Terri Sewell

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 68.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to President Trump's disgraceful Executive Order indefinitely suspending the settlement of Syrian refugees and banning anyone from six other Muslim-majority countries from coming to America. This ill-conceived and unconstitutional action is immoral, un-American, and a threat to our national security. The refugees President Trump is turning away are in desperate circumstances. Like the millions of American Immigrants who came before them, they are searching for a better future for themselves and their families. By banning their entry, the Trump Administration dishonors the commitment we made to countless women and children from Syria who have successfully complied with our strict vetting process. This irresponsible executive order does little to protect us from terrorism, but it does institutionalize a prejudice against Muslims. Moreover, it makes us more susceptible to home-grown terrorism. In a nation founded by immigrants, it is our duty as Americans to call upon President Trump to rescind this executive order.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 66.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Affordable Care Act and the Trump administration's efforts to repeal the health care of millions of Americans. Every person in this body has constituents who have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Whether you represent the rural community in Kentucky where the uninsured rate declined 60 percent under the ACA or you represent the most liberal district in the country, you should be committed to working across the aisle to fix what is wrong with the ACA and build upon what is working. While the law and President Obama may not be popular in many districts, political expediency has no place in this hallowed body, especially when the economy and American lives are at stake. It is not just Democratic districts that benefit from the ACA. Everyone-- everyone--has Americans in their districts that benefit from the ACA. While I am the only Democrat in Alabama, my district has only the fifth highest population of enrollees in Alabama, behind four Republican districts. Alabama's First Congressional District has over 29,000 enrollees, and the Fifth District has over 25,000 enrollees. The Sixth and Fourth Districts of Alabama both have over 23,000 enrollees. My district has 22,000 people who are enrolled in the ACA. In total, there are 165,000 Alabamians who have coverage through the healthcare marketplace, and over 20 million nationwide. There are many who benefit in Alabama and across this Nation from the ACA. And while we all benefit from not having to have preexisting conditions be a deterrent to getting health care, all of us will not benefit from the repeal. In fact, it should not surprise many of us that the repeal of the ACA will benefit the wealthiest Americans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ACA repeal will lavish Medicare tax cuts on our Nation's 400 highest income households, while 7 million low- and moderate-income households will lose premium tax credits. The average annual income of those top 400 families is $300 million apiece, and they will benefit from an average annual tax cut of approximately $7 million apiece. What my Republican colleagues do not want Americans to know is that the repeal of the ACA will not benefit the majority of Americans but, rather, only the rich. An average income of $300 million is more than 6,000 times the average household income in Alabama and nearly 9,000 times the average household in my district. Mr. Speaker, 99.9 percent of my constituents make incomes below $200,000. I know that they will never see the tax breaks that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will give to the wealthy. While healthcare costs have been growing nationwide at the slowest rate in over 50 years under the ACA, we cannot ignore the hardworking Americans who are facing outrageous premium hikes in States that have not expanded Medicaid like Alabama. On average, States that have been hostile to the law are facing the largest premium increases for 2017. One study showed that States that fully embraced the ACA will see increases of 18.2 percent, as opposed to States that have fully resisted the law--like Alabama--which saw increases of 29.8 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable to Americans that we have this rise in premiums at any level, but my point is simply this: We should not be looking to repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it with something; because the fact of the matter is, in this great country that we live in, no one--no one--should not have access to affordable, quality health care. Alabamians enrolled in employer-based healthcare insurance are paying more in their employee contributions than those in California, even though Californians have a significantly higher cost of living. This is one of the reasons why I have worked across the aisle to try to make meaningful changes to the ACA that don't compromise the law's benefit. The American people deserve Representatives that will work together to fix what is wrong with the ACA and build upon what is working. We need to work together to increase access, market stabilization, and minimize premium cost rises. We need to work with States that haven't expanded Medicaid to bring down premium costs for the self-insured. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to achieve these goals and protect the millions of Americans and thousands of Alabamians who are more financially secure today because of the protections of the ACA.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, More than 20 million Americans woke up today with the security of health coverage they didn't have 8 years ago. Of the Americans who stand to lose their health insurance under the GOP repeal plan, 82 percent are from working families, including 150,000 enrollees in my State of Alabama. Despite facts, Republicans have done a remarkable job convincing the American people, even those who are on the exchanges, that the ACA only benefits people who don't work. They perpetuate the tired fallacy that ACA, Medicaid, and even Medicare recipients are living off the government without contributing to our economy. Mr. Speaker, this brings me to a story about Hank Adcock. Hank is a life-long farmer who has been working on his family farm in Alabama for the majority of his 62 years. Back in 2015, his hands got stuck in a hay baler and he lost his right hand. Before the ACA, Hank's family hadn't had health coverage since the 1980s. His ACA policy ended up covering his entire hospital bill, which he says could have cost him his farm if he hadn't had insurance. If the farming work that Hank, his wife, Sharon, and their children have committed their lives to isn't enough to qualify as ``hard work'' to my Republican friends, then I suggest we let Hank and Sharon come up here to Washington while we all go down to North Alabama to trade jobs for a few days. The ACA is far from perfect. This is why I have worked across the aisle to try to make meaningful changes to the ACA that don't compromise the law's benefits. But after 7 years of engaging in a fact- free, taxpayer-funded crusade against the ACA, the GOP should have a stellar replacement plan that we can all agree on. Every member in this body has constituents who have insurance because of the ACA. While I understand that the law is unpopular in many districts across the country, political expediency has no place in this hallowed body, especially when the economy and American lives are at stake. The American people deserve a Congress that will work together to fix what's wrong with the ACA and build upon what's working. We need to work towards increased access, market stabilization and cost reduction. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to achieve these goals and protect the millions of Americans who like Hank were at one time just one medical emergency away from financial ruin.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during the votes held on January 10, 2017, I was inescapably detained and away handling important matters related to my District and the State of Alabama. If I had been present, I would have voted YES on the Velazquez Amendment, YES on the Clay/Waters Amendment, and YES on Final Passage of H.R. 79.