[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 4844
FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006
=======================================================================
MARKUP
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARKUP HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-283 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
VERNON EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida California
CANDICE MILLER, Michigan Ranking Minority Member
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York ZOE LOFGREN, California
Will Plaster, Staff Director
George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H.R. 4844, FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:11 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ehlers, Mica, Doolittle, Miller,
Millender-McDonald, Brady and Lofgren.
Staff Present: Peter Sloan, Professional Staff Member; Paul
Vinovich, Staff Director; Gineen Beech, Counsel; George
Shevlin, Minority Staff Director; Charles Howell, Minority
Chief Counsel; Tom Hicks, Minority Professional Staff; Matt
Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff; and Janelle Hu, Minority
Professional Staff.
The Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Committee on House Administration will come to order. I
apologize again for the delay. We will proceed with our opening
statements, both my part and that of the ranking member. We
presume that we will have a sufficient number here at the end
of that time. If not, we will call a brief recess until we have
them. I am sorry that the disruption took place today, but we
will proceed as best we can.
First, I would like to advise members of our audience here
today that all cellular phones, pagers and other electronic
equipment must be silenced to prevent interruption of our
business. Thank you very much. I will not have any problem
complying with that myself, since I lost my cell phone on the
way to this meeting.
Today the committee meets to mark up H.R. 4844, the Federal
Election Integrity Act of 2006. Over the past few months, this
committee has received testimony from election experts, local
officials and concerned citizens about the issues raised by
this bill. We had hearings here in Washington, in Las Cruces,
New Mexico, and in Phoenix, Arizona on ID requirements and
voting by noncitizens. All views were represented at these
hearings, and they gave us valuable insights into the arguments
for and against the proposals to require voters to show an ID
at the polls.
They also revealed some strong disagreements about the
wisdom of imposing such a requirement. To some, this proposal
is a simple, commonsense proposal and a necessary safeguard
against voter fraud. To others it represents a dangerous threat
to some citizens' abilities to access the polls.
While that debate may be heated and ongoing in Washington,
D.C., it seems the American people have made up their mind. A
recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81 percent of
those surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting. Likewise,
the bipartisan Carter Baker Commission on Federal Election
Reform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the
report they issued last year. While the division on this issue
may be partisan here in Congress, elsewhere it seems a large
bipartisan majority has concluded that requiring ID is a
necessary reform.
The committee has had H.R. 4844, the Federal Election
Integrity Act, pending before it since Mr. Hyde introduced the
bill in March of this year. Today I will offer a substitute
amendment that makes some changes to the bill but preserves its
fundamental features, a requirement to prove citizenship and
present identification to vote in federal elections in the
United States.
I want to thank Mr. Hyde for his leadership and his work on
this important issue and thank him also for working with us on
making the changes contained in the substitute. Basically we
have sought to extend deadlines in oursubstitute to make it
more functional and easy to implement. The substitute amendment has
been provided to all committee members. I will now describe its
provisions.
The amendment will require presentation of a government-
issued photo ID to vote in federal elections, effective
November 2008. This extends the effective date of H.R. 4844, as
introduced, by two years. Though most of the voting public
already has an ID that can meet this requirement, there is a
percentage of eligible voters who do not have an ID, so these
extra two years will give them time to acquire it. To ensure
that eligible citizens are voting, the amendment will require
presentation by 2010 of an ID that could not have been obtained
without providing proof of citizenship. This replaces the
requirement of proving citizenship at registration with a
requirement to prove citizenship when obtaining the ID. Once
obtained, this ID can be used to prove both citizenship and
identity when voting.
The Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act, which
will require people to prove their legal status in this country
to get a real ID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008.
Citizens will be able to use the IDs they obtain under this
process to vote in elections starting in 2010 and for all
elections thereafter. The ID will have to include some
indication of citizenship so poll workers and other election
officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a citizen.
Pursuant to the amendment, those who arrive at the polls
without an ID will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot.
These ballots will be counted if the person returns and
presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48
hours. To help those who need, but cannot afford, the ID to
vote, the amendment requires states to provide them free of
cost to the indigent, and authorizes federal funds to reimburse
states for the costs of doing so.
I think these changes improve the bill and will make it
easier to implement and easier for citizens to vote. Once
implemented, we will have an important safeguard in place that
will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore
confidence in it. By putting in place procedures that ensure
that voting is limited to eligible citizens, we can encourage
participation and increase turnout.
The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all
the claims that disenfranchisement would ensue after enactment
of the proof of citizenship and ID requirements, testimony in
Phoenix revealed that after they adopted Proposition 200, that
registration, which required citizenship and ID, went up 15
percent after the requirement to prove citizenship went into
effect.
The fact is, people are encouraged to vote when they
believe that their vote will count and their vote will not be
cancelled out by an illegal vote.
I know there will be some who oppose the action we will
take today, and there will be some controversy generated by the
proposal. I wish it were not so. It seems we should be able to
agree that voting should be limited to citizens of the United
States, because that has been the law for years. If we can
agree on that, we should be able to agree that our voting
systems must have procedures in place to ensure it. We should
all be able to agree that every eligible citizen should be able
to vote, to vote only once, and to be assured that their vote
will not be diluted by an illegal vote. If we agree on that, we
should be able to agree that making people identify themselves
when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard.
Some members have told me that the ID requirement is too
much trouble. But every day, millions of Americans show a
picture ID to pay by check, to board an airplane, to buy
alcohol or tobacco. Surely the sanctity of the ballot warrants
as much protection as these other activities. Our voting rights
are too important to rely on an honor system. We need to make
sure we have procedures in place that protect the right to vote
and make sure only eligible citizens are able to do so.
