[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H464-H477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        VOTER ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM ACT OF 1998

  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1428) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a 
system through which the Commissioner of Social Security and the 
Attorney General respond to inquiries made by election officials 
concerning the citizenship of voting registration applicants and to 
amend the Social Security Act to permit States to require individuals 
registering to vote in elections to provide the individual's Social 
Security number, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1428

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Voter Eligibility 
     Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. VOTER ELIGIBILITY PILOT CONFIRMATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish a pilot 
     program to test a confirmation system through which they--
       (1) respond to inquiries, made by State and local officials 
     (including voting registrars) with responsibility for 
     determining an individual's qualification to vote in a 
     Federal, State, or local election, to verify the citizenship 
     of an individual who has submitted a voter registration 
     application, and
       (2) maintain such records of the inquiries made and 
     verifications provided as may be necessary for pilot program 
     evaluation.

     In order to make an inquiry through the pilot program with 
     respect to an individual, an election official shall provide 
     the name, date of birth, and social security account number 
     of the individual.
       (b) Initial Response.--The pilot program shall provide for 
     a confirmation or a tentative nonconfirmation of an 
     individual's citizenship by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security as soon as practicable after an initial inquiry to 
     the Commissioner.
       (c) Secondary Verification Process in Case of Tentative 
     Nonconfirmation.--In cases of tentative nonconfirmation, the 
     Attorney General shall specify, in consultation with the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, an available 
     secondary verification process to confirm the validity of 
     information provided and to provide a final confirmation or 
     nonconfirmation as soon as practicable after the date of the 
     tentative nonconfirmation.
       (d) Design and Operation of Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--The pilot program shall be designed and 
     operated--
       (A) to apply in, at a minimum, the States of California, 
     New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois;
       (B) to be used on a voluntary basis, as a supplementary 
     information source, by State and local election officials for 
     the purpose of assessing, through citizenship verification, 
     the eligibility of an individual to vote in Federal, State, 
     or local elections;

[[Page H465]]

       (C) to respond to an inquiry concerning citizenship only in 
     a case where determining whether an individual is a citizen 
     is--
       (i) necessary for determining whether the individual is 
     eligible to vote in an election for Federal, State, or local 
     office; and
       (ii) part of a program or activity to protect the integrity 
     of the electoral process that is uniform, nondiscriminatory, 
     and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 1973 et seq.);
       (D) to maximize its reliability and ease of use, consistent 
     with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of 
     the underlying information;
       (E) to permit inquiries to be made to the pilot program 
     through a toll-free telephone line or other toll-free 
     electronic media;
       (F) subject to subparagraph (I), to respond to all 
     inquiries made by authorized persons and to register all 
     times when the pilot program is not responding to inquiries 
     because of a malfunction;
       (G) with appropriate administrative, technical, and 
     physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of 
     personal information, including violations of the 
     requirements of section 205(c)(2)(C)(viii) of the Social 
     Security Act;
       (H) to have reasonable safeguards against the pilot 
     program's resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices 
     based on national origin or citizenship status, including the 
     selective or unauthorized use of the pilot program.
       (2) Use of employment eligibility confirmation system.--To 
     the extent practicable, in establishing the confirmation 
     system under this section, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall 
     use the employment eligibility confirmation system 
     established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-664).
       (e) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Social 
     Security.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall establish a reliable, secure method 
     which compares the name, date of birth, and social security 
     account number provided in an inquiry against such 
     information maintained by the Commissioner, in order to 
     confirm (or not confirm) the correspondence of the name, date 
     of birth, and number provided and whether the individual is 
     shown as a citizen of the United States on the records 
     maintained by the Commissioner (including whether such 
     records show that the individual was born in the United 
     States). The Commissioner shall not disclose or release 
     social security information (other than such confirmation or 
     nonconfirmation).
       (f) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service.--As part of the pilot program, 
     the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service shall establish a reliable, secure method which 
     compares the name and date of birth which are provided in an 
     inquiry against information maintained by the Commissioner in 
     order to confirm (or not confirm) the validity of the 
     information provided, the correspondence of the name and date 
     of birth, and whether the individual is a citizen of the 
     United States.
       (g) Updating Information.--The Commissioner of Social 
     Security and the Commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service shall update their information in a 
     manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a 
     process for the prompt correction of erroneous information, 
     including instances in which it is brought to their attention 
     in the secondary verification process described in subsection 
     (c) or in any action by an individual to use the process 
     provided under this subsection upon receipt of notification 
     from an election official under subsection (i).
       (h) Limitation on Use of the Pilot Program and Any Related 
     Systems.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, nothing in this section shall be construed to permit or 
     allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the United 
     States Government to utilize any information, data base, or 
     other records assembled under this section for any other 
     purpose other than as provided for under this section.
       (2) No national identification card.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to authorize, directly or 
     indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification 
     cards or the establishment of a national identification card.
       (3) No new data bases.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the Attorney 
     General and the Commissioner of Social Security to create any 
     joint computer data base that is not in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (i) Actions by Election Officials Unable to Confirm 
     Citizenship.--
       (1) In general.--If an election official receives a notice 
     of final nonconfirmation under subsection (c) with respect to 
     an individual, the official--
       (A) shall notify the individual in writing; and
       (B) shall inform the individual in writing of the 
     individual's right to use--
       (i) the process provided under subsection (g) for the 
     prompt correction of erroneous information in the pilot 
     program; or
       (ii) any other process for establishing eligibility to vote 
     provided under State or Federal law.
       (2) Registration applicants.--In the case of an individual 
     who is an applicant for voter registration, and who receives 
     a notice from an official under paragraph (1), the official 
     may (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law) 
     reject the application (subject to the right to reapply), but 
     only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
       (A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was 
     mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
       (B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive 
     adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual 
     from--
       (i) a source other than the pilot program established under 
     this section; or
       (ii) such pilot program, pursuant to a new inquiry to the 
     pilot program made by the official upon receipt of 
     information (from the individual or through any other 
     reliable source) that erroneous or incomplete material 
     information previously in the pilot program has been updated, 
     supplemented, or corrected.
       (3) Ineligible voter removal programs.--In the case of an 
     individual who is registered to vote, and who receives a 
     notice from an official under paragraph (1) in connection 
     with a program to remove the names of ineligible voters from 
     an official list of eligible voters, the official may 
     (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law) 
     remove the name of the individual from the list (subject to 
     the right to submit another voter registration application), 
     but only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
       (A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was 
     mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
       (B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive 
     adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual 
     from a source described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph 
     (2)(B).
       (j) Authority to Use Social Security Account Numbers.--Any 
     State (or political subdivision thereof) may, for the purpose 
     of making inquiries under the pilot program in the 
     administration of any voter registration law within its 
     jurisdiction, use the social security account numbers issued 
     by the Commissioner of Social Security, and may, for such 
     purpose, require any individual who is or appears to be 
     affected by a voter registration law of such State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) to furnish to such State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having 
     administrative responsibility for such law, the social 
     security account number (or numbers, if the individual has 
     more than one such number) issued to the individual by the 
     Commissioner.
       (k) Termination and Report.--The pilot program shall 
     terminate September 30, 2001. The Attorney General and the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall each submit to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     reports on the pilot program not later than December 31, 
     2001. Such reports shall--
       (1) assess the degree of fraudulent attesting of United 
     States citizenship in jurisdictions covered by the pilot 
     program;
       (2) assess the appropriate staffing and funding levels 
     which would be required for full, permanent, and nationwide 
     implementation of the pilot program, including the estimated 
     total cost for national implementation per individual record;
       (3) include an assessment by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security of the advisability and ramifications of disclosure 
     of social security account numbers to the extent provided for 
     under the pilot program and upon full, permanent, and 
     nationwide implementation of the pilot program;
       (4) assess the degree to which the records maintained by 
     the Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service are able to be 
     used to reliably determine the citizenship of individuals who 
     have submitted voter registration applications;
       (5) assess the effectiveness of the pilot program's 
     safeguards against unlawful discriminatory practices;
       (6) include recommendations on whether or not the pilot 
     program should be continued or modified; and
       (7) include such other information as the Attorney General 
     or the Commissioner of Social Security may determine to be 
     relevant.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1998, such 
     sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H466]]

