast outside the correct precinct in North Carolina; and heightened barriers to the counting of provisional ballots in Ohio. Redistricting and Other Laws That Diminish Latino Voters' Influence: Underrepresented voters' influence can be limited not only by laws that create barriers to registration and voting, but also by laws that diminish the weight of their votes. Between the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections, a number of jurisdictions have adopted new measures concerning redistricting and methods of election that impair the ability of underrepresented communities to elect the candidates of their choice. For example, some redistricting plans have included districts in which Latinos constitute a slight majority of the population, but are unlikely to constitute a majority of voters because so many of the individuals assigned to the district cannot or are not likely to vote. When Latinos have preferences for the candidates of their choice that are consistently different from those of the majority white population, whites and Latinos may vote in blocs and in opposition to one another, and the deliberate manipulation of district boundaries can ensure that Latino voter-preferred candidates are consistently defeated. Barriers Imposed by Administrative Policymaking: As widespread as restrictive election lawmaking has been in state legislatures around the country between 2012 and 2016, discretionary decisions made by unelected administrators-- particularly those serving at municipal or other local levels--now pose at least an equal threat to underrepresented voters ability to participate in elections. With the exception of noncompliance with language assistance obligations, voting rights laws have rarely been used successfully to challenge executive policymaking that has discriminatory effects. Thus, Latino voters are particularly vulnerable to negative consequences of discriminatory or unsound election administration. Among the administrative issues over which election administrators have discretionary control, those that may have the most deleterious effect on Latinos' ability to vote in 2016 include decisions about registration list maintenance and the processing of new registration applications, the closing and consolidation of polling places, the allocation of resources among polling places, and the degree of effort invested in providing language assistance to voters not yet fully fluent in English. conclusion--congress must restore the vra to full strength Laws and policies that make it harder for Latinos to register and vote have a clear negative impact on the individuals who are individually prevented from taking part in elections by their inability to satisfy heightened requirements. What may be less obvious is that restrictive measures inhibit even those who are not directly affected by them. The kinds of restrictive laws and policies that jurisdictions around the country have adopted since Election Day 2012 signal to members of the electorate that their voices and input as voters are not welcomed, but only grudgingly accepted when voters are willing to put in the effort to clear the hurdles in their way. Because they discourage a broad group of potential voters at a time when voter participation has been in dangerous decline, policies that create barriers to the ballot box are the wrong policy choices for 2016. It is imperative that we instead encourage Latinos and all Americans to become more active participants in the political process by making the registration and voting process more accessible. We applaud Members of Congress for introducing bipartisan legislation that would modernize the VRA. The Voting Rights Amendment Act, H.R. 885, and the Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 2867, would ensure that discriminatory policies do not taint our political process, and that elections are instead open to all Americans regardless of their race, ethnicity, or linguistic ability. We look forward to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to advance legislation that strengthens protection of the fair and equal opportunity to vote, and safeguards the integrity of our democracy for the long term.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, once again, Republican leaders have failed to complete the appropriations process on time, and decided that critical government funding decisions can be delayed until December. While I will vote for tonight's Continuing Resolution so that our government can keep functioning, I will cast my vote in the hope that Congress will act in December to pass an omnibus spending bill that does more to create jobs, bolster paychecks, improve our infrastructure, and keep our country safe. The CR includes a badly needed and long-overdue $1.1 billion to fund our fight against the Zika virus. While I would have preferred a bill that funded President Obama's $1.9 billion Zika request, the funding in this resolution is an important first step in helping us to combat Zika's terrible threat. In addition, I am pleased that Republican leaders agreed to stop tying this funding to partisan political tactics, such as gutting the Clean Water Act. However, I am concerned about several elements of the CR. For example, it hobbles the Export-Import Bank's ability to help American businesses and workers and it prevents the Securities and Exchange Commission from making public companies' political spending more transparent. Again, I will vote for this CR to keep government doors open. I hope the December omnibus will address the defects I described, and endeavor on many fronts to make our nation more prosperous and secure.