I hope all Members will recognize the need for these
necessary reforms. They will advance the security of our
electoral systems, increase confidence in their integrity and
reduce the opportunities for fraud.
At this time I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member,
Ms. Millender-McDonald for her opening statement.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.008
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
and good morning to you and to all of our guests here this
morning. This committee has previously conducted a number of
hearings to gather input on the question of imposing a Federal
proof of citizenship requirement in order to vote. Those
hearings documented, among other things, that the imposition of
such a proof of citizenship requirement would adversely impact
millions of American citizens. Those impacted include the least
among us, the elderly, disabled, the poor and ethnic
minorities. And it would clearly have a disproportionate impact
on women and many college students.
Such a requirement would impose new and costly burdens and,
in many cases, insurmountable obstacles on American citizens
trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
Now, I am not speaking about illegal immigrants here,
because there are laws prohibiting such persons from voting. I
am speaking about the burden on American citizens. Many
Americans could be affected by this provision. Former Election
Assistance Commissioner Ray Martinez testified before this
committee that his 86-year-old World War II veteran father was
born on a rural ranch in Texas, far away from hospitals, far
away from birth certificates and far away from documentary
proof of citizenship. He could be denied the right to vote if
this becomes law, even though he has legally voted in every
election that the commissioner could remember.
Moreover, in order to comply with his State's new photo ID,
Representative Ike Skelton was not permitted to use his
government-issued congressional ID to obtain a State-issued
non-driver ID to vote. Instead, Congressman Skelton was told he
needs a passport or a birth certificate in order to acquire a
non-driver ID. I am concerned that the very same card that may
be used to vote in the legislature on this floor in Congress
does not satisfy identification requirements in Mr. Skelton's
State.
During the hearings, it became apparent that the need for a
proof-of-citizenship requirement is not documented by studies
or by empirical data, but rather by anecdotal information. Even
those who came before us during the hearing of Mr. Hyde's bill
admitted that they had no quantitative data to support their
argument.
The Nation's electoral process is not perfect. There are
millions of American citizens who are affected by the
misallocation of voting machines, the inconsistent treatment of
provisional ballots, the many types of registration obstacles,
the illegal purging of voting rolls and so on. These are real,
documented problems which should be commanding our attention.
Yet, without validation that voting by noncitizens is a
significant problem, we are investing our legislative resources
on legislation, which, in my view, constitutes the classic
solution in search of a problem. Such legislation as the Voting
Rights Act, the Motor Voter Act, the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act, HAVA, Help America Vote Act, and
other Federal laws are intended to expand and enhance citizens'
constitutional rights to vote. But we are starting down a new
path, one which erects obstacles to citizen participation, all
in the name of addressing a conceived problem, which is the
result of an abject failure by this Congress and another
attempt to distort the real issues.
Let me be perfectly clear. Anyone who breaks the law by
attempting to register to vote illegally should be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law. And we have adequate laws in
place today to address this concern.
However, partisan attempts to burden our Nation with
troublesome proof of citizenship requirements are not the
direction our committee, this country, or anyone should be
heading. This committee should focus on ensuring that all
Americans who are eligible to vote are able to do so without
having to wait for many long hours to cast a vote, an
unforgivable scene we witnessed in Ohio just 2 years ago.
Further, this committee should be concentrating on ways to
ensure all Americans that their ballots will be fully accounted
for and their votes will be accurately counted. The Congress
and this committee should be addressing these real voter
issues, electoral fraud perpetrated on Americans, voter
intimidation, threats, misinformation and other forms of voting
suppression that are still disenfranchising American citizens
today.
As we heard from witnesses at our June hearing and read in
the letters submitted by concerned civil rights and other
organizations, there will be many unfortunate and unavoidable
consequences if the proposed identification barrier is enacted.
The American Association of Retired People, AARP, stated that,
and I quote, ``that new State laws and implementing rules will
significantly limit opportunities to register or to vote. Many
persons who are qualified to vote but do not have ready access
to documents such as birth certificates, driver's license and
passports, that never have been deemed necessary in the past,
may lose their fundamental right to vote.'' End of quote.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter
to the Committee on House Administration, dated June 27, 2006,
be made part of the record of this markup.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.010
The Chairman. Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you. The question of
citizenship was addressed and extends the the Help America Vote
Act wherein Congress mandated that mail-in registration forms
include a box that asked the question, Are you a citizen of the
United States of America? If your answer is no, your form is
automatically rejected. If your answer is yes, and you are
discovered not to be a citizen, you are subject to Federal
prosecution. Penalties are stiff, and have successfully served
as a deterrent to misrepresentation. Noncitizens would be
foolish to risk up to 5 years in prison and deportation to cast
an illegal ballot.
Instead of wasting our citizens' time and hard-earned money
in creating unnecessary obstacles to the ballot box, the
Congress should be about strengthening and enforcing our
existing laws before adding new and unnecessary laws to the
books. Minorities and the elderly are particularly at risk of
disenfranchisement because they are less likely than other
citizens to have the other required documentation. For example,
many of the elderly do not have birth certificates because they
were born during a time when children were born at home and
their births were not recorded by a governmental agency. In
numerous studies, a larger percent of African American adults
reported that they lack a passport or birth certificate,
compared to the percentage of all adultssurveyed.