  Mr. Speaker, there is no more precious right of citizenship than the 
right to vote. When noncitizens falsely claim to be citizens in order 
to vote, this right is cheapened for everyone else.
  Congress recognized the significance of vote fraud by aliens in 
passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility 
Act of 1996. The act makes falsely claiming to be a citizen in order to 
register to vote or to vote a Federal criminal offense.
  There is currently no satisfactory way for local registrars to ensure 
that there are no noncitizens on their voting rolls or for the Justice 
Department to enforce the criminal penalties. Attempts have been made 
to check voting rolls against Immigration and Naturalization Service 
records in order to ferret out noncitizens; however, INS data at best 
can only tell us that a voter is a legal alien or a naturalized 
citizen. INS data cannot tell us whether a voter is a native born U.S. 
citizen or an illegal alien.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), introduced a 
bill to resolve this dilemma. H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility 
Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998, will provide us with the means 
to identify noncitizens who are either trying to register to vote or 
are already registered. The bill will set up a 3-year pilot program in 
which registrars on their own initiative can send their voting rolls to 
the Federal Government to be checked against both Social Security 
Administration and INS records.
  Checking the rolls with both agencies is the key to a successful 
verification program. Just about everyone has a Social Security number. 
Therefore, checks against Social Security Administration records can 
tell us whether someone is fabricating an identity and whether someone 
is a native-born citizen.
  As I mentioned, the INS maintains naturalization records. Comparing 
information on voters against both agencies' records will let us know 
conclusively whether individuals are U.S. citizens or not. Illegal 
aliens will not be able to escape notice simply because the INS has no 
record of them.
  I know there is opposition to this bill. Opponents will argue today 
that the Social Security Administration's records do not always 
indicate whether a person is a citizen. True. But the records do 
indicate the place of birth, and anyone born in the United States is a 
citizen.
  The opponents may argue that operation of the pilot program will 
result in discrimination. Not true. The bill specifically states that a 
registrar's inquiry must be part of a program or activity to protect 
the integrity of the electoral process that is uniform, 
nondiscriminatory and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1428 and let the 
American people know that we will not sit back and see their rights 
demeaned.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 5 important reasons why this bill is a bad 
idea. The bill's proposed verification system just simply will not 
work. The bill would expose individuals' Social Security numbers to 
public inspection, an idea that we have long opposed.
  This bill is politically motivated. The bill undermines the Voting 
Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called motor 
voter act, and this bill has never ever been considered and voted upon 
by any committee of this House or any subcommittee of this House.
  Those are 5 good reasons that this bill should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), the author of the bill.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, when my Irish great-grandfather came here, the 
first time he had a chance to vote, he dressed up in top hat and tails 
to go to the polls. When my German immigrant father came here, he could 
not afford the top hat or the tails, but the proudest moment of his 
life was when he cast his first vote in the United States of America.
  The vote is precious. American citizens expect the voting rolls to 
consist of American citizens. But right now there is no way to make 
that assurance. What this bill does is provide an opportunity in five 
pilot States over the next three years to test the federal information 
that a local registrar of voters may seek. It is not compulsory; it is 
not the Federal Government telling the States how to deal with their 
voting rolls, but it is the Federal Government providing two tools for 
the local registrar to use to answer one question: Is the person a 
citizen or is the person not?
  American voters expect citizens to be on that roll, not noncitizens.

                              {time}  1300

  The pilot program would be in California, New York, Texas, Florida 
and Illinois. It would terminate on September 30, 2001, and it would 
make very clear that State and local governments may require the Social 
Security number simply as part of the voter registration process. 
Again, it is a ``may.'' If they do not want to do it, they do not have 
to do it. But 23 States now request or require at least part of the 
Social Security number for voter registration purposes. Again, that has 
been up to the States.
  Now, the election official, if he or she found that by accessing the 
Social Security base that there were noncitizens on the voter roll, 
then they could go into the INS base to find out if they are 
naturalized, which is the equivalent of citizenship and is citizenship. 
If there is no evidence of naturalization, then the official would have 
to notify the individual in writing and permit them the opportunity to 
establish their eligibility to vote. There would be 30 days to provide 
proof of citizenship.
  So it is not a mandate; it is a process that will work, and the data 
are there, and we should not be hiding it in the hills, we should be 
letting those data be used to assure the purity of elections in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill.
  I oppose this bill because we have no evidence that it will 
effectively fight voter fraud.
  This nation has had voter fraud for hundreds of years. But the 
Republican leadership has apparently just noticed it. They are bringing 
to the floor today a bill that was introduced almost a year ago and is 
so complicated that it was referred to three committees on April 24, 
1997.
  But only one Committee has even held a hearing on the bill--on June 
25. None of the three Committees has voted on it.
  Why is the leadership afraid to let the normal Committee process 
work? Why are they rushing to the floor today a bill that was 
introduced almost a year ago?
  One of my constituents has an explanation. He says this bill would 
undermine the Motor Voter Law, erect new barriers to voting, and 
suppress voting by members of ethnic and racial minorities.
  Why are we focusing on only one kind of voter fraud? What about dead 
people who vote? What about U.S. citizens who vote more than once? What 
about U.S. citizens who are prevented from voting?
  Vote against this bill and send it back to the three committees so 
that we can develop a thoughtful bipartisan response to the serious 
problem of voter fraud.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1428.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility 
Verification Act. This bill is designed to undermine the voter turnout 
of our country's naturalized citizens.
  How does this bill achieve this goal? H.R. 1428 allows local and 
state election officials to pull anyone's name and submit it to either 
INS or to the Social Security Administration for verification of 
citizenship. If the name can not be confirmed by either agency, this 
bill will force the voter to provide citizenship verification to the 
local voter registrar. Therefore if my name could not be confirmed, I 
would need to present my birth certificate or passport to vote. Who are 
the targets of H.R. 1428?
  The targets are citizens whose names may seem questionable to 
election officials. Where will they start this search? Are they going 
to

[[Page H467]]

start with Green, Smith, or Jones? Or are they going to start the 
search with Gonzales, Torres, or Jiminez?
  Conceivably, this bill would allow election officials to send the 
names of whole neighborhoods for verification. In Texas we have this 
ability now to challenge voters.
  I support all efforts to stop voter fraud. However, this bill does 
seem to target our immigrant population.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this anti-immigrant bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition against this 
measure to intimidate voters in my State of California.
  Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is too sacred to be dependent on 
incomplete, unreliable data bases. To top it off, H.R. 1428 would allow 
states and local officials to reject voter registration applications 
and to force the person registering into the intimidating position of 
trying to prove that two huge bureaucracies' data bases are flawed.
  The Social Security Administration and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, which are both charged with verifying names of 
registered voters in this misguided act, say they cannot do it. The 
Social Security Administration did not begin recording citizenship 
status until 1980. The agency clearly states, ``The use of our system 
for confirmation of citizenship is not feasible.'' The INS has no 
records of native born American citizens and can only verify the status 
of those who were naturalized in recent years.
  How many people will take the time to obtain a copy of their birth or 
naturalization certificate that they have not had to produce for years?
  How many people who are native born Americans will feel that they are 
being given ``the third degree'' by local elected officials just 
because the officials perceive that they appear to be Hispanic or Asian 
or any other racial or ethnic minority?
  It is unfair, illegal and unconstitutional to make voting easy for 
one group of citizens and difficult and intimidating for another group. 
That is what H.R. 1428 does.
  To take information trickling out of an incomplete, inaccurate and 
highly bureaucratic system of flawed data bases and turn it over to 
local officials with discretion in interpreting this data will have 
only one effect--illegally preventing people from exercising their 
constitutional right to vote. This democracy depends on its citizens' 
faith in the voting system--those citizens will have no faith in a 
system which intimidates them and prevents them from participating in 
it. Vote no on H.R. 1428!
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter 
Suppression Act.
  A better title for this bill is the ``Voter Suppression Act.'' Not 
only will it discourage new citizens from exercising their rights, but 
it could easily prohibit natural-born and naturalized citizens from 
voting.
  This bill hands control over voter lists to state and local officials 
with no requirements that they act in ways that are uniform and do not 
discriminate. Citizens could be purged from the voter rolls--denied 
their constitutional right--simply because they had an ``ethnic-
sounding'' surname or because they live in a predominantly minority 
neighborhood.
  And what would be their recourse? Well, under this bill, they would 
have to depend on the INS and the Social Security Administration to 
``confirm'' their citizenship, even though neither agency is equipped 
for that purpose.
  Citizenship cannot be confirmed by checking a person's Social 
Security number. The Social Security Administration does not require 
information about citizenship and only started requesting it 20 years 
ago. And the INS only keeps records of immigrants--not natural-born 
citizens.
  Our nation decided long ago that tests for voter eligibility--like 
the poll taxes and literacy tests used in the South--were wrong and 
abhorrent. We enacted the Voting Rights Act to cast aside--once and for 
all--the barriers concocted to keep minorities from exercising their 
constitutional right to vote.
  I remember the days before the Voting Rights Act. I remember when 
some citizens could exercise their right to vote while others had 
arbitrary and ridiculous hurdles placed in their way.
  This bill is a return to those days. I find nothing to be proud of in 
that history. And I do not--and cannot--support repeating it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this misguided 
legislation. This bill is a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965. It destroys not only the spirit, but the very soul of the 
Voting Rights Act. Too many people have died so that every American can 
exercise their right to vote. Jimmy Lee Jackson, Mickey Schwerner, 
James Cheney, Andy Goodman. These are not just names. I knew these 
young men. We have come a long way in this country toward protecting 
every American's right to vote. This bill erases the gains we have 
made. It forgets those sacrifices.
  Many of my colleagues over the last 12 years since I have been in the 
Congress have come to me and said, ``I wish I had been there with you. 
I wish I had fought those battles with you.''
  Let me say: If you wanted an opportunity to stand up, if you say you 
wanted to go on the freedom rides, if you say you wished you had 
marched across the bridge in Selma, if you wanted to stand up for the 
right of all Americans to participate in our democracy, now is your 
chance. Now is your turn, now is your time.
  Like the poll tax, like the literacy test, this bill is intended to 
keep people from participating in our political process. That is a 
shame; it is a disgrace. It harks back to another period, a dark period 
in our history.
  We have come too far to go back to the days of Bull Connor, Sheriff 
Jim Clark, and George Wallace. We cannot go back, we must not go back, 
and we will not go back.
  I urge all of my colleagues to do what they know is right in their 
hearts. Support one man, one vote. Let us not erase the progress we 
have made in our Nation. Defeat the Horn bill, defeat this bill, and 
defeat it now.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  I happen to have been on the drafting team in the Senate where we 
wrote that bill in the Republican leader's back office. There were four 
of us on the staff from the Republican leadership side, and there were 
five on the Democratic side, including the Department of Justice. If we 
had thought in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that this was a law so 
that noncitizens could vote, we would have been laughed out of 
Congress. The fact is, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has nothing to do 
with this issue.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was on the bridge from Selma to 
Montgomery. I almost lost my life on March 7, 1965, because I was 
fighting for the right to vote, to open up the political process. I do 
not know, maybe the gentleman has changed his ways or maybe he has seen 
a different light, but that is the effect of this legislation. It will 
destroy the heart and the very soul of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman, the fact is, every single African American born in this 
country is automatically a citizen of the United States.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank and commend the ranking member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). I rise 
to express how sorry I am that the name of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) would be on the document that we are opposing 
today.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page H468]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, 
the father of the Republican Party. I think that President Lincoln is 
turning over in his grave today, because this proposal flies in the 
face of the legacy of President Lincoln, the legacy he left his party 
and the legacy that he left his country. He would be appalled.
  This proposal clearly is aimed at denying minority voters their legal 
right to vote. This bill not only threatens the rights of minority 
voters, it violates the values of privacy that are at the very 
foundation of a free society. This is a value that everyone in this 
Chamber holds very dear, or should hold dear.
  This proposal would amend the Social Security Act, overturn the 
Privacy Act protections, by allowing States to require Social Security 
numbers for voter registration. But the proposal does nothing to 
protect or ensure the privacy of those Social Security numbers 
submitted on voter registration applications. This is one more attempt 
at intimidation. All Americans should be aware.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember the legacy of Abraham 
Lincoln today. Vote ``no'' on this proposal.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to include in 
the Record a letter from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrich).
  The letter referred to follows:

                                                February 11, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing regarding consideration of 
     H.R. 1428, the ``Voter Eligibility Verification Act of 
     1998,'' which was introduced on April 24, 1997, by 
     Representative Horn, et. al. the bill, as introduced, was 
     referred to Committee on Judiciary, and in addition, to the 
     Committees on Ways and Means and House Oversight.
       As introduced, the bill would amend the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act ot establish a system through which the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the Attorney General 
     respond to inquiries made by election officials concerning 
     the citizenship of voting registration applicants, and amends 
     the Social Security Act to require individuals registering to 
     vote in elections to provide their Social Security number.
       As you know, provisions dealing with national social 
     security are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, and under normal circumstances the Committee would 
     meet to consider this bill. However, it is my understanding 
     that Chairman Hyde or his designee will be offering an 
     amendment on the floor to address the concerns of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and its Subcommittee on Social 
     Security.
       Among other things, the bill, as amended, would provide for 
     the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner 
     of Social Security, to establish a pilot program to test a 
     confirmation system through which they will respond to 
     inquiries made by election officials concerning the 
     citizenship of individuals who have submitted voter 
     registration applications. Department of Justice funds would 
     be authorized to carry out the pilot program.
       Based on this understanding, and in order to expedite 
     consideration of this legislation by the full House, I do not 
     believe a markup by the Committee on Ways and Means will be 
     necessary. However, this is being done only with the 
     understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the 
     Committee's jurisdictional prerogative in the future with 
     respect to this measure or any similar legislation, and it 
     should not be considered as precedent for consideration of 
     matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means in the future.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With best 
     personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act was originally 
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on April 24, 
1997. H.R. 1428 was referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security of 
the Committee on Ways and Means on May 1, 1997. The subcommittee has 
not taken any action on the bill due to the concerns regarding the 
impact of certain provisions on the Social Security program and its 
administration.
  Social Security was created to provide a comprehensive package of 
protection against the loss of earnings due to retirement disability 
and death. Voter registration does not relate to Social Security 
programs' purposes. Therefore, Social Security trust funds may not be 
used to pay for the activities assigned to the Social Security 
Administration and the agency would need to be reimbursed.
  Secondly, this new and potentially significant workload would 
interfere with SSA's ability to fulfill its basic responsibilities to 
the American public. In addition, the Social Security Administration is 
not in a position to definitely confirm citizenship as they are not the 
official custodian of records which construct evidence of citizenship. 
The agency's records on citizenship are not necessarily current. 
Accuracy of the SSA's records is dependent on the validity of the 
documents presented as evidence.
  Last year the Federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act made it explicitly illegal for noncitizens to vote. 
State and local officials, however, can do little to enforce the law 
without having a way to verify registrants' eligibility. In a spirit of 
cooperation, the Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Social 
Security has worked with the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on House Oversight to reach an agreement on needed 
legislation. The revisions and provisions of the Voter Eligibility 
Verification Pilot Program Act of 1998 responds to the concerns of the 
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security.
  This bill provides for the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
commissioner of Social Security, to establish a pilot program to test 
and confirm a system. SSA and INS will respond to inquiries made by 
election officials concerning the citizenship of individuals who have 
submitted voter registration application. Department of Justice funds, 
not Social Security trust funds, are authorized to carry out the pilot 
program.
  The pilot program lasts only 3 years, operated in a minimum of 5 
States, and is used on a voluntary basis by election officials and will 
include safeguards to protect the privacy and avoid discriminatory 
practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, and their staffs for their willingness to work to achieve an 
agreeable solution.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Perhaps without knowing it, I believe that my colleague from 
California (Mr. Horn) made a very prophetic comment in response to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) just a few minutes ago when the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) raised some concerns that African 
Americans here in this country fear so much by this legislation when he 
said, ``but blacks are born in this country, they get automatic 
citizenship.''
  I say to the gentleman, he forgets that there are a lot of black 
Americans in this country who came to this country from Haiti, African 
countries, and are now American citizens but came as immigrants. And 
there are many, many, many Latino Americans who came from Latin 
American countries and Asian Americans who came from Asian countries 
who, when they first were here, could have been questioned about their 
citizenship, and still may be questioned about their citizenship 
because of their looks and because of the way they may speak.
  But let us not forget that there are Irish in this country, there are 
Italians in this country, there are Bulgarians in this country whom, on 
appearance, one may believe were born here and are entitled to 
automatic citizenship and automatic right to vote, but that may not be 
citizens. And by empowering these local officials, without any kind of 
guidance to decide they are going to check people, what we are doing is 
returning us to the days when we had poll taxes and the like.
  We are suppressing the vote; we are going to raise hurdles to 
participation, and we are trying to do it with a system that cannot 
work, because Social Security, the administration has said, a Social 
Security number has never

[[Page H469]]

been more than a way to tell people if they qualify for Social 
Security, not for anything else.

                              {time}  1315

  The INS will say that their records cannot tell if someone is 
eligible to vote; only if someone has naturalized. So we are getting 
ready to embark on something which will deny American citizens who have 
the right to vote that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, that is the worst 
signal we can give on the birthday of a man who made most possible the 
right for all Americans to vote.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of time on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pease) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the next Governor of 
Connecticut.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and I want to 
emphasize the negative impact this bill would have on the Social 
Security Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill would impose an enormous work load on the same 
agency that is responsible for sending every Social Security check out 
every month. These are so important. As we know, tens of thousands of 
older women have only the Social Security check to rely on. And even if 
additional funds are provided, urgent needs such as the revision of the 
Social Security computer system for the year 2000 approaches and needs 
attention. Even though voter registration is so legitimately important, 
it is not what the Social Security Administration should be doing.
  More importantly, the Social Security Administration does not keep 
the kinds of records necessary for this requirement. Prior to 1971, 
Social Security Administration data was based on only what a citizen 
told the agency. No documentation was required until 1981.
  Furthermore, the legislation would undermine the motor voter law 
discouraging voter participation undermining voter rights. We have 
worked so hard to encourage citizens to get to the polls on Election 
Day. This bill would force us to take a step backwards in our efforts 
to promote voter registration by establishing an unnecessary obstacle 
to voter registration and taking away from the participation of many 
citizens.
  This legislation would discourage voter participation, divert 
important resources away from the Social Security Administration, and 
also the central purpose of that administration, as we know, is to send 
those checks out on time, to be effective when the people call the 
agency, to serve the people of these United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This 
bill does not provide the adequate support system necessary to carry 
out what its intentions might be. But what it will do, and I think 
necessarily will do and should not do, is take away from our very 
important Social Security agency which is so important to the citizens 
of this country.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the road to the ballot box for women and 
minorities has never been easy. Now, Republicans want to begin a new 
and tragic chapter in our country's voting rights history.
  Mr. Speaker, I was born in this country. As a Puerto Rican, I am just 
as American as anyone from Massachusetts or Virginia. Yet, the Horn 
bill could easily deny me the right to vote. The simple fact is that 
H.R. 1428 gives election officials too much power to rely on INS data 
to bar people from voting.
  As natural born citizens, millions of Puerto Ricans with no record at 
INS could unfairly be stopped at the ballot box. This is wrong, pure 
and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that the only purpose for this 
hostile legislation is to torment citizens. If we silent the voices of 
any Americans, we destroy our democracy. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this voter suppression bill.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
House Oversight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate at this time to rise and 
provide some facts for the record since there has been a series of 
statements that are just factually inaccurate.
  First of all, this is not a new or innovative idea, that is using 
Social Security numbers for voter identification. There are currently 
more than half a dozen States that do it. So my assumption is that 
those who have gone to the well on the other side of the aisle to argue 
that this is somehow un-American believe that the States of Georgia, 
Hawaii, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia 
are all un-American because they utilize Social Security numbers for 
verification.
  In addition to that, I found it interesting that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) is concerned about the burdens on the 
Social Security Administration, after we heard from the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) with his praise of the amendments that made sure 
none of the trust fund money would be spent. There are no dollars from 
the Social Security trust fund that are going to be utilized for this 
purpose. What the chairman did say, if we listened to him, was that the 
program was going to be modeled after an employer's program that is 
already on the books. We are allowing elected local officials to 
function as employers currently do in a pilot program.
  Returning to the question of the INS and its records, obviously after 
our inquiries and our attempt to work with the professionals at INS, 
although we were stonewalled by the political appointments at the 
Department of Justice, the INS professionals have come to realize that 
they have to do better; do better for all Americans.
  The Coopers & Lybrand report said that they are going to have to have 
digitized photographs and electronic fingerprints at several stages of 
the citizenship process. My assumption is that the INS and the Clinton 
administration will now be called racist because they want 
verification. What is wrong with verification?
  Frankly, if we have voter rolls that people know are honest, that 
would strengthen motor voter, not weaken it. To the degree we have 
people going on the rolls and we continue to have fraud in voting, 
there is going to be a massive effort to fundamentally reform the motor 
voter bill. This effort will be led by the local election officials who 
have to enforce motor voter.
  If my colleagues were truly interested in trying to make sure that a 
person's right to vote is protected, they would be supporting this kind 
of legislation. Then we can ensure that the rolls are accurate and that 
the motor voter law is not undermined.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Rhode Island would 
like to ask me a question on his time, I would appreciate it because I 
have a very short time. Does the gentleman have time?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I have time, but it is 
coming up in 3 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, okay, then I will be with the gentleman in 3 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very modest attempt, based on what we now know 
from the contested election in California's 46th District that there 
will be people who go to the polls and who will not be voting legally.
  Any Member who does not want to support this very reasonable check to