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Kaye Frances Williams, formerly of Selma, Alabama--a childhood friend, outstanding lawyer, devoted wife, doting aunt, amazing sister, loving daughter and special friend to many. Born on January 4, 1962, Kaye was the eldest daughter of the late Martha and Fred D. Williams, Jr. and the sister to my childhood best friend Kimberly Joyce Williams, whom I affectionately called ``Kimmie Jo''. Every childhood memory I have includes the Williams family. I can still see that house in Lakewood and I will never forget that home telephone number. I am so grateful for the love and support I received from the Williams family. I spent so much time with them that I even called their parents Uncle Fred and T-Mart. I can still smell the aroma of their mother's homemade fried chicken--Colonel Sanders had nothing on T-Mart's chicken. Kaye grew up a true ``Southern Belle'' from the most affluent African American family in the historic town of Selma, Alabama. The Williams were the epitome of black high society in Selma. The Williams family owned Black Selma--they were the premier florist, owning Fred's Flower and Gift Shop as well as JH Williams Funeral Home. They were the top educators, entrepreneurs, doctors and philanthropists. The Williams family had it ``goin on''. They even summered at Cape May--when black folks in Selma didn't even know Jersey had a shore. Deprived of female siblings myself, Kim was my sister/BFF and Kaye was ``our big sister''. Kaye had it all--she was beautiful, smart, fun and talented--Kaye was the girl we all wanted to be. Kaye Frances Williams was a trailblazer. She blazed the trail that so many of us in Selma aspired to follow. I set my own goals by the achievements of Kaye Williams. I wanted to be a debater because Kaye was the first black debater at Selma High School. I wanted to be in student government because Kaye was the first black President of the Selma High Student Council. I wanted to be the valedictorian because Kaye graduated top of the Class of 1979 at Selma High and then attended Goucher College and Georgetown Law School. I wanted to be a securities lawyer because Kaye was a top lawyer at the Securities Exchange Commission. Like so many others, I spent my life trying to live up to Kaye's exceptionalism. I will never forget the summer of 1984 when Kim and I, as college students, lived in Kaye's apartment and worked in Washington, DC while Kaye was a summer associate in a Los Angeles law firm. What a summer-- Kim and I knew we were truly grown--living in DC in our big sister's apartment with a car. Being a responsible elder, Kaye left us a list of ``Dos & Don'ts'' which we promptly ignored. What precious memories Kim and I made that summer--all because of Kaye. Those were the days. Kaye emanated a bright light that blazed a path that will shine on in the lives of the many people she impacted. She was beloved by her family and she was the ``Best Aunt ever'' to Kim's children--McKenzie and Madison. Kaye met every challenge in life with the same fierce determination and indomitable spirit that helped her succeed in every endeavor she undertook. She graciously assumed the mantle of the matriarch of the Williams family when her parents died and she was the devoted caregiver to her loving husband Earl. On December 7, 2016, that bright light dimmed far too soon. Kaye Williams had many more miles to go before she slept. Although Kaye will be missed by us all, let us find comfort in the fact that she will forever live in the hearts of so many people she nurtured, influenced, and affected. Kaye would not want us to mourn her but rather she would want us to celebrate the extraordinary life she led and be inspired by the example she set. I know that I would not be Alabama's first black Congresswoman had Kaye Frances Williams not been my ``Big Sister''. My gratitude is immeasurable and I will seek to repay that debt by ensuring that the path she blazed in Selma, Alabama shall never be extinguished but will continue to light the way for the next generation of brilliant, beautiful and talented African American women. On behalf of the 7th Congressional District, the State of Alabama and this nation, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and accomplishments of Kaye Frances Williams.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to recognize Southern Research, a crown jewel of scientific and engineering research and innovation headquartered in the 7th District of Alabama, on its 75th Anniversary. Throughout its 75-year history, Southern Research's scientists and researchers have been extraordinary stewards of the federal and private funds they have earned to solve our nation's most pressing challenges, including finding cancer cures, fighting infectious diseases, supporting our nation's defense, protecting our environment, and creating clean energy technologies, among many others. Since 1941, the researchers and scientists at Southern Research have performed work on behalf of countless private and government organizations, including the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, and others in the healthcare, aerospace, and utility industries, in seeking to resolve the world's greatest challenges. Southern Research is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and today, hires nearly 500 scientists and engineers working in laboratories and offices in Wilsonville and Huntsville, Alabama; Frederick, Maryland; Durham, North Carolina; Houston, Texas; and Cartersville, Georgia. Southern Research's drug development record, particularly for FDA- approved anticancer drugs, rivals any other nonprofit research organization in the United States. Today, Southern Research is developing 18 drugs to combat various forms of cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, diabetes, kidney disease, Parkinson's and tuberculosis, among others. The drug development division also has an outstanding and notable record of achievement in infectious diseases and vaccine development, particularly work in HIV/AIDS, and mosquito borne viruses, such as Zika. Southern Research has evaluated roughly half of the 200 FDA-approved cancer drugs on the market today and has successfully discovered seven of them. One of these drugs is Clofarabine, which was given FDA approval in 2004 and is used in the treatment of pediatric leukemia. It is currently being used to treat children not only at Children's Hospital of Alabama in Birmingham but at hospitals around the world. In addition to drug discovery and development, Southern Research has a long history of technology development in engineering, including work on Prompt Global Strike and an aerial engineering system used by NASA to capture full motion high definition video of rocket launches. The scientists in the Energy and Environment division at Southern Research are at the forefront of work to produce cleaner energy and water, develop new sources of energy, and drive innovation that addresses climate change and coincides with the Clean Tech Revolution nationally. It is clear the investments our federal government has made in Southern Research are dwarfed by the returns our nation and world have received from the achievements this prestigious research organization has made in its four divisions: Drug Discovery, Drug Development, Engineering, and Energy and Environment. The people of Southern Research, from its current president and CEO, Art Tipton, to all of the visionaries who have worked tirelessly in its labs and offices over the past 75 years, are to be commended on this tremendous occasion. The feats they have achieved, through the legacy of Southern Research's founder, Tom Martin, have benefitted not only the South, but the entire nation and world. It is a privilege and honor to represent Southern Research in Congress. I extend not only my congratulations on 75 years of groundbreaking accomplishments, but my sincere gratitude to the remarkable people of Southern Research for the work they have done to improve the lives of countless people across the world through research and innovation over the past 75 years.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to challenge my colleagues to help promote the local economy of their districts in a new way: through the power of a story set in a real place. Our greatest resource in this nation has always been our people and their ability to unleash their talents in innovative ways that promote progress and prosperity. I recently witnessed one such innovation when I was invited to present a tourism fiction award in my district through the Southeastern Literary Tourism Initiative. For those of you who are unfamiliar with tourism fiction, the concept is simple: write stories set in real places, stories that capture the imaginations and hearts of readers, and then invite those same readers to visit the places. As my colleagues may know from their own districts, tourism is an economic driver that attracts welcomed spending on local attractions, hotels, restaurants, and other places that help drive local economies and provide jobs. If writers are already producing books and short stories, then why not ask them to set those stories in real places that their readers would love to visit? That is exactly what an innovative writing contest did in my home district. The Southeastern Literary Tourism Initiative or SELTI, teamed up with the Selma Chamber of Commerce to challenge writers to compose a short story aimed at encouraging readers to visit the area. The 2016 winner of the contest, Charisa Hagel, wrote a powerful story that brought a local historical attraction to life through her fictional characters. At the end of the story, readers were invited to visit the real place, Kenan's Mill in Selma, Alabama, and literally step into the setting of Charisa's story. While there, they can also visit the National Voting Rights Museum and many other unique local attractions. I will soon be honored to present Ms. Charisa Hagel, a student at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama, with the 2016 SELTI Tourism Fiction Award at Kenan's Mill in Selma. The attraction Ms. Hagel wrote about in the Selma contest is not well known outside the local area, but now anyone with internet access can read about it through her story. How many attractions in your districts deserve to be written about and promoted in the same way? As a legislative body, we often differ on our views for creating economic opportunity in the country. However, I feel that we can all agree that we want writers in our districts that can help tell the history of those areas through engaging stories with characters who win the hearts of readers, while also bringing in new tourism dollars.-