Some have suggested that the populace could use a passport
as proof of citizenship. However, according to the State
Department, only 23 percent of Americans possess a passport,
and the cost of obtaining one is nearly $100. This amount may
not sound like much to us folks here in Washington, but my
constituents, who often struggle to pay for housing, medicine,
and gas to drive to work, would find this additional and
unnecessary expense excessive.
Requiring a government-issued photo ID to register and vote
is not the answer either. As for U.S. citizens born overseas,
obtaining the necessary citizenship documents costs hundreds of
dollars, all to address an unsubstantiated fear that
noncitizens are affecting the outcome of Federal elections.
Instead of erecting additional barriers which suppress
citizen participation, we must strengthen voting rights and
work to get the 40 percent of already registered voters who did
not participate in the last election to become active
participants. Our efforts should be spent on enfranchising
voters and revitalizing our democracy, not erecting new
barriers by requiring citizenship documentation. Our time,
energy and resources should go to addressing the rampant
intimidation tactics that continue to surface with each new
election cycle.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that voter fraud is wrong. But we
should not punish every American, especially the elderly, the
disabled or the poor, from expensive or overly burdensome
requirements that address a so-called noncitizen voting
strawman, which do nothing to increase civic participation.
As I have done in the past, I will continue to fight to
make our voting system as good as it can possibly be, free of
flaws and defects. But in doing so, I will also fight against
the imposition of unnecessary burdens and obstacles to
registration and to voting, as well as policy, which will
result in the suppression of our citizens' right to vote.
We are missing the boat today with this misguided
legislation instead of working to promote the rights of
American citizens to vote. I look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and other members to achieve this goal. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you for your statement.
I am willing to consider other statements if you wish, but
in view of the time I would hope you would keep them brief if
anyone wishes to offer any. I see none, so we will proceed with
the discussion.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that H.R. 4844 be
considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.017
The Chairman. The Chair now offers an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and asks unanimous consent that it be
considered as read. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0283A.027
The Chairman. Is there any discussion on the Chairman's
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from California.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Just a few questions on your
amendment to--your substitute amendment to the bill. There were
some questions that I wanted to raise. I have noticed that you
are asking that each State establish a program to provide photo
identifications. Are we suggesting that we impose an unfunded
mandate here?
The Chairman. I would have to ask you to clarify that. We
do provide that the federal government will reimburse any
states that incur any expense in the process of providing a
proof of citizenship and preparing a photo ID.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. So are we reimbursing the States
with the funding that is imposed through your authorization in
the appropriation here on--it is line 23, part 7, you are
asking for the authorization of appropriations.
Now, is this, again, Mr. Chairman, different from the
appropriation that is already in place where there is an $800
million shortage of funding already for the EAC? Or is this an
additional appropriation request?
The Chairman. I am not aware of an $800 million
shortfallfunding for the EAC. But in any event, this follows the same
pattern as I mentioned earlier. States require photo identification for
a number of functions, even buying cigarettes, and this continues in
that same pattern, saying if you vote, you must provide a photo ID.
Certainly the right to vote is far more important than the right to buy
cigarettes. And I am not sure what unfunded mandate you could be
referring to, other than one we have paid for in this bill, which is to
aid citizens in establishing their citizenship and getting proof of
citizenship.
I might also mention that the REAL ID Act, which has
already passed into law, does provide many of the same--carries
many of the same provisions.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I suppose what I was referring to
in terms of the appropriation that was found in your section
297(a) was--I referred to the Title II funding grants, to
States under HAVA, and that is the shortage that is still
pending before the Congress.
The Chairman. Under HAVA, yes.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. But this appropriation is in
addition to that.
The Chairman. That is correct.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Miller. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman
from Michigan, Ms. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
appreciate your leadership on this issue. I think it is really
an important issue. And, you know, so many places around our
Nation have had experiences with fraudulent voting practices,
and the Help America Vote Act, I think, went a long way to
negating many of them.
But as you know, Mr. Chairman, we had a recent example in
Michigan, actually in our last mayoral race in the city of
Detroit, where the incumbent, Kwame Kilpatrick, and the
challenger was Freeman Hendricks--and Freeman Hendricks called
for, after the election, he called for a photo identification
in very strong terms, and a number of people in the city of
Detroit were calling for photo identification there.
It was interesting because, actually at that time the city
of Detroit had 637,000 registered voters, but the unfortunate
thing was the U.S. Census actually said that Detroit only had
630,000 people that were eligible to register to vote. So the
new city clerk has done a number of things in the city of
Detroit. But I point that out. I thought that was a very
interesting experience that our State had gone through.
And also, in light of the fact that several years ago,
actually John Engler was still the Governor at that time, I
forget exactly what year, the State legislation passed a piece
of legislation requiring photo identification in Michigan. It
has been held up because of a previous Attorney General's
opinion that said it was unconstitutional. But it is currently
before our Michigan Supreme Court where all the expectations
are a favorable ruling that the legislation is constitutional.
I think it is very, very important that we operate on any
kind of election reform in the true spirit of bipartisanship.
And I do believe that this piece of legislation meets those
standards, particularly when you think of the fact that one of
the--actually the Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform,
which was obviously a very bipartisan group, did issue a
recommendation as part of their findings that we should have.
The Federal Government should pass and all States should have a
photo identification, and that it be required in order for them
to vote. It would be just a huge deterrent, I think, on voter
fraud that, unfortunately, we do see in some instances still.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to tell you how
much we appreciate your perfecting legislation here. I think
your amendment has some very, very good improvements to the
legislation, particularly ensuring, as was just debated here
and discussed here, that any individual that could not afford
an ID, either a driver's license or a State identification
card, a voter registration card, what have you, that one be
provided for them. I think this certainly negates any argument
about the possibility of the concept of a poll tax or what have
you.