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, to help my constituents gain a better understanding of the negative impact of the Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, on May 20, 2016, I hosted a forum titled ``Protect Your Future: Restore the Vote.'' My co-chairs were Representative Linda Sanchez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus; and special guest, Representative Karen Bass. Members from our communities heard expert testimony from the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. For that reason, I include in the Record testimony from Tom Saenz of MALDEF. statement of thomas a. saenz president and general counsel maldef regarding the effects of shelby county v. holder Since 2009, I have had the great honor of serving as President and General Counsel of MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), a national legal civil rights organization whose mission is to promote the civil rights of all Latinos living in the United States. MALDEF pursues its mission through litigation, policy education and advocacy, community education, and media/communications in the areas of education, employment, immigrant rights, and voting rights. In the area of voting rights, MALDEF is one of a small handful of national non-profit organizations that have been involved in both litigation and advocacy under the federal Voting Rights Act over several decades. MALDEF currently coordinates a consortium of ten voting rights litigation organizations striving to better coordinate activities nationwide in the aftermath of the 2013 United States Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Our nation and its most precious democratic values have unquestionably suffered from the Supreme Court majority's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder and the subsequent refusal by congressional leadership to consider, much less vote upon and enact, well-crafted proposals to reaffirm and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) by implementing new formulas to apply the impactful pre- clearance provisions in section 5 of the VRA. In Shelby County, the Court voted 5-4 to strike down the pre-clearance coverage formula in section 4 of the VRA. The coverage formula had been overwhelmingly approved by bipartisan supermajorities in both houses of Congress in the latest VRA reauthorization in 2006. The coverage formula that the Court majority struck down required those jurisdictions-- mainly states, with some counties and other parts of states-- with histories of low electoral participation and of efforts to suppress participation by minority voters, to comply with a pre-clearance obligation as to all proposed electoral changes. The effect of the Court's decision was to completely disable the application of the pre-clearance obligation absent a rarely-issued federal court order subjecting a specific jurisdiction to pre-clearance for a limited period of time. Of course, the Congress can, at any time, subject to the requisite constitutional showing of adequate findings, enact a new coverage formula or formulas to subject other jurisdictions to the pre-clearance obligation with respect to specific or all electoral changes. It is no exaggeration to label, as it has now often been characterized, section 5 of the VRA and its pre-clearance mechanism as one of the most effective civil rights provisions ever enacted in federal law. Before the Court decision in Shelby County, pre-clearance had, through almost half a century, blocked the implementation of numerous proposed electoral changes that were intended to suppress minority participation or to limit minority electoral power, and numerous other proposed changes that would have been retrogressive in effect, threatening to reduce acquired minority electoral power. In addition, however, a full appreciation of the damage the Shelby County decision has wrought requires recognizing that section 5 is also one of the first enactments of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism into federal law. ADR can be powerfully efficient and effective in resolving disputes without requiring resort to litigation in court. Ironically, the same Supreme Court majority that struck down the VRA coverage formula and disabled section 5 has strongly embraced ADR in the form of mandatory arbitration contracts, even where serious concerns have been raised about bias against employees or consumers in arbitration and about unequal power in negotiating arbitration agreements. Indeed, Section 5 actually includes the very kinds of protections that are not often seen in other ADR schemes, including the absolute right to seek court review instead of review by the Department of Justice. With this in mind, the damage from the Shelby County decision, and the congressional inaction in response, falls into three areas. First, the nation has been deprived of advance notice with regard to electoral changes in those jurisdictions previously covered. These changes, which previously would have been developed and submitted for pre- clearance well in advance, include many changes--with significant potential effects on electoral participation, particularly among minority voters--that today are often revealed very close in time to an election. Such changes as precinct consolidations, alterations in precinct boundaries, and changes in voting locations often occur too close to an election to prevent their implementation through litigation under the still-viable section 2 of the VRA, prohibiting minority vote dilution, or other constitutional or statutory provisions. Courts are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to issue a preliminary injunction so close in time to a scheduled election. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of advance notice of such changes previously provided by the section 5 preclearance obligation. For example, Arizona was a covered jurisdiction, so, prior to the Shelby County decision, the state and all its governmental subdivisions had to seek and obtain pre- clearance for any electoral change. Recently, in the 2016 Arizona presidential primary, there were widespread reports of very long lines and chaos at polling places. This seems to have been caused in large part by a drastic reduction in the number of polling places, a change apparently undertaken as a cost-saving measure. Whether or not this ill-considered decision had a particularly pronounced effect on minority voters in Maricopa County, such a change would have been analyzed in advance for its discriminatory potential under preclearance prior to Shelby County. Regardless of whether that analysis would have blocked or altered the plan to reduce polling locations, the requirement of pre-clearance would at least have provided notice, well in advance, of the intention to drastically reduce polling places. This might have yielded challenge and change, wholly apart from the process of pre-clearance itself. The second area of damage from the Shelby County decision lies in the inability to review electoral changes for their potential discriminatory elements before the changes are implemented. As noted above, courts are often reluctant to issue preliminary injunctions with respect to elections matters. Indeed, a preliminary injunction is extraordinary court relief in any circumstance, but there is a particular reticence with respect to elections because of the potential disruption of the plans and efforts of so many voters and candidates. However, elections are also particularly resistant to remedy after the fact. Once an election has occurred under a particular electoral change, it is nearly impossible to ``unring the bell'' and discount an election or its results once reported, even if only unofficially by media engaged in exit polling. Thus, the inability to bar implementation of an electoral change by requiring pre- clearance prior to implementation results in severely limited or no remedy at all to what may be actions with significant discriminatory effects. When this occurs, this does palpable and lasting harm to voters' respect for democracy and can deter participation by understandably distrustful minority voters in many future elections. Soon after the Shelby County decision, the mayor of Pasadena, Texas announced his intent to pursue a change to the city's elections that he would not have pursued when the city was subject to preclearance as a sub-jurisdiction in the covered state of Texas. He sought to change the eight-member council from one comprised of candidates elected in eight single-member districts to one comprised of representatives from six single-member districts and two members elected at large by the entire city. Based on participation differentials between groups, this change would have the effect of reducing the growing Latino community's chances to elect a majority of the council. The change was adopted and has now been implemented, while MALDEF pursues an ongoing legal challenge to the change and its effects on the Latino vote. It is unclear how many elections will occur under the flawed changes before the court case is finally resolved. The third area of Shelby County harm lies in requiring the resolution of disputes regarding potentially discriminatory electoral changes through inefficient and costly litigation under section 2 of the VRA. The Supreme Court's adopted test for resolving section 2 claims is ``totality of the circumstances.'' The phrase alone illustrates the scope of such litigation, ordinarily involving multiple experts on both sides of a case, numerous percipient lay witnesses, and voluminous sets of documentary exhibits. The presentation of all of this testimony and other evidence consumes many months in preparatory depositions, discovery, and resolution of evidentiary disputes. Trial, even if streamlined in multiple ways by the court, usually involves weeks or months of presentation to a judge. The court itself then faces the arduous task of evaluating the evidence and making findings of fact and drawing conclusions of law to support a decision under the ``totality of the circumstances.'' The costs in both time and money associated with this arduous court journey are significant, and most often imposed on and borne entirely by a challenged jurisdiction that loses a filed section 2 case. The same jurisdiction could get to the same result, at a fraction of the cost through pre-clearance. MALDEF has long been a leader in pursuing section 2 litigation in the formerly covered state of Texas. The dispute over Texas statewide redistricting in 2011 ended up being challenged under section 2 at the same time that it was subject to consideration for pre-clearance under section 5 by a three-judge district court in Washington, D.C. The Washington, D.C. court rejected the original Texas redistricting plan even before the Shelby County decision, but the Court's ruling wiped that conclusion from the books. The section 2 case had to be tried over several months in 2014. The trial was concluded and fully briefed as of December 2014. More than 16 months later, we are still awaiting a district court decision on the section 2 case. This ongoing wait epitomizes that third area of harm from the Shelby County decision. Some might assume that the ongoing harms from the Shelby County decision and the congressional failure to respond with appropriate legislation are limited to the areas, and their residents, that were previously subject to pre-clearance under the coverage formula that the Court struck down. In fact, the entire nation suffers the damage inflicted by the decision and its aftermath. The pre-clearance process--the submission and analysis of electoral changes for discrimination--provided a nationwide indication of the potential effects of specific changes and specific categories of changes. An adverse pre-clearance decision stood as a warning to non-covered jurisdictions that might be considering, or already