[[Page H470]]

provide election officials with tools to make sure their voting rolls 
are accurate are, in fact, damaging the very argument they argue that 
they are trying to support, and that is the advances that we have made 
in allowing more people to come on the rolls would be sustained.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is talking about something 
that may exist in the future. Unfortunately, this process has to verify 
voters now. As soon as it is put in place. And the INS and Social 
Security have both said unequivocally they do not have the capacity to 
do this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Forbes).
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I think is an ill-conceived 
measure that would, frankly, do more to create a big government 
bureaucracy centralized here in Washington, D.C., and do little, if 
anything, to get at the question of voter fraud.
  This is an ill-conceived measure. I think that we are turning back 
the clock and creating a mechanism that will only enhance 
discrimination. It will further divide this Nation. And, frankly, if we 
truly care about voter fraud, we would do some other kinds of things 
working with local governments in the States, rather than this 
Republican majority creating a big government bureaucracy that is 
composed of, again, the watchful eye of Big Brother.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from New 
York use his entire minute?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure 
that we were reserving the time for our side. We have many speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman, then, reserve the 
balance of his time?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. DREIER).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have the highest regard for my colleagues 
who have stood in opposition to this measure. But the fact of the 
matter is they are using little more than rhetoric. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) got right to the facts.
  We have a responsibility in this Congress. It is the responsibility 
to protect that very precious franchise: the right to vote. Everyone 
acknowledges that we have witnessed fraud in elections that have taken 
place. And as an institution, we have been over the past several 
Congresses encouraging greater participation. And yet what has 
happened? We have seen a lowering in participation and an increase in 
fraud. This is, as my friend said, a very cautious step.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) is one of the key authors of 
the Voting Rights Act, and I know that he would do nothing whatsoever, 
nothing whatsoever to overturn that very important legislation which he 
worked on.
  Mr. Speaker, we should support this very modest measure to ensure 
that that franchise is in no way jeopardized.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the former secretary of state of the 
State of Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what is this bill really all about? 
Last month the Los Angeles Times ran a story: ``National GOP Officials 
Outline Poll Watcher Plan.''
  Behind closed doors at last month's Republican National Committee 
meeting, Republicans cooked up a plan to put ``poll watchers'' and 
``challengers'' at key precincts on Election Day.
  Mr. Speaker, are they putting them in Beverly Hills? No, they are 
targeting, quote, ``districts with substantial racial or ethnic 
populations.''
  The L.A. Times reported: ``For many in Orange County, the proposed 
poll watchers would be reminiscent of the uniformed security guards 
that the GOP placed outside voting sites in Assemblyman Curt Pringle's 
district in 1988. Republicans ended up paying $400,000 to settle a 
civil lawsuit brought by several Latinos outraged by the incident.''
  Mr. Speaker, every American should be outraged. Whether they are 
white, black, brown, Hispanic, Asian Americans, African Americans, this 
bill is an outrage. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, no one in this body is for fraud, but 
unfortunately this bill has nothing to do with fraud. As the gentleman 
from Indiana, my friend and colleague, has mentioned, unfortunately, 
the immigration records cannot prove U.S. citizenship.
  Mr. Speaker, as the letter from OMB received yesterday points out, 
the Social Security Administration records also will not definitively 
reveal the status of citizenship. When we put the two together, we do 
not get anything more than what is there to begin with. We cannot prove 
citizenship with these records.
  So why are we here today? We are here today to consider a bill that 
would deter and discourage Americans who are not Anglo from voting. 
Whether intended or not, that will be the effect.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). I 
was a school girl 34 years ago when the gentleman from Georgia stood on 
that bridge for voting rights. Today I think that all Americans need to 
stand together once again to overcome the forces that would take us 
back to the days of Jim Crow, that would take us back to the days when 
poll taxes were in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand together for America.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, until 3 years ago, I was a county 
supervisor supervising the registration system for voters in a county 
of over 2.5 million people, and I know now what I knew then. There are 
two ways of violating a voter's rights. One is not to allow qualified 
voters to vote, and the other is to allow unqualified voters to vote 
and negate those qualified voters from voting.
  Now there is a lot of talk on this floor year after year about 
democracy and how important it is. This vote is about the integrity of 
our electoral process that sends every one of us here. And if what we 
are trying to say now is that the integrity of that vote, that 
qualified voters are being given the right to make their vote count, 
then vote for the bill offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn). It is a very moderate approach.

                              {time}  1330

  If my colleagues want to find excuses to walk away from this issue, I 
ask them to consider the fact that in the 1960s there were those who 
found excuses not to stand up for the right of voters to be able to 
have their vote count. Today, in the 1990s, sadly there are those who 
are finding excuses to allow unqualified people to have access to the 
voting polls to disqualify good, qualified voters.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding me the time.
  I rise today in opposition to this resolution which will add barriers 
to the free exercise of voting for many Americans. The fundamental 
right to vote is the foundation on which our democracy is based. The 
right to vote was directly attributable to the American Revolution, 
enactment of the 15th amendment, women's suffrage and the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965.
  In the segregated South, poll taxes and literacy tests were used as 
weapons against the right to vote. Now, more than 120 years later, 28 
years after enactment of the 15th amendment and 3

[[Page H471]]

years after enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are 
considering legislation that could once again inhibit the right to 
vote. H.R. 1428 would give wide discretion to State and local officials 
to deny legalized citizens, presumed to be illegal immigrants, the 
right to register to vote.
  This is a bad piece of legislation.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, with H.R. 1428, which I call ``the voter 
suppression and antivoter privacy act,'' Republicans are proving that 
they are the party of big, prying and intrusive government. Republicans 
want the Social Security Administration, the INS, the Justice 
Department to run background checks and share private information on 
American citizens who simply want to register to vote. Unless things 
have changed since I was in law school, Americans have the right to 
vote without going through a security check by ``big brother'' 
government.
  Why would Republicans do this? Maybe it is that they just finished 
blowing a million taxpayers' dollars in a 14-month investigation in the 
Loretta Sanchez case that they could not prove.
  What is next in the Republican plan? Will the FBI run checks on 
everyone who gets a driver's license? Will Social Security recipients 
be fingerprinted by the INS? And who will be targeted by the Republican 
efforts? Americans of Hispanic descent and other minorities who have 
common last names often found on immigration lists and who simply do 
not look like our typical mode.
  We have to make it more convenient for our citizens to vote, not more 
difficult and intimidating. If that scares Republicans, more working 
families mean fewer Republican votes.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pease) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the Republicans drafted 
this bill. Republicans learned in 1996 that there is a price to pay for 
practicing the politics of prejudice. Latino voters grew tired of 
hearing Republicans' red-hot rhetoric and coldhearted legislation 
targeting our communities, so in response Latinos voted for tolerance, 
opportunity and equality. In other words, Latinos voted for Democrats.
  What is the Republican reaction? To change course to end their anti-
Latino anti-immigrant behavior? No. Now they want to create unnecessary 
fear within the Hispanic community and create unwarranted fear of the 
Hispanic community in the eyes of our fellow Americans.
  I am not in the business of giving advice to Newt Gingrich, but let 
me say this: Latino voters are American voters. When we vote, we 
remember who stood with us and who stood against us. And we are not 
alone; Americans of diverse backgrounds are united. They detest 
discrimination, are sick of scapegoating and are fed up with finger-
pointing. The Republicans will go on record today not simply as 
opponents of Latinos but as opponents of the principles that should 
make each of us proud to be an American.
  Well, I'll tell you what kind of name Gingrich is--it's an American 
name.
  Every bit as American--in fact--as Garcia. Or Morales. Or Jimenez.
  Each one an American. Each deserving the right to vote. Each 
deserving of respect.
  And none deserving of the scapegoating, suspicion, and cynicism that 
the Republicans have aimed at them with this legislation.
  It's obvious why the Republicans drafted this bill:
  Republicans learned in 1996 that there is a price to pay for 
practicing the politics of prejudice.
  Latino voters grew tired of hearing Republicans' red-hot rhetoric and 
cold-hearted legislation targeting our community.
  So, in response, Latinos voted for tolerance, opportunity, and 
equality.
  In other words, Latinos voted for Democrats.
  And what is the Republicans reaction?
  To change course? To end their anti-Latino, anti-immigrant behavior?
  No. Now they want to create unnecessary fear within the Hispanic 
community, and create unwarranted fear of the Hispanic community in the 
eyes of our fellow Americans.
  I am not in the business of giving advice to Newt Gingrich. But let 
me say this:
  Latino voters are American voters.
  When we vote, we remember who stood with us who stood against us.
  And we are not alone.
  The Republicans will go on record today not simply as opponents of 
Latinos . . . but as opponents of the principles that should make each 
of us proud to be an American.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1428, the 
Voter Eligibility Verification Act. A great man once said give me 
liberty or give me death. I say give me the ballot box free and 
unencumbered or give me death.
  I find it ironic that we stand here today in February--the month set 
aside for the celebration of Black History and we are debating a bill 
that threatens to undermine with the franchise rights of millions of 
Americans.
  Fannie Lou Hamer, Dr. King, Goodman, Chaney, Schewerner, and 
countless others gave up their lives to ensure that every American 
would have the right to vote. The days of requiring Americans to count 
how many bubbles are in a bar of soap, before giving them the right to 
vote must never return. This legislation disguised as a bill to prevent 
voter fraud could take us back to the days when a series of tests 
dictated whether one had the right to vote.
  At a time when voter registration and participation should be 
encouraged--this bill seeks to discourage potential voters and 
especially minorities. This bill must be rejected for four reasons. 
First, there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Secondly, 
this bill infringes on privacy rights of individuals by requiring that 
voters Social Security numbers be listed. Thirdly, the Department of 
Justice and Social Security Administration have stated that this bill 
is untenable and unsafe.
  Finally, this bill should be rejected because it is an assault on the 
Motor Voter bill.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation of 
interfering with the franchise in this manner--reject this bill and 
protect the rights of millions of Americans to participate in the 
democratic process.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
his leadership.
  I rise with strong opposition to the recognition that every single 
one of us was one day an immigrant coming to this Nation, believing in 
freedom and liberty and seeking an opportunity to serve this Nation as 
a citizen. Whether it be at war or at peace, immigrants from all over 
the world came for justice and freedom.
  Now, today, in this House this Republican leadership and majority 
want to take away and clothe the Voter Rights Act with the cover of the 
Ku Klux Klan and deny those new immigrants who become citizens the 
right to vote. How tragic that we have come to this. Hispanic voters, 
Asian voters, new voters from the continent of Africa, yes, this is 
what this bill will do. It cannot be implemented, Mr. Speaker.
  The reason is, the Social Security Administration does not know how 
to implement it. They do not have any kind of data beyond 7 years ago. 
I ask any one of you who is an American today, would you want this to 
have happened to your grandmother and your grandfather? Then stand up 
for those who have come for freedom and are legal citizens. Vote down 
this horrible stab in the Voter Rights Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter 
Eligibility Verification Act. H.R. 1428 purports to eliminate voter 
fraud by requiring proof of citizenship for registered voters and 
applicants for voter registration. In fact, this bill is nothing more 
then a thinly veiled tool for suppressing the minority vote.
  At a time when voter turnout is at record lows, Republicans are 
proposing a bill that