And I also want to appreciate that you have taken full
advantage, I think, in your mark here about the identification
requirements that this Congress passed in regards to the REAL
ID Act. And that, of course, has--is going to go a very long
way to making sure that the breeder identification document
that is utilized to be issuing driver's licenses, State
identification cards, what have you, that the individual States
are going to be able to be certain that those persons are who
they say they are. And so I very much look forward to
supporting your amendment and the amended version of this bill
as well. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. I recognize the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I just had a couple of quick questions for
clarification. I think I know the answer, but I want to make
sure. In your substitute, wouldn't it be true that the
requirement for the photo ID would be imposed without regard to
appropriations, but that reimbursement would be subject to the
appropriations process?
The Chairman. I am not quite sure what you are getting at.
Ms. Lofgren. Well what I am getting at is that we would be
requiring States to implement the ID system. We are authorizing
the payment, but we are not the Appropriations Committee. If
the Appropriations Committee does not appropriate, the mandate
would go forward without funding.
The Chairman. But normally the appropriators do follow up
on authorizations.
Ms. Lofgren. That has not been my experience.
The Chairman. On a situation like this, where----
Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, on the affidavit
opportunity that is present in HAVA, isn't it correct that in
your amendment that the affidavit that allows an American
citizen who does not have--cannot obtain documentation--to
swear under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen and
then proceed, would be repealed because those underlying
documents would have to be provided within 48 hours?
The Chairman. Well, clearly the amendment, as the original
bill, requires a proof of citizenship. This is not a new idea.
It has been around a long time. There are states, especially,
most recently, Arizona, which has passed this requirement. It
has been implemented. It has to be reviewed in the courts, but
so far the courts have ruled favorably on it.
What I would envision, if we don't do a bill like this, is
we are going to have a huge hodgepodge across the nation,where
every state will pass its own bill. They will not necessarily all be in
agreement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, if I may, and I will have an amendment
later, but--and I will reserve some further comments for then.
But I would just note that the right to vote is protected in
the Constitution. It is serious. We all agree that only
American citizens have the right to vote. That is not in
dispute.
The question is whether we are going to disenfranchise
people. The right to buy cigarettes is not in the Constitution.
The right to drive a car is not in the Constitution. The right
to board an airplane is not in the Constitution. The right to
vote is sacred and needs to be dealt with in a way this is
separate. And I thank the gentleman for yielding for my
question.
The Chairman. Any further comments?
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. I just don't understand some things that happen.
We are trying to have a voter turnout throughout the country
and in my State of Pennsylvania, and I just can't help telling
you that this has to hurt and add to voter apathy by making
them go through another couple steps. Why I say a couple steps,
when you are born in a hospital and you get a certificate from
a doctor and you have your fingerprint and your heel print,
that is not a birth certificate. You have to take that to an
agency, a State agency, and then get a birth certificate. So
that is another step.
First, you have to find that you were born, and then a lot
of people that weren't born in hospitals have that problem
getting that piece of paper. And in the State of Pennsylvania
everybody--a lot of States are different. That then has to go
to another agency and then they give you a certificate of
birth. That doesn't have a photo ID on it.
And the problem I have is--there are a lot of problems that
I have. And number one, if the election were tomorrow, I
couldn't be allowed to vote. And I don't have a birth
certificate and I don't have a passport. And I can't vote. I
guess I have, to be able to vote for myself in November, well,
it won't take effect. But if this bill took effect I have to go
do that. Now I have got the wherewithal to do that, but I'm
afraid that a whole lot of other people don't. And we are
putting those people at hardship. And then again we are making
it harder for people to vote. I like to make it easier for
people to vote.
And the other thing I guess, I guess maybe it is the
larceny that I have in me from time to time. Just because
somebody shows proper ID of a person doesn't mean that that is
that person. And I think that anybody that wants to vote and
will vote and is going to vote that may not be a citizen, may
not be registered but wants to vote for a person because they
have the--whatever reason they want to vote for --and they are
not the person they say they are, I don't think any kind of
piece of paper can stop that. I don't think that that
automatically says because I have a piece of paper saying that
I am Joe Jones that I am Joe Jones. I think people do do things
and can do things and a piece of paper doesn't necessarily stop
fraud, stop voter fraud.
In the State of Pennsylvania we have a law. You have to
have identification for the first time you vote. But you don't
have to have it--we vote every 6 months--you don't have to have
it every time you vote after that. You may have to have it
again if you are voting in another polling place, for whatever
reason, in case you move and you had to reregister. But you
don't just show it every single time. And it does cause
problems. It causes lines and it has--and it does turn people
away.
And in this country, in the State of Pennsylvania, in the
great city of Philadelphia where I am from, we like to try to
allow people, make it easier to make them vote. And in my
opinion this is making it harder.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you. And I would simply observe, many
states have different practices. And we have had children in
California and Michigan. In both cases the birth certificate
was sent to us without having to go and acquire it. I don't
want to get into a lengthy argument about the comments that you
have made, because I know we are going to have amendments and
we will have to debate those as well. Are there any other? The
gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly. I
appreciated the gentleman from Pennsylvania's comments. I
respectfully have a differing view of what this piece of
legislation could actually do, because having been a former
secretary of state and done everything that we possibly could
to encourage voter registration, in fact, in Michigan, we
actually are the genesis of Motor Voter. It actually happened
in the State of Michigan. And as a result of that, we had
always in the 90 percentile, depending. Some years 89 percent,
sometimes 93, 94 percent of every person in the State who was
eligible to vote registered to vote. We were doing voter
registration drives at every community college and every
university and everywhere we could think about to make sure
people were registered to vote.
