Date: 2006-07-13
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. 25 years ago I stood on this floor in support of this bill. I worked with both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member at that time not only on this bill. but on the Martin Luther King holiday and on the fair housing legislation. I am very proud of that activity. I rise in support of the bill that is on the floor. But I will rise in support of several of the amendments as well. I want to make several comments on this. One is. as a Catholic. I believe in the immaculate conception. but there is only one that I am aware of and that is not this bill. The suggestion that we cannot look at this bill and look at any carefully tailored amendments I think is an erroneous one. I had a simple amendment that I offered before the Rules Committee. I had no objection. in fact. it was considered to be the lelast objectionable. if objectionable at all. but I was told if we adopted my amendment it would upset a carefully crafted delicate balance. My amendment was simply to allow three counties in California and one township in New Hampshire - to bail out. as we used to call the provision. because they had gotten in because of a curious historical moment. That is. in 1972. at the -height of the buildup of the Vietnam war we had large numbers of people at military installations. we had three counties in California that had military installations. Those peo-. ple who were there were counted for purposes of the census. many of them didnt vote there because they voted in their home states or their home districts. and those counties have been caught in this preclearance ever since. It just seems a matter of fairness to * allow them out. and yet there was no opportunity to provide that. And the reason I bring that up is this: If you look at the Supreme Court decisions. the Federal Court decisions on this. they have said this law is constitutional only so long as it is congruent. that is. related to the Statesponsored discrimination for which there is historical record. And that it is proportionate to the damage done. both of those things. and my fear is that if we dont craft legislation that recognizes that. we dont give evidence of the fact that we crafted it. the Supreme Court could say that perhaps we havent done the job. and then this extraordinary remedy in section 5 is no longer valid. Why is it extraordinary? Because it is an extraordinary imposition on a jurisdiction to say that they have to have any decision they make precleared by those at the Justice Department. But the Court has said. as long as you have those two things. congruency and proportionality. they will allow it. That is why I have some question about extending it for a full 25 years. Back in 1982. I think there was ample reason for us to .extend it for 25 years. You would still have a. sense of a temporary natpre. But to do it now.. I think does call into question whether we are following what the courts have told us. So all I would say is. I hope Members. while supporting the underlying legislation. will look at each amendment and see whether it helps undergird the constitutionality of this worthy bill that has done great things. But lets make sure we continue to carefully tailor it to the circumstances before us.