[[Page H472]]

would make sure that fewer voters participate in future elections. H.R. 
1428 effectively undermines the Voting Rights Act and the National 
Voter Registration Act.
  H.R. 1428 will empower local election officials to drop citizens from 
voter rolls if the Social Security Administration and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service are unable to confirm a person's citizenship 
status. However, according to testimony from both the INS and SSA, H.R. 
1428 is utterly unworkable because neither agency can conform the 
citizenship of a majority of Americans.
  When names which have been submitted for verification to the INS and 
SSA come back ``unverifiable,'' state and local election officials are 
left with the sole discretion to decide who will be allowed to vote. 
The legislation provides no means by which to ensure that these 
officials act in ways that are uniform and nondiscriminatory. Since 
there is no criteria for challenging whether a voter on the rolls is a 
citizen or not, election officials may choose to block access to the 
ballot box based on a person's appearance, accent, or ``foreign-
sounding'' name.
  Ensuring fair participation in the political process is fundamental 
to our democracy. Increasing voter participation, rather then stifling 
it, is the only way to guarantee that more American voices are heard in 
the ongoing national debate over the future of this country. We do not 
want this experiment in Texas. We do not want this attack on Hispanic, 
Asian, or other new immigrants who are legal citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous and 
discriminatory piece of legislation.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my 
colleagues on the other side. Usually in the debate on a bill we have a 
few facts that are facts on both sides. This morning I have heard 
hardly any facts.
  It is very simple. A vote against this bill says ``We do not want to 
check citizenship. We want illegals and noncitizens to vote in American 
elections.''
  Now, if Members think this is wrong, may I say, we all stand up and 
take the oath in this Chamber to abide by the Constitution. The 
Fourteenth Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the 
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of 
the United States and of the State wherein they reside. And we look at 
the Fifteenth Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to 
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 
State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
  You will notice the Civil War--Reconstruction legislators put this 
language together to differentiate between ``person'' and ``citizen.'' 
It is very clear. They are saying only citizens in the United States 
should vote. They are not saying persons. They are saying citizens. 
That is the basic choice.
  The framers of the Constitution and the framers of these amendments--
the great post-Civil War amendments--knew what they were doing, and 
they differentiated. They knew the difference between ``person'' and 
``citizen.'' The last I knew, we wanted citizens of the United States 
to vote. The millions who have come here--including my father, who left 
tyranny for freedom, and my great-grandfather--could hardly wait to be 
naturalized and become an American citizen.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem, ``The 
Landlord's Tale, Paul Revere's Ride,'' he describes the will and 
resistance of those who came from Britain who had fled their mother 
country and created the 13 colonies seeking freedom and democracy. He 
described, ``One if by land, two if by sea, on the opposite shore I 
will be, ready to ride and sound the alarm through every Middlesex 
village and farm.''
  Today we are here sounding the alarm. H.R. 1428 is unAmerican. It is 
unfair. It is an outrageous attempt to deny immigrants democracy. H.R. 
1428 is quite simply a frontal assault on our Nation's essential voting 
rights.
  The bill would seriously undermine the Federal laws governing the 
uniform and nondiscriminatory registration of voters. It is reminiscent 
of the poll tax and literacy tests, of Jim Crow.
  This bill would allow local political officials to make arbitrary and 
potentially discriminatory decisions by selectively targeting groups of 
voters and forcing them to prove their citizenship, using an incomplete 
and inaccurate database.
  Vote down this bill. It is unAmerican. It is unfair. America deserves 
better than this kind of misguided public policy.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us of 
the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) has 
4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to this 
legislation, which is yet another attempt to undermine the voting 
rights and discourage voter participation of certain ethnic groups. 
Rather than encouraging every willing American citizen to exercise his 
or her right to vote, I must say, this restricts that very right.
  This bill is based on the misguided perception that voting by 
noncitizens is a major problem in this country. Yet the most inflated 
studies estimate that illegal voting constitutes but a mere fraction of 
all voters. Neither the Social Security Administration nor the INS is 
capable of providing this information accurately, and both agencies are 
already on record opposing this.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that the colleagues who want to return to this 
antialien ideology of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, that is what 
is in question here. Within the current political climate this could 
only be construed as a means to prevent the participation of ethnic 
minorities in the electoral process.
  This is discrimination of its worst kind. It is indeed, as the 
gentlewoman said, un-American.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1428. 
This is yet another attempt to undermine the voting rights and 
discourage voter participation of certain ethnic groups. Rather than 
encouraging every willing American citizen to exercise his or her right 
to vote, my colleagues want to restrict this right. Over the past few 
years, the ills of our nation have been blamed on immigrants or the 
descendants of immigrants. This is discrimination of the worst kind. My 
heritage within the borders of this great nation goes back five 
generations. But it is people like me who this bill attempts to repress 
and rob of an active political life.
  This bill is based on the misguided perception that voting by 
noncitizens is a major problem in this country. Yet, even the most 
inflated studies estimate that illegal voting in this country 
constitutes but a mere fraction of all voters. The INS is required to 
and has fully cooperated with election officials during investigations 
of voter fraud. Not only is this bill unnecessary, it is impractical.
  Neither the Social Security Administration nor the INS have accurate 
databases to confirm citizenship status. These agencies are incapable 
of providing this information accurately and both the Social Security 
Administration and the Justice Department have already voiced their 
opposition to this legislation. The INS is already working to become 
more efficient, reforming its system to reduce backlogs and prevent 
criminals from becoming citizens. Forcing it to take on further 
unnecessary, time-consuming duties would be a waste of taxpayer dollars 
that are intended to naturalize, not penalize.
  Many U.S. citizens were naturalized before the INS began keeping 
computer records at all. These Americans, who have been voting for 
years, are among the most likely to have their voting rights revoked 
and their participation suppressed. If election officials are allowed 
to ``confirm'' citizenship status of registered voters and applicants, 
we grant them the prerogative to reject applicants and drop voters from 
the rolls. A name returned ``unconfirmed'' would be deemed ineligible 
to vote. Millions of native-born and naturalized citizens would be 
turned away and have to prove they are citizens.
  The bill we have before us today would overturn the Voting Rights Act 
and invalidate the National Voter Registration Act or ``Motor Voter 
Law.'' This landmark legislation successfully established procedures 
that encourage voter participation nationwide. Since its enactment in 
1993, 13 million new voters have registered, including senior citizens, 
disabled citizens, military personnel, and many others. This is the 
intention and design of a democracy. Reinstating obstacles to this 
achievement would be counter-productive. Within the

[[Page H473]]

current political climate, this can only be construed as a means to 
prevent the participation of ethnic minorities in the electoral 
process.
  Millions of Americans take for granted the rights they have in this 
country. For a recently naturalized citizen, voting is an opportunity 
to fully experience a newly earned freedom. It is something to be 
practiced with pride and self-respect. But many of these new citizens 
do not carry, on their person, documents to prove their citizenship. 
How many of us in Congress carry such documents? Some of these new 
citizens have a yet to receive these papers due to tremendous backlogs 
at INS. Even those who are already registered would be subject to new 
requirements.
  This bill is nothing but a spiteful attempt to retaliate against the 
Latino community for sending Bob Dornan to the unemployment line. It is 
more of the same failed tactics used by the Republican leadership in a 
continue effort to cast a cloud of suspicion on a large percentage of 
Americans and reduce minority participation in the 1998 and 2000 
election cycles. This is an unjustified assault on Americans of color, 
those with foreign surnames or particular accents. Such subjective 
scrutiny will have a chilling effect on the voting power of Latinos and 
Asian Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I call upon all of those who believe in democracy and 
those who continue to believe in the ``American Dream'' to vote against 
this misguided bill.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time.
  As I was growing up in my family and I read about my uncles, 
President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and I read about their leadership 
in the 1960s and read about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 
Voting Rights Act, I thought my uncles had done it all. Growing up in 
my family, I thought, how could I ever fight the same fights they 
fought for, because I wanted so much to be a part of their fight.
  I am telling my colleagues today, I never thought I would see the day 
when their fight was not over. But it is not over; it is carrying on 
with this bill, 1428, as we speak on the floor.
  Last year, the Republicans put before this House a bill that said for 
teachers and principals to choose the students out of their classes 
that they thought were illegal aliens. In New England, where I 
represent Rhode Island, the highest illegal immigration problem is 
Irish overstays, Mr. Speaker, Irish overstays.
  Do my colleagues want to know how many teachers and how many 
principals and how many voting people are going to question Irish 
people who look like me when they go into the voting booth versus how 
many are they going to question that look like the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) or the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). 
That is what this bill is all about. It is wrong. It is un-American. We 
should turn it around.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The question is what problem are we trying to solve by this bill? I 
submit to Members that the problem we are trying to solve by this bill 
is one that the Republicans are trying to create.