And yet, for whatever reason, we never got any more
participation in Michigan than what the national average was
usually. So there are a number of reasons that people in the
elections industry don't understand why people won't exercise
that most important franchise, their right to vote. And we all
want to encourage people to vote. I think one of the reasons
that they perhaps won't vote, particularly younger people, is
because they read these stories about voter fraud or what have
you. And then they think that their vote won't count or they
are not certain that we are ensuring the integrity of the
system. And I do believe actually by passing this piece of
legislation, we could encourage additional voter participation.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes. I recognize the ranking member.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Just kind of piggybacking on what
the gentlewoman has said out of Michigan. When you have
headlines like this, in yesterday's Washington Post, ``Some
Voters Left Exercising Only the Right to Vent.'' When you say
why is it, you don't understand why a lot of folks do not vote.
They come up against those issues, in the case yesterday in
Maryland, ere there were many voters who went to vote and they
were surrounded by this inoperable electronic voting machine;
in addition to that, a dwindling supply of back up paper
ballots.
And in addition to that, they had these cards, Mr.
Chairman, that were presented to voters to vote, and they were
supposed to vote with these cards, and yet those cards were not
available at the time they came to vote.
So there are many people, many voters, who become veryweary
of those real issues that we are talking about, that are impeding
voters from going to the polls and actually casting the vote, to vote.
These are the issues that I am talking about that should be commanding
our attention, and not anything that would be subjected to further
voter disenfranchisement.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute when you are ready for me.
The Chairman. If there is no more discussion? Are there
other amendments?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, on your amendment, if I could
just briefly make a point that I neglected to make. And that is
just on the whole overall issue of birth certificates. And I
won't mention the name of the staff person, but it recently has
come to my attention that a staff person who I know here on the
Hill, he is a victim of ID theft. The perpetrator of the ID
theft went to a southern State, obtained this guy's birth
certificate with the stolen ID information, used that birth
certificate to obtain a driver's license, and this staffer
found out when he started getting, you know, credit check
information because he was buying things, because he is getting
credit cards based on you know, the credit history he had
established.
So having--there has been no evidence in any of the
hearings I have seen that people are either sneaking into the
country to vote or stealing ID to vote, but certainly there is
no guarantee that a birth certificate means the person is who
they are. So I just think it is important to put that in the
context of the world we live in here today. And we all are
aware of the ID theft problem, and I want to make that point in
the discussion of the overall bill. And I thank the gentleman
for recognizing me.
The Chairman. If there is no more discussion, are there any
amendments to the Chairman's amendment in the nature of a
substitute?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer
an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
The Chairman. The Chairman reserves the right to object.
You may proceed to offer your amendment.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I offer my perfecting amendment to your amendment in
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4844. And what this
amendment does, the amendment improves voter access to the
polls, prevents election fraud and supports election integrity.
My amendment, the purpose of this amendment is, one, to
establish uniform standards for the treatment of provisional
ballots; number two, clarifies criminal penalties for voter
fraud under the Help America Vote Act; and three, provides to
the States additional fraud prevention methodology.
The purpose of section 2 is to ensure that every eligible
provisional ballot in a Federal election is counted after
election officials review the computerized statewide voter
registration list to determine that the individual is eligible
to vote either at the polling place at which the individual
casts the vote or at any other polling place in the State.
Section 3. The purpose of this section is to criminalize
the practice of falsifying information regarding an
individual's eligibility to vote or misleading citizens as to
the time, place, or manner of voting in a Federal election.
The purpose of section 4 of the amendment is to codify a
Federal court decision that HAVA matching requirements are
intended as an administrative safeguard, not as a restrictive
provision on voter eligibility.
And the purpose of section 5 is to provide States an
additional option to be used to prevent so-called voter fraud
through the use of indelible ink or means to ensure voter
identification. This method is cost effective simply because it
will relieve our elderly disabled and minority voters of the
excessively burdensome polling place identification
requirements.
And that is my amendment to the amendment in the form of a
substitute, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you for the amendment. Unfortunately,
it is a lot of material to absorb in a few seconds here. But I
would say that I would certainly be interested in reviewing
those, but I at the moment do not wish to have them
incorporated into the amendment in the nature of a substitute
without having an opportunity to study it in detail.
Are there other comments? And perhaps you would like to
just----
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, if there are no comments, I wanted
the committee to have time to review whether the amendment was
in order, and that can't be determined at this time. But I will
withdraw my objection and call the question on the amendment.
The Chairman. The question is called. All those in favor of
the amendment will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The yeas and nays are requested. The Clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Ney.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Reynolds.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender McDonald. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. No.
The Chairman. The Clerk will give the tally.
The Clerk. Three ayes, four nays.
The Chairman. There being three ayes and four nays, the
amendment fails. Are there any further amendments?
Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentlewoman from California.
Mr. Mica. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida reserves the right
to object.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do an
important thing. It would provide that the Chairman's measure
would not take effect until the Election Assistance Commission
did two things: conducts a study on the anticipated impact of
the amendment on voter participation, and that would not be a
problem because the Chairman's implementation date has been
extended, and clearly the Commission could finish a study in
the time frame available; and secondly, and probably most
importantly, submits a report to Congress on the study which
concludes that the implementation of the amendment will not
disproportionately affect voter participation by the elderly,
the disabled and members of racial minorities.