have in place, similar electoral procedures as those rejected in a covered jurisdiction. In this way, pre-clearance provided election administrators and policymakers interested in minimizing discrimination in voting with guidance as to where they might look in current practice to eliminate discriminatory effects and as to what changes they should avoid to prevent further discrimination. Conversely, adverse pre-clearance decisions stood as a warning and deterrent to administrators and policymakers interested in adopting changes despite or even because of discriminatory effects. Pre-clearance outcomes stood as an indication of possible or likely successful legal challenge to such changes. In effect, just as pre-clearance was a more efficient mechanism to resolve disputes about a specific electoral practice in a specific jurisdiction, it was also a more efficient means to provide persuasive precedent for other jurisdictions, both those covered and those not covered. Thus, in a state like California, which had only three covered counties at the time the Supreme Court decision came down, everyone still benefitted from the ready and available information provided by the pre-clearance process. In addition, although the state was only partially covered, statewide electoral changes were subject to pre-clearance because of the effects in the covered counties. This meant that statewide elections procedures saw all the benefits of advanced awareness, pre-implementation analysis, and efficient dispute resolution described above. The experience of three years, including one mid-term election, demonstrate that the absence of the efficient pre- clearance process has deleterious effects on deterring, preventing, and eliminating electoral practices with significant discriminatory effects. MALDEF urges congressional action to reintroduce a coverage formula or formulas--that are responsive to current demographics and dynamics with respect to minority communities--into the VRA. The nation as a whole will benefit from the positive repercussions of an effective pre-clearance process for voting discrimination.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this November, voters across our country are faced with the likely prospect of heading to the polls without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. Signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, the Voting Rights Act broke down state and local laws that kept minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote. That fundamental right of our democracy was severely undermined by the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County vs. Holder. That misguided decision gutted Section 5, the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which barred states and localities with a history of discriminatory policies from implementing new voting changes without the approval of the Department of Justice. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, states are now free to pass and enforce laws that create obstacles to voting. That is exactly what many states are doing: in fact in the 2014 mid- term election and in this year's presidential primaries numerous voters were denied the ability to participate in our democratic process. A report from the NALEO Educational Fund, estimates these restrictive voting changes, could result in more than 875,000 eligible Latinos finding it more difficult to vote this year than in 2012. In other words, without the protections of The Voting Rights Act this presidential election will be the first in over 50 years in which American voters of color will be faced with new and renewed obstacles to voting. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states will have new voting restrictions in place for this year's presidential election. These new laws include strict photo ID requirements, cutbacks to early voting, and new registration restrictions. To help our constituents gain a better understanding of the negative impact of the Supreme Court decision, this past May, like many of my colleagues, I hosted a forum titled ``Protect Your Future: Restore the Vote.'' My co-chairs were Representative Linda Sanchez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus; and special guest, Representative Karen Bass. Members from our communities heard expert testimony from the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and NALEO. Panelists gave examples of the concerted assault on minorities at the ballot box and testified to the undeniable value of Congress restoring the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 by passing H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I thank our panelists for sharing their expertise and will submit their testimony into the Congressional Record today. On a positive note, as we rapidly approach the 2016 presidential election, critical victories are being won as courts continue to strike down racist and discriminatory voting laws. In July of this year, the Texas U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, found that the state's voter ID law discriminated against African-American and Latino voters. Days later, judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in North Carolina found that North Carolina state law targeted black voters, and I quote, ``with almost surgical precision.'' While these are important victories it is nevertheless a tragedy to our Democracy that so much time and money has been spent for American voters to win back a right already granted to them under the Constitution of the United States. The ability to vote is not a Democratic or Republican right. It is an American right and the cornerstone of our democracy. Today, I join my colleagues in urging the Republican leadership to join Democrats to live up to their Constitutional responsibility to protect every American's right to vote by passing