                              {time}  1345

  They are seeing an unregistered voter behind every tree and they are 
seeing them vote for Democrats. That is what this bill is all about. 
They have spent over a million dollars on a wild goose chase and now 
they bring a bill to the American people which they know will fail to 
cover their tracks and make it look good.
  This bill will not work. The Social Security Administration and the 
INS have already told us that they do not have the records. Who will be 
sent there to check their citizenship? People who look like they are 
not American citizens: Hispanics, blacks, people who are minorities. 
This bill is un-American. They will then be given 30 days to take an 
appeal, but that 30 days will expire after the next election.
  So what happens when I walk into the polling place and try to cast my 
vote? I will be told, oh no, you cannot vote because you do not look 
American. The Republicans are seeing diversity behind every tree. Stand 
up and understand that this country is about diversity and honoring 
diversity, not destroying it. That is what this bill will do. That is 
what it is intended to do.
  No committee has marked up this bill. It comes to the floor today in 
the wake of the Sanchez dismissal as cover for my Republican 
colleagues. That is the sole reason it is here.
  This bill is un-American. It should be voted down and we should be 
ashamed for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated February 11, 
1998, from the Congressional Budget Office regarding this bill:

                                      Congressional Budget Office,


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1998.
     Hon. Melvin L. Watt,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
         Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: On February 10, you requested CBO's 
     analysis of H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification 
     Act. H.R. 1428 was introduced last June, but it has not been 
     reported by a Committee, and CBO has not completed a formal 
     estimate of its budgetary implications.
       The bill, as introduced, would direct the Social Security 
     Administration (SSA) and the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service (INS) to respond to inquiries from state and local 
     election officials about the citizenship of prospective 
     voters. It is difficult to estimate the likely costs of the 
     bill, because neither SSA nor INS now maintains the 
     information that would be necessary to provide definitive 
     confirmation of citizenship for the vast majority of the 
     voting-age population. SSA issues Social Security numbers 
     (SSNs) to native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and 
     aliens legally admitted for permanent residence; the 
     citizenship information in SSA's files may not be up-to-date 
     or (if the SSN was issued before 1981) based on documentary 
     evidence. The INS has information about naturalized citizens 
     but not about native-born citizens; even those data contain 
     gaps, are not entirely automated, and rely on the alien 
     registration number rather than the SSN.
       Because the limitations of these data would soon become 
     apparent to state and local officials, the number of 
     inquiries is likely to be small, as would the cost of 
     responding to them. Filling the gaps in the agencies' data 
     would require the creation of new data bases, clearly an 
     expensive undertaking, but one that would be barred by the 
     bill.
       I hope that this information is helpful to you. If you have 
     further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or 
     have your staff contact Kathy Ruffing of my staff at 226-
     2820.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the H.R. 
1428, the so-called Voter Eligibility Act. Despite its name it will do 
nothing to verify eligible voters. Instead this bill will undermine the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Motor Voter Act, create a national 
database system and unnecessarily invade the privacy of millions of 
Americans. That the Republican leadership would bring such a bill that 
diminishes a citizen's constitutional right to vote, to the full House 
under suspension, circumventing three House committees that have 
jurisdiction, and making seven substantive changes to the bill the 
night before, is a disgrace.
  This verification scheme in this bill is simply unworkable. THe 
Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) do not have the records to verify 
citizenship. The SSA is unable to confirm citizenship because SSA is 
not the official custodian of birth, naturalization, or other records 
that constitute evidence of citizenship. The INS database is severely 
flawed because is does not include any information on any native born 
citizens. And the INS database does not include citizens naturalized 
before computer records were kept or citizens who were recently 
naturalized. We are all against voter fraud, but H.R. 1428 is requiring 
a confirmation process for citizenship which is just not possible with 
any existing federal database.
  The bill would also be very costly. Since the bill was not reported 
from any committee the CBO did not complete a formal estimate. But, in 
a letter dated today the CBO states ``. . . filling the gaps in the 
agencies' data would required the creation of new databases, clearly an 
expensive undertaking, but one that would be barred by the bill.'' So 
the proponents of the bill can't have it both ways. But it is 
impossible to confirm citizenship without creating a new expensive 
national database. Watch out! Big brother is watching and checking your 
citizenship!
  H.R. 1428 is also a threat to privacy because voting registration 
records are public records. Nothing in the bill would protect or ensure 
the privacy of Social Security numbers. But the darkest provisions of 
this bill is its impact on the Voting Rights Act and the Motor

[[Page H474]]

Voter Act. At a time when voter turnout is dangerously low, this 
legislation seeks to discourage voter registration. Why should citizens 
have to bear the burden of proving their citizenship? How do you prove 
this? Should we now require everyone to carry a birth certificate or 
other document at all times? This is an unacceptable burden would have 
a disproportionate impact on low-income, language minorities and 
elderly who may not have access to the resources to pursue a 
complicated, confusing procedure for confirmation of citizenship. This 
effort is the equivalent of a modern day poll tax that was designed a 
century ago to keep African Americans from the voting booths.
  Motor voter has been a great success. In a Subcommittee hearing last 
year, the League of Women Voters testified that the Federal Election 
Commission reports that 1996 saw the highest percentage of the voting 
age population registered to vote since reliable records were available 
in 1960. Nearly 73 percent of eligible Americans are registered to 
vote. Why do we under the unsubstantiated guise of voter fraud do we 
need to reverse this trend?
  Many Americans, including many members in this House on both sides of 
the aisle have worked hard to eliminate barriers, test and devices 
which would hinder people from registering to vote. Why are we bringing 
legislation to floor which will turn back the clock on the efforts to 
preserve the constitutional right to vote for all Americans? Bringing 
this legislation to floor, under suspension, represents yet another sad 
day for this Congress. I urge the members to oppose this extreme short-
sighted measure.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the 
Republican majority's attempt to control the electoral process. H.R. 
1428 could keep millions of Americans from voting. American citizens, 
could be selectively removed from the voter lists. This kind of federal 
interference in the local electoral process would have a chilling 
effect on millions of new citizens who would be frightened away from 
this most sacred expression of the people's will.
  This Republican bill will lead to discrimination against racial and 
ethnic minorities. Citizens could be purged from the voter rolls soley 
on the basis of an ethnic-sounding surname or the fact that they live 
in a predominantly minority neighborhood.
  Sadly, it appears this legislation is part of a larger Republican 
effort to suppress Hispanic voter turnout. This campaign began with the 
year-long, million-dollar investigation into Congresswoman Loretta 
Sanchez's defeat of Republican Bob Dornan in California's 46th 
district.
  This bill will not work. Both the INS and Social Security have 
already said they cannot confirm the citizenship of most Americans.
  We need to remove obstacles to participation not build fear into the 
electoral process.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, earlier today this chamber voted to 
end the probe into the election of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.
  Congresswoman Sanchez was vindicated, and the voice of her 
constituents was reaffirmed.
  It should have never been questioned!
  And now Republicans want to set our nation back. They want to create 
new barriers to voting for every American.
  Mr. Speaker, our right to vote is among our most sacred duties as 
Americans.
  As our nation has evolved, so has our electoral process.
  The days of the infamous poll tax are gone, and the 19th Amendment 
ensures that all of our nation's citizens are granted representation 
through their vote.
  H.R. 1428, the so-called ``Voter Eligibility Verification Act'' is a 
misguided Republican attempt at curtailing the Voting Rights Act as 
well as key provisions of the Privacy Act.
  The bill allows federal, state, and local officials to randomly 
challenge the right to vote of any person they choose, and it directs 
the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to investigate the citizenship of any individual 
at the request of election officials.
  The INS and the Social Security Administration both oppose this bill. 
They know that many of their files are outdated and that they cannot 
accurately verify the citizenship of Americans.
  Furthermore, by allowing states to require Social Security numbers on 
voter registration forms--a practice which is prohibited under the 
Privacy Act--this bill would overturn key provisions of current law, 
and make the Social Security numbers of Americans public information.
  Mr. Speaker, let's keep this Congress from violating the fundamental 
rights of Americans.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1428.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1428, the 
Voter Eligibility Verification Act.
  The only purpose this bill serves is to undermine the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 and the National Voter Registration Act, more commonly 
referred to as the Motor Voter law. H.R. 1428 is exclusionary in 
nature, and it's motives are questionable.
  Mr. Speaker, if ever we as legislators wanted to discourage American 
citizens from voting, this bill would get the job done. There is no 
argument that persons who are not citizens of this country should not 
be permitted to vote. However, this bill is not the answer.
  When immigrants become citizens of the United States, they are very 
proud and have an earnest desire to contribute to and participate in 
the greatest democratic nation in the world. Whether it is to join the 
workforce and contribute to the economy, or to cast a vote and 
participate in the democratic electoral process, we ought to embrace 
our new countrymen and women with respect.
  H.R. 1428 would take away that respect. We would be saying to 
everybody--even those born in this country--``Prove to us that you are 
a true American. Prove to us that you are entitled to vote in our 
Democratic electoral process.''
  What's next, Mr. Speaker? Will we have to start carrying our personal 
papers on our person at all times in the event that we will suddenly 
prove our nationality when we cross state lines as they did in World 
War II Europe?
  This bill is also an affront to the 35 million plus voting aged 
Americans with disabilities who have benefitted greatly from mail-in 
registration since, in many instances, these individuals are physically 
unable to go to a registration site. Americans with disabilities 
already register to vote at a rate 20% below the rest of the 
population. If H.R. 1428 were enacted, that number would drop even 
lower.
  This bill is flawed in many ways. First, H.R. 1428 says that for 
persons born prior to 1978, the Social Security Administration would be 
required to report where that person was born. If a person was born 70 
years ago in another country, but has since become a naturalized U.S. 
citizen, his or her INS records are archived in a federal vault. There 
would be no way to verify the citizenship of long term, naturalized 
Americans through this scheme.
  Second, the bill would provide a 30-day ``appeal'' period, which 
would allow a person whose citizenship is unverifiable to submit 
``supplemental'' materials. At the end of those 30 days, the local or 
state registrar of that voter will then decide whether to permit the 
person to vote. This is an incredible affront to the Voting Rights Act. 
To give a registrar the ability to deny an American citizen their right 
to vote is a disgrace and an injustice.
  This is America, Mr. Speaker. This bill was conceived out of paranoia 
and xenophobia and it would severely threaten the voting rights of all 
Americans. Mr. Speaker, rather than discourage, we should encourage 
Americans to participate in the Democratic electoral process and to 
become fully engaged in the affairs of the country, which is their 
fundamental right.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1428.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today, we examine a flawed bill targeted 
against minority voters in this country, H.R. 1428 is crafted not only 
to intimidate voters and fail to preserve citizens' privacy, it also 
places an undue burden on the Social Security Administration (SSA) and 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
  H.R. 1428's mechanism to ensure voter authenticity is through 
confirmation from the SSA and INS. However, these organizations 
themselves stated that they cannot guarantee U.S. citizenship for all 
Americans for the following reasons: The SSA's citizenship data is 
self-reported (before 1978, the SSA did not require citizenship 
information); INS has accuracy problems with current computer-recorded 
information (before the INS began keeping computer records, thousands 
of individuals were already naturalized; these are Americans who will 
be ``missed'' if this system is in place).
  H.R. 1428's attempts to ensure a voter's American citizenship is 
shadowed by a greater offense to our constituents. It sends a clear 
signal for minorities not to come to the ballot box because they will 
be harassed and unduly questioned about their loyalties. According to 
H.R. 1428, if the SSA and INS cannot confirm an individual's 
citizenship, local and state officials can deny a person the vote. Now, 
if your last name is Nguyen or Santos, I can assure you that you should 
expect more questions and obstacles than if your name was Newton or 
Smith.
  Let us not forget that American ethnic minorities are valuable 
members of our society. Introducing legislation which is flawed in 
conception and implementation and targeted to this segment of society 
is counter to our American ideals of fairness and democracy. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1428. We cannot afford to decrease the 
number of Americans voting in this nation. We are a democracy after 
all, not an oligarchy.