Now, I believe that this is an essential amendment for a
couple of reasons. I did, along with other members of the
committee, have a chance to participate in the hearing in this
room last June. That was very helpful. I also had a chance to
go to the hearing in Las Cruces, New Mexico. I will say this:
that there was very thin or no evidence of substantial voter
fraud issues. There was very substantial evidence of the
disparate adverse impact that a voter ID requirement would have
on the elderly and on ethnic minorities. I believe that to ask
the Commission to review this and to report to us as a trigger
is essential, because if the impact of this legislation would
be to disenfranchise disproportionately minority voters, not
only would that be morally wrong, but I believe it was
unconstitutional.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that
we learned in these two hearings. I was not able to go to the
Arizona hearing. As you will recall in June, we reviewed a
study in one of our northern States that found out that half of
the African American and Latino men did not have a photo ID in
Milwaukee; that 97 percent of the students in Milwaukee had
valid IDs, but their current addresses didn't match their IDs
because they were students; and that those people would likely
be barred from voting, even though they are Americans.
We also heard testimony that I thought was compelling in
Las Cruces, from the head of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, that she had never in all of her experience come
across a situation where illegal aliens had snuck across the
border to vote. The illegal aliens are sneaking across the
border for a job, not to vote. And so this is really a remedy
for a problem that is minimal, if it exists at all.
I want to talk also about some of the most compelling
testimony, I thought, I heard in Los Angeles, and that was from
Mr. Yazi, representing the Navajo nation. As we know, the
Navajos, along with other Native Americans, are the original
Americans. They are brave, patriotic Americans. The Navajos, in
particular, were the code talkers that we honored here several
years ago for helping the United States to prevail in World War
II.
What Mr. Yazi told us there in New Mexico was that most of
the Navajos don't have a photo ID. And not only that, they
can't get a photo ID because they weren't born in a hospital,
they were born at home; they don't have a State record of their
birth. He said they can't show proof of residence with an
electric bill, because they don't have any electricity; and
they can't show proof of residence with a phone bill, because
they don't have any phones.
He further added, Some of us think that if you take our
picture, it steals our soul.
Now, no one doubts that the Navajos are Americans. But if
this bill were to pass, without the assurance of the Election
Commission that there was no disparate account, we would
disenfranchise a couple of--100,000 at least members of the
Navajo nation. That would be morally wrong, and it would also
be unconstitutional.
I want to note, as I said earlier, there is no
disagreement, I think, on any member of this committee that
only Americans can vote. That is not the argument. The argument
is, in our efforts to make sure that that is the case, whether
we are deterring Americans from voting, I will say that there
is an, effort underway around the United States spearheaded by
the Republican Party, to institute these voter ID requirements.
And it looks to me that it is an effort to suppress the votes
by African Americans and Native Americans in particular.
The chairman said that 81 percent of voters said they
favored a voter ID measure. I haven't seen the poll. I am not
going to argue about the figures. But if 81 percent of the
voters said we are going to disenfranchise the Navajos, we are
not going to let those Americans vote, we wouldn't listen to
that. That is why we need to have the Federal Elections
Commission do a review of this and not to disenfranchise
African American voters and native American voters all across
this country.
I noted earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again,
that a lot of us have--I have a passport. I have a voter ID.
But I am not so elitist as to believe that my privileged
position is the position that every other American has.
My father didn't board an airplane until I was--his first
airplane ride was to come watch me be sworn into Congress.
Most Americans don't have a passport. Especially many poor
people do not have birth certificates. But they are still
Americans, whether they are poor or not. And I strongly object
to any effort that would disenfranchise Americans because they
are poor, because they are black, because they are Native
Americans. And that is why we must insist that if this were to
pass, it could only be implemented with an assurance by the
Elections Commission it does not disadvantage those Americans.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding for this amendment.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I yield myself five minutes to respond. And I
would say first of all, one thing that has always delighted me
about America and Americans is the incredible can do spirit
that Americans have. When presented with a problem or a
difficulty, the first question is, ``how do we resolve this?
How do we solve it?'' And I am just dismayed at the attitude
that if we pass this bill, suddenly there is a huge problem
that we can't solve. I think it is terrible if people are not
voting now. I would want every possible way to assist them to
vote. I would not support any bill that would lead to
disenfranchisement of people. But if there are those who don't
have proof of citizenship, I think we should help them get it.
How are they going to collect Medicare Part D benefits if
they can't prove citizenship? How are they going to get some of
the other benefits that are reserved for citizens if they don't
have proof of citizenship? I think it is ourresponsibility to
help everyone get proof of citizenship. And this bill provides a means
of doing that, in addition to assuring the sanctity of the vote. So I
think this is a fallacious argument.
Now, in terms of the amendment that the gentlewoman has
offered, I would be very willing to commission a study to
evaluate, after we implement the legislation, whether or not
the dire things that she has forecast would take place. But
asking for the study beforehand, first of all, the result would
be quite uncertain because you would only be asking if this
happens, what would you think, rather than it has happened, now
what do you think? I think it would needlessly delay what we
are trying to do and certainly would not give the valid
information you would get after the bill has passed and has
been implemented.
I yield back the time. Does anyone seek recognition? The
gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I do believe this is a serious issue.
I think we know firsthand from an incident in California that
it was serious. In fact, this committee has spent a
considerable amount of time investigating. The task force of
the committee--I think Mr. Mica was involved in that, as was
Mr. Ehlers--found a clear and convincing evidence that 748
invalid votes were cast in that election.
