[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.
____________________