[[Page H475]]

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that on the birthday of Abraham 
Lincoln, the Republican Leadership in the House of Representatives is 
bringing to the floor a proposal that says if you are African American, 
if you are Hispanic American, if you are Asian American, the Republican 
Party does not trust you to vote. The measure before us builds barriers 
and creates a coercive environment with the election and voting 
process.
  In its worse manifestation, H.R. 1428, the ``Voter Suppression Act,'' 
could return us to the ``good old boys'' days of Jim Crow laws. It is a 
proposal that has the effect of intimidating minority voters and 
creating a double standard that makes it more difficult for American 
citizens, who do not meet these new Republican superimposed criteria, 
to vote. For the Party of Lincoln, the Party of ``states' rights'' to 
interject this unprecedented level of big brother, big government is a 
shame.
   Minnesota has led the nation in voting participation for the past 
few decades by providing election day registration and extended 
absentee ballot procedures. To date, there have been no examples of 
widespread scandal or voter fraud. At a time that we should be doing 
more to empower new voters and facilitate the voting process, this 
measure moves backwards to a process which is a proven failure.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us condone illegal voting. But this is an issue 
that has been and should continue to be addressed at the state and 
local level. If the Republican members are truly concerned about how 
minority voters vote, maybe they should end their policies designed to 
divide our nation and penalize minorities instead of trying to 
frustrate the legitimate exercise of their franchise, the right to 
vote. I urge a ``No'' vote on H.R. 1428.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to H.R. 1428 which seeks to limit eligibility for voter registration by 
the creation of a new federal voter eligibility system to confirm the 
citizenship of registered voters.
  This apparently politically-motivated bill would amend the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a system through which the 
Commissioner of Social Security and the Attorney General must respond 
to local voting officials who question, for one reason or another, the 
citizenship of voter registration applicants.
  My colleagues, I ask you is this bill necessary? What evidence is 
there of widespread voter registration fraud by noncitizens?
  Instead of combating voter registration fraud H.R. 1428 would likely 
foster discrimination instead, because it would allow state and local 
officials to drop American citizens from the voter rolls solely on the 
basis of their ``ethnic sounding'' last name or because of the fact 
that they live in a predominantly minority neighborhood.
  Additionally, it is an unworkable bill since neither the Social 
Security Administration nor the INS can confirm the vast majority of 
citizens born in the U.S.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this potentially discriminatory and 
mischievous bill. At a time when voter turnout is already at record 
lows, this bill would make sure even fewer citizens vote.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility 
Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because 
I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, 
but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step 
toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national 
identification number by which the federal government can more easily 
monitor private information regarding American citizens.
  The Social Security number was created solely for use in 
administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, 
parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In 
addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also 
occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a 
driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate 
for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a 
government official.
  Now Congress is preparing to authorize the use of the Social Security 
number to verify citizenship for purposes of voting. Opponents of this 
bill are right to point out that, whatever protections are written in 
this bill, allowing states to force citizens to present a Social 
Security number before they can vote will require the augmentation of a 
national data base--similar to those created in the Welfare Reform and 
the Immigration Bills of 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly we are heading for the day when American 
citizens cannot work, go to school, have a child, or even exercise 
their right to vote without presenting what, in effect, is quickly 
becoming a national I.D. card.
  National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not 
constitutional republics. I'm sure all of us have seen a movie 
depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of 
the central state demands to see a citizen's papers. Well the Founders 
of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they 
created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to 
present their ``papers'' containing a valid government identification 
number before getting a job or voting.
  In order to protect the privacy rights of America's citizens, I plan 
to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use 
of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the 
administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the 
Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the 
Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social 
Security number as a de facto national identification card.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are concerned with 
maintaining and improving the integrity of our nation's elections. We 
know that, in some recent cases, illegal immigrants and others not 
legally qualified to vote have registered and cast ballots. A number of 
bills have been introduced in this Congress to deal with this problem.
  Regrettably, H.R. 1428, while attempting to restore electoral 
integrity, actually threatens to return us to a darker era in our 
nation's history, when people's voting rights were frequently 
challenged or harassed and their right to cast ballots was denied.
  H.R. 1428 would allow local officials to check the eligibility of 
registered voters by submitted names from the voting rolls to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Social Security 
Administration. But how will the names be chosen? Will the Smiths, the 
Johnsons, and the Andersons be scrutinized, or will the efforts of 
local officials be more focussed on the Singhs, the Martinezes, and the 
Nguyens? Unfortunately, the historical record would indicate the 
latter.
  In addition, the bill presumes that the INS and the SSA will have 
their records available and updated for use by local officials, which 
we know is not likely to be the case. And should local election 
officials not be able to confirm citizenship, they can drop voters from 
the rolls without having proven that they are not qualified to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, Hispanic-Americans and other 
immigrants to our country feel a growing bias against them. U.S. 
citizens living in my district who were born in Latin America have 
expressed their growing frustration and fear with harassing INS raids 
which treat all immigrants as suspects; they are being denied the 
presumption of innocence. A Salvadoran-American woman living in my 
district, who has been a resident and a citizen for more than 20 years, 
never leaves her house without her U.S. passport, for fear that she may 
be harassed or detained by immigration or other law enforcement 
authorities.
  H.R. 1428 threatens to intensify the growing feeling of alienation 
among immigrant U.S. citizens, without assuring that it can easily, 
reasonably, or fairly accomplish its objective of ballot integrity. For 
these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1428.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1428, the Voter Eligibility Protection Act. This legislation would 
permit state and local voting officials to verify the citizenship of 
registered voters through the Social Security Administration or the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. I would urge my colleagues to 
vote against this misguided attempt to undermine one of our most 
precious, fundamental and hard-fought rights, the right to vote.
  It is clear to me that this bill would intimidate voters by 
subjecting them to a burdensome process of citizenship verification. 
Most upsetting is that it would disproportionately impact Americans of 
color, who will be suspect for no other reason than the way they look. 
At a time when we should be continuing our efforts to open the 
electoral process to more Americans, particularly more minorities, to 
ensure that all groups are adequately represented, I am astonished that 
my colleagues would even consider a measure that will undoubtedly have 
the opposite effect. H.R. 1428 threatens to keep millions of voters 
from exercising their rights, and that is the very last thing this 
Congress should be doing.
  In addition to the shamefully discriminatory impact that will result 
from this legislation, there is the simple fact that the measure will 
not work. Both INS and SSA have themselves admitted that they lack the 
capacity to accurately verify the citizenship status of voters. H.R. 
1428 would violate the privacy rights of voters, undermine the Voting 
Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, discourage eligible 
Americans from voting, and foster discrimination when we should be 
working to eradicate it and instead celebrate the diversity that is 
such a critical component of this great nation. All this, and the 
legislation would not even accomplish its purported goals.
  I will oppose this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern 
regarding legislative