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Ramsay High School Rams 2016 Football Team for winning the Alabama High School Athletic Association's Class 6A state football championship on Friday, December 2, 2016. The Rams defeated the Opelika Bulldogs 21-16, which gave Ramsay its first state football championship ever and the first for a Birmingham City School since another area high school won back to back state titles in 1972 and 1973. Mr. Speaker, what makes this victory even more special is that Ramsay discontinued its football program after the 1976 season, and didn't resume the sport for 36 years until hiring its current coach, Rueben Nelson Jr., in the Spring of 2011. The Rams officially returned to the field in 2012, suffering through a one-win season and two wins the following season. The program is without football lockers, a football stadium, and many of the amenities that often lead to success. Yet, the players and coaches have persevered, and have now reached the pinnacle of success. Speaking to their accomplishment following the game, Coach Nelson stated, ``God allowed me to put my hands in His hands and He would lead the way. It's not like I'm the head coach. He's the head coach and I'm just the servant. He allows me to work with kids.'' The Rams were 13-2 this season, and were led by their left-handed, Senior quarterback Baniko Harley, who rushed for 158 yards on 21 carries and completed 8 of 18 passes for 132 yards and two scores in the winning effort. I want to extend heartfelt congratulations to these outstanding players and Coach Nelson. We are very proud of the team, and I am confident these young men have bright futures ahead for them, and will look back proudly on their achievement. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognition of this team's outstanding achievement. May their efforts continue to yield great success in the years ahead.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today, we honor six individuals-- Myrtice Chamblin, Cynthia Holder, Leon Humphries, Lillie Humphries, Cedric King, and Rita Eileen King--for courageously integrating Woodlawn High School in Birmingham, Alabama during September of 1965. We applaud these six individuals for their noble act to recognize the historic precedence they established and to acknowledge the exceptional bravery they displayed. The mid-20th century was an extraordinarily turbulent time for Alabama, especially Birmingham. The city and surrounding area had become a crucible for civil rights activity and peaceful protests that were often met with inconceivable hostility. Segregation and discrimination both had a strong grip on Birmingham society, which affected all aspects of life for African Americans. Despite the enactments of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments nearly a century beforehand, Birmingham's black citizens had yet to fully experience the promises that these constitutional changes intended to engender. Thankfully, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 overturned the long-standing decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, which had emboldened and reinforced the ferociousness of ``separate but equal.'' While these successive legislative modifications and landmark cases created a platform for diversity in theory, racial inclusiveness was still confronted with horrific opposition in actuality. It would take solemn individuals animated with daring spirits to truly produce the social changes needed to foster an integrated and equal United States of America. Today, we honor these six outstanding individuals who are exemplary of the heroicness herein described. The integration of Woodlawn High School by these stellar young people was not an occurrence of happenstance. It was not the decision of adults or older citizens who had completed school many years earlier. Instead, it was a strategic act by six underclassmen eager to learn. By boldly encountering aggression and animosity, they knew it was a sacrifice necessary to create a better city, state, and nation. Disciplined with the tools of non-violence and aided with the support of their caregivers and community, these six champions of equality and freedom that we praise today stood against injustice to impact future generations. Armed with nothing more than a consciousness of integrity and dignity, these six young people chose to walk in the line of danger and take a stand for human equality. In the spirit of grace and appreciation, we salute Myrtice Chamblin, Cynthia Holder, Leon Humphries, Lillie Humphries, Cedric King, and Rita Eileen King for their act of valor. Let their testimony and story of triumph continue to be a lesson to us all as we stand on their shoulders to combat oppression. Most importantly, let us not be remiss in our effort to shine light on exemplars that have moved mountains for us to walk through and paved paths for us to walk on. The routes we travel are easier because of you.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, Alabama is a state rich with tradition and legacies of excellence. Yet, one that stands out is the legacy of military excellence exhibited by the 187th Air National Guard Fighter Wing, located at Dannelly Field in Montgomery, Alabama. The 187th Air National Guard Fighter Wing has an unparalleled legacy of excellence worthy of praise and worth protecting for the future. Currently, the guard unit is a prime candidate to fly the new F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The 187th currently flies the oldest F-16s in the U.S. Air Force's inventory; however, it is among eighteen Air National Guard units competing for the coveted new aircraft. The Alabama delegation in Congress is unanimous and steadfast in our support of the 187th Air National Guard Fighter Wing winning this new assignment. Nothing helps us make the case more than the long history of outstanding military service that has been the proud legacy of the 187th. The 187th Fighter Wing has a proven combat track record and an unparalleled military heritage. It is home to the 100th Fighter Squadron--the famed ``Red Tails.'' This squadron's lineage traces back to World War II and the renowned Tuskegee Airmen, America's first black military pilots and support personnel. The 187th benefits from being a key strategic resource--only five miles from Maxwell Air Force Base, and twenty-five minutes flying time from Eglin, Tyndall, Hurlburt, and Moody Air Force Bases. This presents numerous opportunities for joint air-to-air and air-to-ground training. F-35 pilots of the 187th may also utilize the electronic ranges on Eglin AFB. This is all contingent, however, on the unit being outfitted with the new fighter jets. During my tenure in office, I have been and will continue to be a stalwart advocate for this vital national resource located in my district. As a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities that confront our nation. I am also keenly aware that the world we live in is filled with potential threats that are constantly developing and changing. We have to remain ever vigilant and be prepared to not only confront ongoing threats but those emerging as well. A major key to our success requires that we maintain air-superiority and provide effective air-cover for our men and women deployed in combat zones. This is the defining legacy of the 187th from World War II to today. Given its rich history and superior service to this nation, the 187th Air National Guard Fighter Wing stands poised and well-equipped to bring the next generation of air power to the Alabama Air National Guard.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during the votes held on December 2nd, 2016, I was inescapably detained and away handling important matters related to my District and the State of Alabama. If I had been present, I would have voted YES on Agreeing to the Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943, and YES on Approving the Journal.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this year's Intelligence Authorization Act. Our national security is truly a bipartisan issue, and this legislation is a reflection of both parties' shared commitment to the safety and security of all Americans. This bill helps provide our intelligence community with the necessary resources and capabilities to defend our Nation against ongoing and emerging threats around the world. As the ranking member on the DOD Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee, I was pleased that the language and direction in this bill continues to advance our capabilities on the ground and in space and provides necessary oversight of many critical DOD, NRO, and NGA programs. Additionally, this legislation takes important steps toward enhancing thorough oversight of our surveillance capabilities while continuing to make calculated investments in critically important strategic efforts. In the IAA, we also invested in our greatest national resource, our people. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting provisions that I drafted to promote diversity in the IC workforce. We are now able to provide a summer internship program to students from the existing Centers of Academic Excellence and Intelligence. We also now hold the IC more accountable for doing a better job of developing a matrix to assess minority fellowship and internship programs and how they actually achieve their desired results, which is to increase the number of minorities hired by the IC. Recently, I had the privilege of hosting a diversity in Intel summit. This event served as a rare opportunity for minority groups interested in the IC to gain insightful and helpful advice from top national security officials. It was truly a great occasion and it further reaffirms our committee's shared commitment to helping to ensure robust diversity throughout the entire IC. I was also pleased to successfully include bipartisan language that promotes accountability and transparency in the IC federally funded academic programs by requiring agencies to report on their recruitment and retention efforts. Increasing diversity and accountability in the IC is an issue of good governance and makes all of us better because it encourages unique and creative ways of problem-solving, which is increasingly necessary as we develop and we face more complex intelligence challenges. As a committee, I am extremely proud of the work we have done. We took great pains to cut unnecessary funding while prioritizing the need to improve upon processes and be more efficient in the IC generally. The reality is that we live in a world where potential threats to our Nation are constantly developing and changing. As our military missions and intelligence objectives continue to evolve, we need an IC that is both diverse, agile, and adequately funded. I am proud to support this year's Intelligence Authorization Act. I want to, again, thank the chairman and ranking member for all of their hard work. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today on this Restoration Tuesday I rise to acknowledge the persistent need for new voting rights legislation, even after the 2016 general election. Last week's presidential election was the first in over fifty years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and it must be the last. The time to restore the fundamental civil right to vote for millions of Americans is always right now. This is not a request for reconciliation, this a deliberate demand for democracy. Just one week ago today, American citizens faced voting restrictions in the forms of new photo ID requirements, DMV and voting poll closures, and significant reductions or elimination of early voting and weekend voting. Voting restrictions have been put in place in 22 states--14 of which had new restrictions for the first time in 2016, making it harder for millions of Americans to exercise their right to vote. This was unacceptable at the inception of the Constitution. This was unacceptable during the marches of 1965. How can we, as representatives of the American people, accept this blatant disregard to our democracy today? We need to make voting easier, not harder for the citizens of this country. We cannot and must not accept suppression of the vote. According to a federal court, the State of Wisconsin had over 300,000 registered voters who lacked the ID required by new photo ID laws. In my home state of Alabama, new photo IDs were required and then over 30 DMVs were systematically closed down following the announcement of the new laws. On this past Election Day one week ago, there were 868 fewer polling places in states with a history of voter discrimination like Arizona, North Carolina and Texas. The 2016 election may be over, but the fight for voting rights is far from finished. It is time to stop restricting access to the ballot box. It is time to show our country that we, as representatives of the American people, are using every tool at our disposal to prevent discriminatory voting practices. There is nothing more important in a democracy than ensuring that every citizen has an equal opportunity to let their voice be heard through their right to vote. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support a bipartisan effort to Restore the Vote. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 that I introduced reaffirms our commitment to voter equality and creating protected pathways to voter access. This legislation takes an expansive view of the need to protect access to the voting booth, and will offer more voter protection to more people in states including Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. I urge all of my colleagues seated here today to pass legislation that will not just protect the votes of minorities, but also those of students, the disabled, the poor, and those in the military and overseas. We cannot forget the courage and dedication of those who marched and fought for voting rights in 1965. Let's not forget the lessons learned in 1965 and in the fifty years since as we have watched countless attempts to undermine our progress. As Civil Rights icon, Congressman, and my friend John Lewis will tell you, ``There is still work to be done.'' Let's recommit ourselves to restoring the promise of voter equality. Partisanship cannot be prioritized over the people of America. Voter suppression has to stop now.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I stand in solidarity with my colleagues to demand that the Republican Leadership do its job and prioritize the needs of the American people. The criminal justice system is desperately in need of reform, gun violence has become an epidemic problem in America, the FY2017 Omnibus is inexcusably incomplete and the American vote is still not protected. I have only begun to name the extensive amount of work that has been left undone by the Republican Leadership and the American people are suffering because of it. The people of this country who rely on this Congress to fight for them will continue to suffer because of the inaction, indifference and insolence of the Republican Party. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass legislation to help make the citizens of this country feel safe from violence and secure in their rights and liberties. We need greater investment in higher education and our HBCUs. We need more anti-poverty programs and we need to address the problems of the rise of drug costs and access to healthcare facilities. There is simply too much incomplete work that cannot be ignored. There has been too much suffering, sadness, blood and tears--and we need action now. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, ``The time is always right to do what is right.'' Now is the time to take action to unite as one great nation and work together to secure liberty and justice for all Americans. Unfinished business cannot become ``business as usual.''

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the dangerously divisive effect that voter suppression has had on this country and the pressing need to restore the vote. The unique diversity of the people of the United States of America is indeed one of our greatest strengths. However, it is our unity of principles that forms the strong foundation that our greatness is built upon. This country stands on the principles of liberty, justice and equality for all. In order to maintain our position and place as one of the greatest nations in the world, we simply cannot stand for any efforts that would suppress a fundamental right of the American people. The right to a vote--to a voice is the cornerstone of our democracy and we cannot continue to stand by idly while the right to vote continues to be trampled on simply because of Congress' apathy and failure to act. Following the 2013 Supreme Court decision asking for a new preclearance formula in Shelby v. Holder, states all across the country put in place new suppressive voting laws making it harder, not easier for Americans to vote. The elderly, disabled, students and minorities have been disproportionately affected by these new laws blocking hundreds of thousands of Americans from the ballot box. It has been three years since the Supreme Court decision asking Congress for a modern-day preclearance formula--and for three years, Republican leaders in Congress have refused to take up bipartisan legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act. This is an election year and with less than 50 days from the Presidential election, we are facing the first time in over 50 years that Americans will not have the full protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We are in desperate need for immediate action to voting rights in this country. These threats to our democracy and civil rights bar thousands of Americans from their right to the voting polls. Division in this country is both dangerous and destructive. We are never better when rights are restricted and we are always stronger when all voices can be heard. This is still the United States of America and as elected officials and conduits of the Constitution--voting rights deserves our undivided attention. On this Restoration Tuesday, I give us all the charge to battle against the continued suppression of the American vote and stand strong by our principles of democracy, liberty and justice for all. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should join the 178 members of Congress and support H.R. 2867--the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. Let's restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and give all Americans access to the voting polls--it's the right thing to do.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Veasey for his tireless effort not only as a plaintiff in the Texas case courageously fighting against the injustices against voters, but I want to also thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus and for his participation in tonight's Special Order hour. We are all with the gentleman in his efforts to make sure that all Americans have the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I have said that I introduced a bill called the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I would like to talk a little bit about the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 in an effort to really encourage the rest of my colleagues here in this august body to join with me in passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act. What the Voting Rights Advancement Act does is it provides a modern- day formula, exactly what the Supreme Court asked of Congress. By striking down the old formula in the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court issued a challenge to Congress to come up with a modern-day formula. That is exactly what we do in this bill. This bill doesn't look back to 1940, 1950 or 1960. Oh, no. This bill looks at 1990 going forward. It is a 25-year lookback. If a State has had five or more statewide violations, then it will be a covered State. So it is a modern-day formula looking at any incidents of discriminatory practices since 1990 going forward. Mr. Speaker, you should not be surprised that even in looking at modern-day barriers or instituting this modern-day formula that you would still have 13 States that have had five or more statewide violations in the last 26 years. Those States include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, California, New York, and Virginia. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it includes Arizona, it includes California and New York, not just Deep South Southern States. In the last 26 years, these States have had five or more statewide violations of voting rights. I have to tell you that this goes to show you that there is a need for us to have continued full protections of the Voting Rights Act. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we can only rely on those lawsuits on section 2 which occur after the election has occurred. We need the efforts to be able to stop the discriminatory practices before they have the discriminatory effect. That is exactly what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does and what the Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 2867, would do. It would put teeth back into the preclearance provision. Now, we call it the Voting Rights Advancement Act because it also talks about discriminatory effects and practices on tribal lands. Back in 1965, we didn't protect tribal lands and the right to vote of those Americans. It is critically important that we modernize the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and make sure that we cover all Americans, including those who live in tribal lands. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 would allow Federal courts to immediately halt questionable voting practices until a final ruling is made. This provision would recognize that, when voting rights are at stake, prohibiting a discriminatory practice after the election has concluded is too late to truly protect voter rights. This bill would also give the Attorney General authority to request that Federal observers be present anywhere in the country where discriminatory voting practices pose a serious threat. This bill would also increase transparency by requiring reasonable public notice for voting changes. So, Mr. Speaker, if this bill had been in effect during the primary in Arizona, there would be no way that the election officials in Maricopa County, Arizona, would have been able to shrink the size of the number of polling stations--the populations stood the same or grew, and yet they shrunk the number of polling stations from 400 in 2012 to 60 in 2016, in 4 years. There is no way that that would have stood. You cannot tell me that that did not have a discriminatory impact on voters. Those lines being so long, I can't tell you--we will never know how many people got discouraged, how many working mothers or working family parents had to leave the line in order to go pick up their children or be able to provide for their family. We don't know how many people didn't get the chance to vote. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the integrity of the democracy that is being questioned by not having the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. So I ask my colleagues to join me and the 187 other cosponsors of the Voting Rights Advancement Act and let us put teeth back into the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by coming up and approving, passing, this modern-day formula. I believe that a lookback of 1990 going forward is ample evidence of voter discrimination and discriminatory practices and that States that have had five or more statewide violations should be a covered State. This bill would allow them to be a covered State for 10 years. Now, obviously, during this 10-year period, if the State remedies itself, it can no longer be a covered State. There are ample provisions to allow for States to be opted in and opted out. I think that what, ultimately, we all want is that the full integrity of our democratic process be preserved, and that is exactly what would happen with this Voting Rights Advancement Act. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record witness testimony from the voting rights townhall hosted by Representatives Jeffries, Meng, and Velazquez in New York. [From LatinoJustice] Testimony of Juan Cartagena President & General Counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF on Fragile at 50: The Urgent Need To Strengthen and Restore the Voting Rights Act Good morning Congresswoman Velazquez, Congressman Jeffries, and Congresswoman Meng. On behalf of LatinoJustice PRLDEF-- formerly known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund--I respectfully submit this testimony at the forum Fragile at 50: The Urgent Need to Strengthen and Restore the Voting Rights Act. My testimony will center on the historical significance of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the three formerly covered counties of Bronx, Kings and New York for both general compliance problems and bilingual assistance problems. The Historical Context The historical foundations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in New York City--a subject that has been a focus of my previous research and publications, l submit, provides the context for the Act's salience today. Two important lessons emanate from this history. The first is that New York City was in effect, the laboratory of bilingual voting assistance for language minority citizens in the entire country--and it all started with Puerto Rican voters. The second is that Section 5 arguably had its most direct and prophylactic effects for minority voters as a tool against discriminatory voting schemes beyond redistricting plans. I now turn to those two historical episodes. Section Five's application to three counties in New York stems directly from the previous application of Section 4(e) of the Voting Act which is colloquially known as the Puerto Rican section of the Act. While the VRA was historically and rightfully aimed at restoring the dignity of the African- American vote, it was never just black and white, not even in 1965. Section 4(e) was championed in a bipartisan manner by Senators Robert Kennedy and Jacob Javits. It drew support from Puerto Rican icons like Herman Badillo, Gilberto Gerena- Valentin and Irma Vidal Santaella who testified in Congress against the notion that one can only be a productive and effective voter in New York only if literate in English. Their testimony led to Section 4(e) which outlawed any English-only literacy test that would deny voter registration to any Puerto Rican who achieved at least a 6th grade education in Puerto Rico's schools. The remedy was bilingual voter registration and bilingual ballot access. The litigation spawned by this law--all of it filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund--set the stage for major court decisions declaring that English-only election systems deprived citizens of a meaningful right to vote and were discriminatory under the VRA. Those decisions, especially Torres v. Sachs, were used by the NAACP to argue that Section 5 coverage of New York City--previously certified but exempted by a separate court at the State's urging--should be reinstated. That argument prevailed and Section 5 became a reality directly because of the discrimination against Puerto Rican voters. The impact of Section 4(e) did not stop there, however. During the 1975 congressional deliberations to create bilingual assistance provisions of the Act to cover all Spanish-language, Asian language and Native American language voters the House clearly recognized that bilingual voting structures were both viable and effective. They cited New York City as the example that bilingual voting could not be deemed radical as it had been in place for a decade under Section 4(e). In sum, Puerto Rican voters challenged the discriminatory nature of English only systems and won, to their benefit and the benefit of all other language minority citizens nationwide. The second major lesson of Section 5 coverage in New York City stems from its powerful effect of stemming discriminatory practices beyond redistricting plans. Redistricting, continued to be at the heart of the importance of the VRA in New York. In 1981 the councilmanic redistricting plan was passed but never precleared as required by law. This led to multiple suits by black and Latino voters that resulted in suspending the entire citywide primary elections just two days before the September election day. This victory put teeth into Section 5 and forced the City to justify the fact that they refused to create additional black and Latino council districts despite major demographic change. Weeks later the Department of Justice interposed an objection under Section 5 and the map was redrawn clearing the way for the eventual majority iof black, Asian American and Latino council men and women in this decade. From 1982 through 2006--the year Section 5 was reauthorized by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress-- additional objections were interposed by the Department of Justice to discriminatory redistricting plans including a 1991 objection to the NYC City Council plan and a 1992 objection to the NYS Assembly plan. Section 5 objections also addressed other practices beyond redistricting including switching the form of voting of community school board members in 1999; replacing elected school board members with appointed trustees in 1996; the creation of additional judgeships for state courts in 1994; failure to accurately translate names and instructions in the Chinese language in 1994; and failure to provide appropriate language assistance to Chinese voters in 1993. VRA compliance activity was not limited to Section 5 actual objections in the decades in which the City was covered. The Department of Justice continuously deployed Federal Observers to monitor the City for language assistance compliance for both Spanish and Asian languages. Indeed, from 1985 to 2004 alone 881 Federal Observers were dispatched to ensure compliance with the VRA. Moreover, Section 5 had a strong prophylactic effect in the City as measured by the impact of More Information Request letters issued by the Department of Justice to the City. These letters often stemmed discriminatory practices when the City