Now, the election was only decided by a margin of 979
votes. And State officials further found that over 300
noncitizens illegally voted in that contest. Three hundred, in
an election that was decided by less than 1,000 votes. So we
know we have close elections from time to time. They are not
all that rare. And I just can't be silent in the
representations that voter fraud is not a problem. Voter fraud
is a problem. Security is a problem. And I just, for the life
of me, can't understand in this day and age why it is a problem
to require photo ID to vote. That, to me, is an essential and
is long overdue. And if it is an inconvenience for some people,
I am sorry. We will try and make the burden as easy as
possible, but we are in the age that we are in and we face the
challenges we face. And I, for one, think it is completely
ridiculous that we aren't requiring the photo ID. And I support
it and would like to see the legislation move.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Would the gentleman yield?
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the ranking member.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. The gentleman from California has
stated that he is, and so am I, adamantly opposed to voter
fraud. He speaks of 728 invalid ballots at one place of voting,
300 noneligible ballots at another place.
Mr. Doolittle. Will you yield for a minute? That wasn't a
place of voting. That was the total votes cast in the Dornan-
Sanchez race, congressional race, in 1976. The total margin of
victory by Sanchez over him was 979 votes.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much for your
clarification, but what I am getting at is when you talk about
over 280 million folks in this country, and you speak about 748
or 300, that is so minimal when we are talking about
suppression of a majority of the people. Like in the State of
Georgia, my dear friend, an estimated 40 percent of seniors
lack identification for voting in the State of Georgia. And
even our State Department has suggested that there are only 23
percent of persons who have passports, if passport will be the
number one identifying factor of the photo identification.
We must not put laws in place that are going to suppress
the majority of Americans from voting and having a right to
vote, and I am afraid this bill does just that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I support the study that was made by the
gentlelady of California in her amendment because we need to
have a study to discern whether or not legislation that we are
putting on the books will adversely affect an already apathetic
number of persons who are not voting. They are not going to the
voting box, they are not casting their ballots, and we continue
to put these types of onerous pieces of legislation before them
that will continue to erode the very democracy that we fight
for in this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I have many, many letters that I would like
to submit to the record, one that I have just received hot off
the press from members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
opposing H.R. 4844, and I would like to read those others, if
you will allow me time. I have many more, too, and I would like
to put on the record----
The Chairman. Without objection, we will enter those into
the record.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. But I would like to have some of
those organizations identified, Mr. Chairman. So if I can yield
to the gentlelady with your permission.
Ms. Lofgren. Read the letters.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, may I?
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you. We have received letters
of opposition from the Asian American Justice Center, the
Hispanic National Bar Association, the League of Latin American
Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza,
Southwest Voting Registration Education Project, William S.
Velasquez Institute, the National Urban League, the NAACP
Washington Bureau, the People for the American Way, the
Protection and Advocacy, Inc., the League of Women Voters, the
Liberty Coalition, the American Policy Center, the Fairfax
County Privacy Council, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the
Rutherford Institute, the Concerned Foreign Service Officers,
Common Cause, Velvet Revolution, Cyber Privacy Project, SCIU,
and the last ones are the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
under the Law. And again, the Democratic Women's Working Group.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All of these will be entered into therecord
without objection. So ordered.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Brady. I would like to yield my time to the gentlelady
from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Brady.
I just want to make a couple of comments because I think it
is important to put into context what we are doing here today.
There are a lot of unsubstantiated comments that are made about
fraud and the like. Everybody is against fraud. That is not the
question.
Reference was made to the Dornan-Sanchez race, and I would
just note that an investigation was made, and Ms. Sanchez was
elected, was--is certified. So, you know, I don't want to go
back to that fight because I was a member of the committee, but
a thorough job was done, and the election was certified.
The issue here is that there will be people, U.S. citizens,
true blue Americans, who are going to be disenfranchised if
this amendment were to become law. I will just mention an
example. Recently, I think it was a mistake, and obviously the
administration agreed later, a proof of citizenship requirement
was put into place for Medicaid recipients, and many of us said
this is not going to work. There are a lot of very old people
who don't have birth certificates. They were born at home. They
don't have driver's licenses because they don't drive. They are
in nursing homes, and this is going to be a problem.
Sure enough, all over the United States we came up with
State health officials saying, we are going to have to throw
little old ladies with Alzheimer's out of their nursing home
beds because they don't have a photo ID. We are going to have
throw people who are on kidney dialysis out of, you know--now,
true, the Alzheimer victims are probably not going to vote
anyhow because they are not compos mentis, but there are plenty
of physically disabled people who are elderly who can not meet
the requirement.
It was such a problem that the Bush administration had to
back off and say we are not going to require that anymore
because people would die. That same proof is in this bill, and
it seems to me that if you can't prove your ID to save your
life, you are not going to be able to prove your ID to vote
either.
And the Constitution protects your right to vote if you are
a U.S. citizen. Being a U.S. citizen is not dependent on being
born in a hospital. It is not dependent on having a piece of
paper. It is not dependent on being rich enough to have a
passport. And so that is the reason why the American
Association of Retired Persons, hardly a left-wing group, has
come out against this whole concept. It is why the League of
Women Voters, certainly a pristine do-gooder group that is
completely nonpartisan, has come out against this piece of
legislation.