[[Page H476]]

initiatives to restrict voter registration and turnout. The so-called 
``Voter Eligibility Confirmation System'' in effect threatens voting 
rights of the American constituency.
  As introduced, this legislation would establish a federal program for 
state and local elected officials to ``confirm'' the citizenship of 
registered voters and voter registration applicants. The proposal would 
allow elected officials to submit the names of voter registration 
applicants and registered voters to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service and the Social Security Administration for citizenship 
confirmation through a computerized system.
  With all due respect to my Colleague, this is bad policy! The data on 
which this system is based is inaccurate. The fact is that an American 
citizen can have a social security number and stand the possibility of 
not being confirmed as a citizen by the Social Security Administration. 
Thousands of U.S. citizens were naturalized before the agency began 
keeping computer records at all. As a result, our fellow Americans will 
be targeted to have their voting rights undermined by the use of such a 
system.
  Historically, women and minorities in our Nation have been singled 
out and questioned based on their surnames or appearance. Although this 
American struggle has made many progressions, this act of 
discrimination should not and must not be tolerated by our 
distinguished House.
  Under current federal and state laws, both voter registration fraud 
and voter fraud are crimes. The notion that massive citizenship 
verification procedures are needed does not align with the facts. The 
data received from the House Oversight Committee hearing in 1995 
revealed that the real problem of voter fraud had to do with the abuses 
of State absentee ballot laws, NOT by Latinos or Asian Americans.
  Let's get real. This bill attempts to set measures that not only 
overturns the Privacy Act projections, but recreates a system that 
affects the minorities in our America.
  As the Honorable Jimmy Carter so eloquently stated in his 1981 
farewell address, ``America did not invent human rights. In a very real 
sense . . . human righters invented America.''
  As we move into the new millennium, let us continue to build bridges 
in our Nation. We need to address the facts of this proposed 
legislation and not be distracted by the rhetoric.
  All Americans should have the inalienable right to vote and that 
right must not be determined based on whether an elected official 
decides that one of our fellow Americans is ``ethnic-looking'' verses 
``American-looking.''
  In closing, I will leave with the powerful statement of the Reverend 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in staunch and vehement 
opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. This 
bill would repress the participation of legal, U.S. citizens in the 
process of both registering to vote and participation in elections. 
Furthermore, it would erode the hard-earned gains of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation 
on final passage. This bill, which was not considered in either the 
House Judiciary Committee nor the House Oversight Committee for a 
markup, is being pushed onto the floor under the ``suspension of the 
rules'' calendar. This method does not allow Members of Congress, in 
support or opposition to this bill, to offer amendments or engage in 
more than 40 minutes of debate.
  H.r. 1428 would require American citizens, whom the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration 
could not confirm to be citizens, to be selectively removed from 
registration lists. As a Member of the House Oversight Committee, I 
have first-hand knowledge of how flawed, by the INS's own admission, 
the INS database is. According to researchers of the INS database 
during the contested election of California's 46th Congressional 
District, William Thomas was listed as a possible person who might not 
be eligible to vote in the 46th Congressional District in California. 
The INS database does not contain data on any native-born citizens. 
Even naturalized citizens--citizens who pay taxes, work legally, and 
are probably going to fight and possibly die, in another war against 
Iraq--are not included in this INS database.
  What is worse is that the database for the Social Security 
Administration is equally flawed. Before 1978, the Social Security 
Administration did not collect information on citizenship or country of 
origin. Therefore, citizens--including the vast majority of the 
membership of Congress--who received a Social Security card before 1978 
probably would not be able to register or vote under H.R. 1428. This 
bill would also make Social Security numbers part of the public record. 
As many Members of Congress know, two employees of the Legislative 
Resource Center were fired by Chairman William Thomas because of their 
alleged mis-handling of the Social Security numbers of employees of the 
House of Representatives. If it is wrong for Congress to make the 
Social Security numbers of its employees public, it is wrong for states 
and municipalities to do the same.

  This legislation does nothing to ensure that naturalized citizens or 
U.S. born citizens will not be discriminated against. As an African 
American, I cannot recount the number of times that I felt the sting of 
discrimination or prejudice because I did not fit someone's mind-set of 
what an ``American'' looked like. It is one thing if a blue-eyed, white 
male is trying to register or vote. It is another thing for a dark-
skinned, Latina female with an accent to try to register or vote. This 
bill hearkens back to the days before the adoption of the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act in which there were grandfather clauses, poll taxes, 
literacy tests and outright intimidation by ``poll watchers'' to 
determine just who could or could not either register or vote.
  It saddens me to know that, after a generation, some of the same 
issues of equality and fairness that one of my constituents, civil 
rights titan Rosa Parks, stood for are being eroded today. It saddens 
me to know that, after a generation, some of the same issues of freedom 
and enfranchisement, a citizen of the City of Detroit, civil rights 
martyr Viola Liuzzo, died for are being threatened today. It saddens me 
to know that, as a current Member of Congress, I receive the notice of 
threats against my life to fight for justice. Let the record reflect 
that I am not placing my meager work on the same standard as these two 
courageous and brave persons. What I am saying is that it is 
regrettable that we, as a nation, have obviously learned so little from 
the struggle fought, lives lost, and freedom gained from 33 years worth 
of challenge and controversy.
  It is my hope that the wisdom of truth, justice and fairness will 
prevail today on the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill 
must be stopped. In the spirit of Rosa Parks, in the memory of Viola 
Liuzzo, let us stop the erosion of access of freedom and justice. Let 
us maintain the integrity and validity of our elections. Let us 
encourage all citizens to register and vote. Vote against H.R. 1428 on 
final passage.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I could tell from the emotionalism of the 
attacks that those who are opposed to this bill did not have very many 
facts to work on so they decided to use rhetoric and symbolism.
  This bill is actually quite simple. It has a very simple premise: One 
should be an American citizen to participate in an American election. 
This is not a complicated idea. A person can be a black American as a 
citizen, I would say to my friend; they can be a yellow American 
citizen, a red American citizen, a white American citizen, a brown 
American citizen, they can be a tall American citizen, a short American 
citizen, but they should be an American citizen.
  We can have the full range of diversity. Persons may have emigrated 
from Fiji or emigrated from Ireland. I would say to my friend from 
Rhode Island, since I was a Doherty on my grandmother's side, certainly 
we want those Irish who are here legally to vote if they are citizens. 
But we do not want Irish who are here illegally, nor do we want anyone 
else who is here illegally to vote.
  I listened for a long time to rhetoric, now I think it is time to 
talk about what this bill is about. This is a narrowly drawn bill. The 
essence of this bill is simple and it is based, frankly, on the 
recommendations of the Secretary of State of California. The Secretary 
of State of California says there are people voting in California who 
are not citizens and he does not have the means to check them.
  Now, somebody said the Immigration and Naturalization cannot support 
this bill. Frankly, I am shocked that anyone on the other side of the 
aisle would raise the issue of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. We had a report released Monday that in creating new citizens, 
according to an outside accounting firm, 90.2 percent of the files were 
handled wrong. In three offices, 99 percent of the files were handled 
wrong.
  If anything, there ought to be a scandal about the fact that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service itself, according to this 
estimate, last year had 38,000 citizens, had 38,000 citizens made 
citizens who should not have

[[Page H477]]

been made citizens, 11,000 of whom, 11,000 of whom were criminals.
  Now, I would say to my colleagues that, first of all, the real answer 
ought to be let us overhaul the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
so it does its job effectively, let us make sure the Social Security 
system has a computer that works, and then let us allow a State--what 
are we asking a State to do? It is not complicated. We are saying to a 
State to make sure that the only people participating in their 
elections are legal American citizens. That is the only criteria here.
  People get up and make all these comments as though somehow, if they 
yell racist long enough, if they scream diversity long enough, if they 
somehow come in here and pretend this is about something else--this is 
a very narrow bill. Members who vote against this bill are saying they 
do not want to know if illegal immigrants are voting. They do not want 
to know if noncitizens are voting, many of whom, by the way, may be 
here legally, may have been told they could register even though they 
were not citizens and may be innocent.
  All we are saying is an American citizen's right to vote is one of 
their most precious rights. How can we cancel out an American citizen 
with a noncitizen and not feel that we are somehow cheating the essence 
of freedom in America? This bill is about citizenship, it is about 
citizens being allowed to vote.
  I want to repeat: If a person is an African American and a citizen, 
they can vote; if they are Asian American and a citizen, they can vote; 
if they are an Hispanic American and a citizen, they can vote; if they 
are a European American and a citizen, they can vote; if they are 
Native Americans and a citizen, they can vote. And, frankly, if their 
ancestors come from all five categories and they are a citizen, they 
can vote.
  This is not about diversity, it is about enforcing the law. And I 
think to try to vote this down with the sham argument of racism is, in 
effect, a way of covering up the fact that some Members, in fact, favor 
allowing noncitizens to vote, allowing people who have no right to 
vote, and that means canceling out the legal vote of a legal citizen 
who should have that vote protected as one of the hallmarks of 
democracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1428, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 200, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                               YEAS--210

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Buyer
     Callahan
     Clement
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Lantos
     Largent
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Oxley
     Riggs
     Schiff
     Shadegg
     Smith (OR)
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1412

  Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. BECERRA changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GILMAN and Mr. LEACH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________