withdrew its request for preclearance upon receiving the More Information Request letter--a regular occurrence throughout other Section 5 covered jurisdictions. One study by Luis Fraga and Maria Ocampo found that in the City alone from 1990 to 2005 113 letters were issued and 53 resulted in the equivalent of interposing an objection. The Effects of a Renewed VRA Today It is clear that the recent episodes of purging voters in Brooklyn and mis-deployment of Spanish language interpreters in the Congressional Democratic primaries in Congressman Rangel's district in Washington Heights would have been ameliorated if not completely avoided had Section Five been in effect after the Shelby County decision. The historical context described above demonstrates that these episodes of potentially discriminatory practices would have been addressed by the power of Section Five. Accordingly, its absence is sorely felt in the City. I end, however, with an example of the power of Section 5 in New York City in 2014 just months after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder earlier that year in June. The scene is a press conference in September 2014 on the steps of City Hall after the New York City Council voted to pass the Community Safety Act after then Mayor Bloomberg had vetoed the measure weeks before. Speaker Quinn was not in favor of the bill and noted her reservations. After considerable pressure from the minority members of the Council she allowed the bill to come to a vote. The legislation was intended to address some of the worst features of the notorious Stop & Frisk practices of the New York Police Department that by the end of the Bloomberg administration skyrocketed to over 4 million stops, predominately directed at black and Latino residents of the City with such a level of ineffectiveness that minimally 86% of those stopped were never charged with a crime or violation. The Mayor and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley insisted on preserving the practice going so far as painting a doomsday scenario or rampant violent crime if the practice were curbed. References to retrogressing to the Dinkins' administration--another example of Dog Whistle Politics--were all over the tabloids. The black and Latino members of the Council knew better. They listened to the voices of the victims of this abuse, they spearheaded hearings on the matter, they debated the efficacy and unjustness of the practice in the tabloids. In short they were being responsive to the needs of black, Latino and Asian-American voters. The Council voted that day to overcome the mayor's veto and enact that portion of the Community Safety Act. It was the first time in New York City history that the Council overcame a mayoral veto! The historical significance of the vote was not lost on me as I commented to the press how critical that vote became on a quintessential minority issue because it was directly attributed to the strength of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It was Section 5 that permitted council districts to be drawn to fully reflect black, Latino and Asian American voting strength going back to the 1980s when Section 5 was used to stop a discriminatory councilmanic redistricting plan. And it was Section 5 that preserved that minority voting strength in all subsequent decennial redistricting plans. Shelby County v. Holder may have taken that tool away but it's importance was nonetheless evident months later. I respectfully submit, that this is why Congress must restore this aspect of the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the importance of voting rights for all Americans across this country. With less than 50 days before Americans go to the polls to elect our next President and other elected officials, we are still faced with the harsh reality that this will be the first election in 50 years where Americans will not have the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today's Special Order hour is on behalf of the House Democratic Outreach and Engagement Task Force. I want to thank Assistant Leader Clyburn for his leadership on the task force and all of the members of the task force as we work together to make sure that we engage all Americans on the importance of voting. In fact, one of the first things the task force did was to host a series of voting rights forums across this Nation to put together a report that shows modern-day barriers to voting still exist. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed not only by legislation but, Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with the blood, sweat, and tears of so many Americans. In fact, all of us know of the courageous sacrifices of our very own John Lewis, but there were so many known and unknown foot soldiers that made it possible for America to live up to its ideals of democracy and justice for all. As a daughter of Selma, Alabama, I am painfully aware that the injustices suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago have not been fully vindicated. Although we no longer are required to count how many marbles are in a jar or recite how many counties there are in the State of Alabama, my proposition to you, Mr. Speaker, is that modern-day barriers to voting still exist. Those barriers may not be as overt as they were 50 years ago, but, Mr. Speaker, they are no less stained. They are no less important as those other barriers were. I have seen example after example, as the Representative of Alabama's Seventh Congressional District, of the modern-day barriers that exist to voting. Since the Supreme Court struck down critical parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, so many Members have taken to the floor--mostly Democrats--day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, urging our Republican colleagues to work with us to restore the essential protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Several of my Democratic colleagues, including myself, have hosted voting rights forums across this country to highlight the continued need for restoring the Voting Rights Act. Members have also introduced legislation. I, for one, am quite proud of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill that I sponsored, along with several other Members of the House, including Representative Linda T. Sanchez and Representative Judy Chu. Our bill, H.R. 2867, has over 187 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker. It actually answers the Supreme Court's challenge to come up with a modern-day formula by which to have preclearance provisions in the Voting Rights Act. I think it is so important, Mr. Speaker, and I know that so many will agree, that we make sure that we find these pernicious examples of restraining people's rights to vote on the front end because, after all, Mr. Speaker, once the elections have happened, you can't unring that bell. So the beauty of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was that it allowed preemptive efforts to stop discrimination in voting. Therefore, any changes in voting practices in the covered States had to be precleared by the Justice Department or by the D.C. Court of Appeals. This was quite important. I have to tell you that what the Shelby decision did was it struck down that key provision, section 4, which gave the covered States and provided the formula by which we know which States would be covered. Therefore, in the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court really issued a challenge to Congress to come up with a modern-day formula. It was the Supreme Court who said that we can't punish States like Alabama, the State from which I hail, and other southern States, for what happened 50 years ago. Congress must come up with a modern-day formula that talks about current efforts to restrict the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done in the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. I want you to know that, of the 187 sponsors we currently have, not one Republican has signed on. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the House of Representatives when voting rights becomes a partisan issue. Voting rights is an American issue. It is neither red nor blue but, rather, it is what our founding fathers fought for, drafted, and ensured that all Americans have a right, a fundamental right, to exercise that right to vote. After all, the integrity of our democracy depends upon every eligible voter being able to vote. Most recently, I was privileged to also join with my colleagues and my fellow House Members, Representative Mark Veasey of Texas and Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, and other Members of Congress, to launch the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus. The Caucus is committed to restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to its original state and restoring the vote to all suppressed voices in this Nation. I want to commend my fellow colleagues, Representatives Veasey and Scott, for their visionary leadership in starting this Caucus. I am honored to be a co-chair of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, and we will take as our charge to make sure that we fully restore all of the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In spite of these continued efforts, Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to see that State after State, including my own State, after the Shelby decision, instituted photo ID laws, voter-restrictive photo ID laws. So many of my colleagues, they say: Well, what is so restrictive about requiring a photo ID? After all, you need a photo ID in order to get on a plane or to get your passport. But I say to all of my colleagues who question the restrictive nature of photo IDs that not all Americans fly, not all Americans have a passport, but all Americans who are eligible have the fundamental right to vote. And we, the elected Representatives on behalf of these Americans, must not impede that most fundamental right. We should be looking at ways that we can encourage voting not discourage voting. After all, the fundamental foundation of our democracy is the right to vote. So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite important that we, in this House, do what so many of our predecessors have done and restore full protections on the right to vote. I wish I were alive when Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights into law. But I can tell you that there were no more fundamental seminal pieces of legislation that passed this omniscient House than the right to vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are still some of the most seminal pieces of legislation that this body has ever passed. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker: How can we, today, 50 years since the passage--53 years, to be exact--how can we stand on the cusp of electing another President and, for the first time in those 50 years, not have the full protections of the Voting Rights Act? It is, indeed, a sad day. But I know that this body will and should do the people's work. And the people's work is to allow all Americans who qualify, who have registered to vote, who turned 18--these Americans have the right to vote. I would love it if this body would pass an automatic voter registration bill. I have signed on to such a bill. But those bills don't get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and I am not sure why, Mr. Speaker, because nothing is more fundamental than to have every American, when they reach that certain age of 18, and they go and get their driver's license, be automatically registered to vote. We are not talking about protecting one class of voters against another class of voters. We are talking about protecting that fundamental right to vote for all Americans. Nothing seems more American and democratic than that. The sad reality is that old battles have become new again, and so many States have now really taken the Shelby decision and allowed themselves to put up restrictive laws. We are reminded that they are restrictive laws by the judicial system. Most recently, the Fourth Circuit overturned the North Carolina photo ID law, in which they said, point blank, that they were targeting--that that voter ID law targeted and discriminated against African American voters. They said that it did so with precision, Mr. Speaker. There is a fallacy that goes around that says that there is voter fraud rampant in America. Well, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that voter fraud does not exist in the volumes by which Americans think they do. A very recent poll by The Washington Post-ABC came out and said that over 50 percent of Americans believe that there is voter fraud. Well, I will have you know, Mr. Speaker, that study after study, including that by the Brennan Center, have shown that there are very few cases of voter fraud. In fact, their study, between the years of 2000 and 2014, a 14-year period, only showed 31 cases of voter impersonation. And I want you to know that many of those were, in fact, errors, errors in folks' names, when the III or the Junior of a person's name was confused with the Senior of that same name. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that voter fraud is not rampant, so I am not really sure why States like Alabama have instituted these photo ID laws. My State not only instituted a photo ID law but, last summer, my State, due to ``budgetary reasons,'' closed down more than 31 DMVs, mostly in areas that were disproportionately African American. So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if photo IDs are required, and the most popular form of the photo ID is a driver's license, how can that very State also close down opportunities, foreclosing opportunities for those citizens of that State to get a photo ID? My State also says that that photo ID is free. Well, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they may say it is free and, in fact, it is free if you can come along on those rare days in which the mobile goes through your city. But I want you to know that many of my constituents, many of whom were born in rural Alabama, many of whom were born over 80 years ago by midwife, those constituents don't have birth certificates. And those that do, well, in order to acquire a birth certificate, that costs money. You have to still be able to produce a birth certificate in order to get this ``free'' ID from the State of Alabama. So I submit to you that it is not free. I also submit to you that it is unfair that we put up such barriers. I am humbled every year by the pilgrimage that John Lewis takes with many of the Members of Congress in this body. Every year, for the past 18 years, he has taken a pilgrimage through my district. He goes back in time and allows those Members who travel with him to actually retrace his footsteps 50-plus years ago. We go to Birmingham, we go to Montgomery, and we end up, on that Sunday, reenacting Bloody Sunday, that moment in history, that seminal moment in history, in which he was bludgeoned on Edmund Pettus Bridge for the simple right to vote. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not go unnoticed by me, as I drive across the Edmund Pettus Bridge each time I go home to Selma to visit my parents, the sacrifices that ordinary Americans did in order to achieve what ultimately was an extraordinary feat. When you think of the fact that a young John Lewis, who was in college at the time, and so many who were out there marching for the right to vote were children, and when you think about the fact that ordinary Americans, collectively working together, achieved this extraordinary feat, it makes you realize how fragile the right to vote really is. I don't know how any of us can join hands with John Lewis and walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and not understand how important it is to rededicate ourselves to the fight that he once led. We, as elected Representatives of this great Nation, owe it to our own constituents to make sure that every eligible American has the right to vote. I have to tell you that one of the most moving opportunities for me, as a Member of Congress, was in 2015, when I got a chance to be in my hometown and to welcome over 100 Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, two Presidents, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, to my hometown. It was to celebrate America's promise, a promise that became reality through the sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears of average Americans. We all came on that beautiful day, March 7, 2015. It was glorious, but it was a kumbaya moment in time. We owe more to the sacrifices of those foot soldiers like John Lewis than a gold medal. Although, I was proud to put forth that bill, and even prouder to be able to bestow the gold medal to those foot soldiers that did march in the Selma-to- Montgomery March. It was a great day. But, Mr. Speaker, we came back to this body, to this House of Representatives, and we did absolutely nothing to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There have been several bills that have come forth. There has been the Voting Rights Amendment Act that had bipartisan support, both from Congressman Conyers and from Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. That bill didn't get more than 30 cosponsors. Then, of course, there is my bill, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, which has over 187 sponsors. We have to meet in the middle, Mr. Speaker, because voting rights are so essential. And on this, less than 50 days before we have a Presidential election, it is simply unacceptable that we go without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. What do I mean by that? What is at stake really by not having those full protections? Well, we witnessed, in the primary in Arizona in Maricopa County-- this was a county that was covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but, because of the Shelby decision, there was no more preclearance. And so, this county in Arizona went from a height of 400 polling stations down--that was in 2012--down to 60 polling stations in 2016. There were long lines, Mr. Speaker, in Maricopa County. People had to wait hours for the right to vote. I would venture to guess, had the Shelby decision not occurred, and we had the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that there would be no way that Maricopa County, Arizona, would have been able to change those polling stations and reduce the number of the polling stations to 60 from 400 had there been preclearance. So what is at stake really is the integrity of our democracy. What is at stake is the fact that we in America should not have to wait hours to vote. We in America should not have to produce documents that we do not have to vote. I think it is ironic that in many of these States you can present a gun permit license with a photo and be able to vote, but you can't produce a student ID from a State university and vote. I believe that what is at stake right now is the integrity of our democracy, and that all of us should be outraged if even one person is denied the right to vote. This is a very important, very important issue that I, again, submit to you is neither Republican nor Democrat. It is truly bipartisan, and that is the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my colleague.