And I just have got to say, and this is not personal about
any members of the committee, but the Republican Party all over
the United States is pursuing this effort for one reason only:
A lot of ethnic minorities have woken up to the fact that the
Republican Party is not on their side. And that is why African
American voters are being suppressed in vast areas of the
United States, let us face it. Although it is not a
requirement, you can do the statistical analysis and find out
that the Navajo Nation votes Democratic more than it votes
Republican, and to think that it is an accident that this
measure would disenfranchise the Navajos, that this measure
would disproportionately mean that African American voters will
not be able to cast their votes even though they are U.S.
citizens, is to be naive, to be foolish.
It is a felony now to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen.
If we wanted to do something to reduce any problem about voting
when you are not eligible, we should enlist the Ad Council to
put on the air it is a felony to vote if you are not a U.S.
citizen. That was one of the suggestions made at the Las Cruces
hearing. I would go along with that, but I am not going to go
along with disenfranchising elderly, poor, African American and
Native Americans from their privilege, their honor, their basic
right to control their government through exercising their
right to vote.
And I yield back to the gentleman Mr. Brady and thank you
for yielding.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Doolittle is recognized.
Ms. Lofgren. Hasn't Mr. Doolittle been recognized already?
Mr. Doolittle. Is there a rule----
Mr. Mica. May I be recognized?
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mica for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. I yield.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous to hear my
colleague sit there and assert the Republican Party is
embarking on a move to suppress the vote of ethnic minorities
throughout the country. That is blatantly false, and I am not
going to sit here by my silence and give any credence to that
assertion. That is ridiculous.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Who is presenting the legislation?
Mr. Doolittle. Let me tell you something. When we have
fraud, it diminishes all of our right to vote, including ethnic
minorities, if there is fraud in an election. So we have every
right to be concerned about fraud, and the instances I am aware
of--and anecdotally, in urban situations where people have
voted multiple times which have been documented, it is on the
Democrat side, not the Republican. But I will admit that sin
spreads across both parties in terms of individual actions.
But I just--when we are considering legislation to require
a photo ID, and we hear inflammatory statements made that the
Republican Party is out to suppress the votes of racial
minorities, ethnic minorities, no, that is not true. I will not
sit here and accept that, and you have no proof of that.
Mr. Mica. Reclaiming my time as a sinner here, I want to
just say that this really isn't a partisan issue or
recommendation. The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission, former
President Carter, Democrat, Secretary of State Baker, both very
distinguished, honorable Americans, and I believe there are 21
on the Commission, all but three voted for requiring of voter
IDs. So I think it is pretty unanimous. And the Chairman has
also indicated that the American people by a large majority, I
don't--we shouldn't legislate on the basis of polls, but I
think all you have to do is go out in public today, and they
are saying, secure our borders, and they also say, secure our
ballots, and that is what that is about.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Will the gentleman yield for a
second or so?
Mr. Mica. Possibly exposing myself for minor abuse, I will
yield.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I am sorry?
Mr. Mica. I said possibly exposing myself to minor abuse,
because I respect her so much.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Only to say that while you cite the
task force of the Carter-Baker, there was resounding dissent
brought to bear on that particular issue. So it was not a
unanimous vote with that.
Mr. Mica. As I understand, there were 3 dissenting votes on
the issue out of 21. I may be incorrect but that is my--the
information I was given. Not exactly resounding.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. All time has expired. The question before us
is on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the
substitute offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald of California.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, really it was----
The Chairman. Pardon?
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Millender-McDonald's. No.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. It was my amendment that she
introduced, so the name should be Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
The Chairman. Okay. All those in favor of this particular
amendment will say aye. Aye.
Those opposed will say no. No.
The ayes have it.
Ms. Lofgren. I would like a rollcall vote, please.
The Chairman. A request for rollcall has been made. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Ney.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Reynolds.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Miller-McDonald. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Mr. Lofgren. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
The Chairman. No.
The clerk will read the tally.
The Clerk. Three ayes, four noes.
The Chairman. The amendment fails.
Are there any further amendments?
Hearing none, we will recognize Mr. Mica for the purpose of
offering a motion.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R.----
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Pardon me. Back up just one minute. There is
one amendment we do have to pass first. The question is on the
Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in
favor will say aye. Aye.
Those opposed will say no. No.
It is the opinion of the Chair, the amendment in the nature
of a substitute is agreed to.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yeas
and nays on that.
The Chairman. There is a request for the yeas and nays. The
clerk will read the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Ney.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Reynolds.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
The Chairman. Aye.
The clerk will read the tally.
The Clerk. Four ayes, three noes.
The Chairman. The motion carries, and the gentleman's
amendment in the nature of a substitute is accepted.
At this point we will once again recognize Mr. Mica for a
motion.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Okay. Now I will try that. Mr. Chairman, I
move that H.R. 4844, as amended, be reported favorably to the
House.
The Chairman. The question is on the motion. Those in favor
will say aye. Aye.
Those opposed will say no. No.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The Chairman. The yeas and nays will be read.
The Clerk. Mr. Ney.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Reynolds.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Miller-McDonald. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
The Chairman. Aye.
The motion is agreed to and H.R. 4844 is recorded favorably
to the House. The tally was four ayes, three nays.
Pursuant to House Rule 10, all Members will have two
calendar days for the purpose of filing views.
I ask unanimous consent that Members have seven calendar
days for statements and materials to be entered into the
appropriate place in the record. Without objection, the
material will be so entered.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by
the committee at today's markup. Without objection, so ordered.
We are pleased to know that we have reported this to the
floor, and I am sure we will continue to have very interesting
and thorough discussion of this issue on the floor of the House
of Representatives.
Having completed our business for today, the committee is
hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]