H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. The ability to vote is one of the most fundamental rights. That right is not a Democratic or Republican right. It is an American right and the cornerstone of our democracy. I include in the Record the following testimony: Testimony of Stewart Kwoh, Executive Director and President, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, May 20, 2016 Hon. Congressmembers: Thank you for inviting me to this critical subject of voting rights. My name is Stewart Kwoh, and I am the Executive Director and President of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles. We are the largest civil rights organization in the nation dedicated to issues affecting the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities. As a civil rights organization, we have a voting rights project working to ensure that systems and policies do not dilute the AANHPI votes and that language assistance is provided under federal and state laws. We are part of a national affiliation with offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, and Washington D.C. On July 18, 2013, our entire affiliation filed a joint statement with Asian Americans Legal Defense and Education Fund before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives at the hearing on ``The Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court's Decision in Shelby County.'' My plan today is not to repeat our joint statement. Instead, I will first provide a brief overview of what the Shelby County v. Holder decision means for Asian Americans nationally. I will then briefly outline issues faced by Asian American voters in California and close with the importance of the Voting Rights Advancement Act. Impact of Shelby County v. Holder decision Immediately prior to Shelby, there were 15 states that were covered in whole or in part under Section 5 (not including states in which the state or localities terminated coverage through bailout). Over half of these states are among the top 20 states having the largest Asian American populations in the country. Former Section 5 jurisdictions are also home to the most rapidly growing Asian American populations. From 2000 to 2010, the country's Asian American population grew by 46%, making Asian Americans the fastest-growing racial group in the nation. Notably, in over two-thirds of former Section 5 states, the Asian American population grew at a more rapid rate than this. The following list illustrates this point: California (partial coverage for Kings, Monterey and Yuba Counties)--5.6 million Asian Americans, largest Asian American population by state, 34% growth since 2000 New York (partial coverage for Bronx, Kings and New York Counties)--1.6 million Asian Americans, second-largest Asian American population by state, 35% growth since 2000 Texas (statewide coverage)--1.1 million Asian Americans, third-largest Asian American population by state, 72% growth since 2000 Florida (partial coverage for Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough and Monroe Counties)--over 570,000 Asian Americans, eighth-largest Asian American population by state, 72% growth since 2000 Virginia (statewide coverage)--over 520,000 Asian Americans, ninth-largest Asian American population by state, 71% growth since 2000 Georgia (statewide coverage)--over 360,000 Asian Americans, 13th-largest Asian American population by state, 83% growth since 2000 North Carolina (partial coverage for 40 counties)--over 250,000 Asian Americans, 15th-largest Asian American population by state, 85% growth since 2000 Arizona (statewide coverage)--over 230,000 Asian Americans, 19th-largest Asian American population by state, 95% growth since 2000 The termination of Section 5 coverage for these states comes at a pivotal moment for Asian American communities, which in recent years have begun to emerge politically in these states as they increase in size. As our nation has historically witnessed, when groups of racial minorities move into an area, or outpace the general population growth in an area, the result is often racial tension and sometimes racial discrimination, including voting discrimination. Continuing Barriers to Voting Asian Americans in California continue to face barriers in the electoral process. While a number of jurisdictions meet their obligations to provide language assistance under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in commendable fashion, enforcement actions to bring jurisdictions into compliance have been necessary in some instances. In the past decade, the U.S. Department of Justice brought Section 203 enforcement actions against San Diego County (2004), the City of Rosemead (2005), the City of Walnut (2007), and Alameda County (2011), for non-compliance with respect to Asian language requirements. In 2013, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice affiliation released a report that examined Asian language assistance in Section 203-covered jurisdictions across the country, including the eight counties in California covered for Asian American populations. Drawing upon poll monitoring carried out at nearly 900 election precincts during the November 2012 election, the report shows that some jurisdictions are making use of good practices to provide written and oral assistance. At the same time, the report found low visibility or no display of translated materials at 45% of poll sites monitored and a lack of bilingual poll workers at nearly a quarter of poll sites monitored. In the vote dilution context, Asian Americans are confronted with racially polarized voting that impairs their ability to elect candidates of choice, perhaps not in every area of the state where Asian Americans are concentrated, but at least in certain areas of the state. Leading up to the post-2010 Census redistricting, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles worked with a political scientist to assess the existence of racially polarized voting against Asian Americans in the San Gabriel Valley and South Bay regions of Los Angeles County. In his analysis of 13 elections, the political scientist found that in all elections Asian American voters demonstrated cohesive voting patterns in favor of Asian American candidates. Non-Asian Americans tended to vote against the candidates preferred by Asian American voters; in ten of the elections, non-Asian Americans gave less than 50% of their vote to candidates preferred by Asian Americans. Importance of the Voting Rights Advancement Act On June 24, 2015, the Voting Rights Advancement Act (Advancement Act) was introduced in the Senate (S. 1659) and the House (H.R. 2867). The Advancement Act has received broad and vocal support from the civil rights community because it responds to the unique, modern-day challenges of voting discrimination that have evolved in the 50 years since the Voting Rights Act first passed. The Advancement Act recognizes that changing demographics require tools that protect voters nationwide--especially voters of color, voters who rely on languages other than English, and voters with disabilities. It also requires that jurisdictions make voting changes public and transparent. The Advancement Act would modernize the preclearance formula to cover states with a pattern of discrimination that puts voters at risk, ensure that last-minute voting changes will not adversely affect voters, protect voters from the types of voting changes most likely to discriminate against people of color and language minorities, enhance the ability to apply preclearance review when needed, and expand the effective Federal Observer program and improve voting rights protections for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Since the Shelby decision, 17 states have implemented or adopted new voting restriction laws which are in place for the first time for the 2016 presidential election. Many of these restrictions, such as ID requirements, proof of citizenship, and limitations to early voting, are practices that would require preclearance by the Department of Justice under the Advancement Act. These are known practices which often result in the disenfranchisement of voters, particularly voters of color and low-income voters. Some of the known practices disproportionately affect naturalized citizens, and in the United States, 63% of Asian Americans who are U.S. citizens and 18 or older are naturalized citizens. Proof of citizenship, in particular, has a disparate impact on naturalized citizens. Unlike birth certificates, naturalization certificates cannot be copied without lawful authority. When Arizona implemented its proof of citizenship requirement (which was later found to violate the National Voter Registration Act), some counties accepted copies of the naturalization certificate, others did not. In the counties that did not, a naturalized citizen without a passport would have to register in person at the election official's office during normal business hours. Moreover, duplicate or replacement copies of the certificate can take over a year and costs $345 to obtain a copy. For those without the funds to obtain a duplicate copy, the proof of citizenship requirement is a denial of the right to vote. Even for those who are able to afford the fee, many elections can occur during the time it takes to obtain a duplicate. It is, therefore, crucial for the Department of Justice to have the authority to critically review proof of citizenship requirements linked to voting. Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of North Carolina's new photo ID law. As noted above, North Carolina has the 15th largest Asian American community by state. Rudy Ravindra, a resident of North Carolina, wrote an op-ed for Raleigh's The News & Observer recounting his March 2016 early voting experience. According to Mr. Ravindra, after giving his driver's license to the poll worker, the poll worker required Mr. Ravindra to spell his name as he (the poll worker) typed it into the system. Mr. Ravindra reported that his wife had the same experience on election day. In both situations, poll workers simply looked at the white voters' identification cards and did not ask them to spell their names. While the Advancement Act focuses on policies before implementation, the Department of Justice might have blocked North Carolina's ID law in the first place. Another known practice that would be subject to preclearance by the Advancement Act is changes that reduce, consolidate, or relocate voting locations. In Arizona's March primary, the election official in Maricopa County consolidated precincts into large vote centers but failed to provide enough staff support. Each vote center was assigned 21,000 voters. News coverage reported voters having to wait 4 to 5 hours to vote. As noted above, Arizona saw 95% growth in the Asian American population since 2000, and Maricopa County is home to 82,000 Asian American eligible voters. Oversight by the Department of Justice could have stopped the closure of neighborhood precincts and prevented the disenfranchisement of the voters who could not stand in line for hours. In the three years since the Shelby decision, Congress has failed to restore the Voting Rights Act, and voters have been disenfranchised due to new laws and practices implemented post-Shelby. While the three Congressmembers holding this roundtable have been champions in advocating for the Voting Rights Advancement Act, the time is now for the full Congress to take up and debate the bill. Congress must come together, as it has each time the Voting Rights Act has been before it, to restore the protections found in the Voting Rights Act to ensure a stronger democracy. Thank you again for the invitation to testify before you today.