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as I close out this Special Order on voting rights, I would be remiss if I didn't say that, as a daughter of Selma, I can think of no more noble thing for me to fight for than voting rights and the full restoration of those voting rights. After all, it was because of the blood, sweat, and tears in my district and in my hometown that we have so many elected officials that are of color. It is no small wonder why we are seeing such efforts to go out and make sure that people don't have a right to vote when elected officials say in their remarks as they are introducing legislation for restrictive voting photo IDs, make comments like, ``Well, the people that we are restricting will only be Democratic voters.'' That just suggests to me that the reason why these restrictive voting photo ID laws were being promulgated was to do exactly that--suppress certain groups of voters. That is absolutely unacceptable and un-American. I could also tell you that one of the greatest moments for me on this House floor was when I had an opportunity to escort, as my State of the Union guest in 2015, Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson, who was 104 when she came to the State of the Union in 2015. You see, Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson, on Bloody Sunday in 1965, was bludgeoned on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, along with Congressman John Lewis. But at 104 years old, she was so excited to come to this august body and to hear President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address. She was excited not because she would get an opportunity to meet the first African American President, but she was excited because she got a chance to see this elected body at work. She told me that one of her proudest moments was not only casting a ballot, but she told me that one of her proudest moments was to be the first African American woman to be on the ballot in the State of Alabama running for Congress. She ran, Mr. Speaker, for this seat, the Seventh Congressional seat that I am so fortunate to have. She ran for that seat in 1964. So when I think about Miss Amelia Boynton, I not only think about Bloody Sunday and her sacrifice on that bridge, but I also think about her courage, the courage of this African American woman to have the audacity to think that she could be a Member of Congress from the great State of Alabama in 1964. I know I get to walk these hallowed Halls and I get to stand here today and speak with you, Mr. Speaker, because of her courage and her sacrifice. It is not lost on me that she is looking down now wondering what that sacrifice truly meant to America, that we could 50 years later have a Court case that totally dismantled the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, when Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson came to the State of the Union, we had an opportunity to meet and talk with President Barack Obama before his speech. I will never forget being in the holding room, if you will, behind this Chamber. As many of the members of his Cabinet would come into the room, they would say the same thing: ``Miss Boynton, we stand on your shoulders.'' ``Miss Boynton, we are so glad that you made those sacrifices on that bridge because we get to do what we do now because you made those sacrifices. We stand on your shoulders.'' I can tell you that person after person--Secretary of State, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of HUD--they were all saying the same thing. By the time the Attorney General came up to her and said, ``Miss Boynton, I stand on your shoulders,'' she looked up at him and said, ``Get off my shoulders. Do your own work.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, at 104 years old, she had the temerity to say, ``Do your own work.'' It is not enough that we stand on the shoulders of giants like Amelia Boynton Robinson and John Lewis; we have to do our own work. And so I say to this body that we can do our own work by protecting that sacred right to work, and that we should do our own work, as we dedicate ourselves to the proposition that these average, ordinary Americans had the nerve, the audacity to fight for. If they could fight for it over 50 years ago, we can fight for it today. I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead the Special Order hour on voting rights not only as a native of Selma, Alabama, but as a very proud, proud beneficiary of the strength and power of the right to vote and of their sacrifices. I say in closing, I hope that my fellow colleagues will join us by signing on to H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I urge all of my colleagues to do so. It is in some way, some small way, with a huge impact potentially, that we can ensure that this great democracy lives on. After all, if one American is denied access to the ballot box, it does, in fact, go to the integrity of all of the election process. So much is at stake not only in this Presidential election, but in every election, because in every election, Americans use their vote as their voice. So when you don't have a vote, you don't have a voice in this great democracy. No vote, no voice; we should remember that as elected officials. As we grapple with the opportunity that we have to come up with a modern-day formula, I would be willing to sit with any of my Republican colleagues to come up with a modern-day formula that would work in both Houses and by both parties. I think it is critically important that we do this work. I think that there is no greater work that we could be doing than to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am also reminded of what Mrs. Boynton said when she finally did meet the President. It was quite a moment for all of us who were present when he finally walked into that small holding room, and he kneeled beside her and he took her hand and he said, ``Mrs. Boynton, I don't know how to say thank you enough. I get to give a speech as a President of the United States in a few minutes, and it is because of your sacrifice.'' And Mrs. Boynton, at 104, without missing a beat, looked up at our President and said, ``Make it a good one.'' Yes, she said, ``Make this speech a good one.'' Why? Because of the sacrifices that she and so many brave Americans had on that bridge. We, as Americans, who are beneficiaries of that amazing legacy, owe it to them to make every day a good one, to make everything we do good because people sacrificed for us to have the rights that we have. So I remember ``Make it a good one,'' and I say to my colleagues, let us make it a good one right here in this august body by passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 and fully restoring the voting rights protections of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the ongoing problem of voter suppression in this country and the pressing need to restore the vote. The American people are tired. Tired of the lies, tired of the excuses and tired of being silenced. Our country was founded on the strong values of democracy and those principles are embedded throughout the Constitution. Why then must we continue to fight and ask the leaders of this country to support an essential right--the right to vote? Instead of making changes, Republicans in Congress are making excuses--excuses to justify suppressive voting laws and false alarms of an alleged concern of voter fraud. This is an election year and there is too much at stake. Enough is enough. Following the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelly v. Holder, states all across the country put in place new suppressive voting laws including new regulations for voter IDs under the guise of fighting against the problem of voter fraud. Mr. Speaker, too often a lie can be viewed as truth simply because the lie is repeated over and over and over again. But here is the truth--one of the most comprehensive studies to date found that between 2000 and 2014, out of nearly one billion votes cast in America, there were only 31 possible cases of voter impersonation fraud. 31 out of one billion. Is voter fraud truly a problem in this country? The numbers and facts reveal quite the opposite. The cost/benefit analysis simply doesn't add up. Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters are potentially being blocked from the ballot box because of these new suppressive voter ID laws. The voter fraud myth has been used as a pathetic excuse to justify the silencing of select Americans nation-wide. Where there is no vote, there is no voice. We can no longer allow Americans to be silenced and subjected to these charades. Republican leaders cannot continue to say they support voting rights, while refusing to restore the Voting Rights Act. They cannot continue to say they disavow racism, while refusing to restore the Voting Rights Act and protect against racial discrimination at the polls. The hypocrisy has to stop. The repeated lies need to end. We are in desperate need for immediate action in this country. These threats to our democracy and civil rights bar thousands of Americans from their right to the voting polls. I am committed to push for improving and strengthening voting rights legislation that makes voting easier, not harder for the American people. On this Restoration Tuesday, I give us all the charge to battle against the continued suppression of the American vote and stand strong by our principles of democracy, liberty and justice for all. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should join the 168 members of Congress and support H.R. 2867--the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. Let's restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of Robert Lee Brown from Alabama, age 26, who was killed in his sleep by a friend of an abusive boyfriend, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call votes held on September 13, 2016, I was inescapably detained handling important matters related to my District and the State of Alabama. If I had been present, I would have voted NO on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5620, NO on H. Res. 859, NO on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3590, and NO on H. Res. 858. Also, I would have voted NO on final passage of H.R. 3590, YES on final passage of H.R. 5587, and YES on H. Res. 729.