[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6765-H6785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1015, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register
to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate
State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of
the United States to prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1015, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4844
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 ``Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
(a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as
Condition of Receiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register
by Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo
Identification''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Individuals voting in person.--
``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the appropriate State or local
election official may not provide a ballot for an election
for Federal office to an individual who desires to vote in
person unless the individual presents to the official--
``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid photo
identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office, a government-issued,
current, and valid photo identification for which the
individual was required to provide proof of United States
citizenship as a condition for the issuance of the
identification.
``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an individual
does not present the identification required under
subparagraph (A), the individual shall be permitted to cast a
provisional ballot with respect to the election under section
302(a), except that the appropriate State or local election
official may not make a determination under section 302(a)(4)
that the individual is eligible under State law to vote in
the election unless the individual presents the
identification required under subparagraph (A) to the
official not later than 48 hours after casting the
provisional ballot.
``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
appropriate State or local election official may not accept
any ballot for an election for Federal office provided by an
individual who votes other than in person unless the
individual submits with the ballot--
``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current, and valid
photo identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office, a copy of a
government-issued, current, and valid photo identification
for which the individual was required to provide proof of
United States citizenship as a condition for the issuance of
the identification.
``(B) Exception for overseas military voters.--Subparagraph
(A) does not apply with respect to a ballot provided by an
absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty
or service, is absent from the United States on the date of
the election involved. In this subparagraph, the term `absent
uniformed services voter' has the meaning given such term in
section 107(1) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)), other than an
individual described in section 107(1)(C) of such Act.
``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For
purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--
``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it is
issued by the Federal Government or by the government of a
State; and
``(B) an identification is one for which an individual was
required to provide proof of United States citizenship as a
condition for issuance if the identification displays an
official marking or other indication that the individual is a
United States citizen.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 15483) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER
BY MAIL'' and inserting ``FOR PROVIDING PHOTO
IDENTIFICATION''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections
(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by amending the item relating to section 303 to
read as follows:
``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements
and requirements for providing photo identification.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by
this section shall apply with respect to the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office held in
November 2008 and each subsequent election for Federal
office.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with
respect to the regularly scheduled general election for
Federal office held in November 2008 and each subsequent
election for Federal office.''.
SEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.
(a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--
Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Making photo identifications available.--
``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each
succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a program
to provide photo identifications which may be used to meet
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by individuals who
desire to vote in elections held in the State but who do not
otherwise possess a government-issued photo identification.
``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent
individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee for
providing a photo identification under the program
established under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to
the State of providing the identification to the individual;
and
``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any individual who
provides an attestation that the individual is unable to
afford the fee.
``(C) Identifications not to be used for other purposes.--
Any photo identification provided under the program
established under subparagraph (A) may not serve as a
government-issued photo identification for purposes of any
program or function of a State or local government other than
the administration of elections.''.
(b) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title
II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new part:
``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO
INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS
``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING
PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT
INDIVIDUALS.
``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make
payments to States to cover the costs incurred in providing
photo identifications under the program established under
section 303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the
fee that would otherwise be charged under the program.
``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to
a State under this part for any year shall be equal to the
amount of fees which would have been collected by the State
during the year under the program established under section
303(b)(4) but for the application of section
303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information
furnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in
such form as the Commission may require.
``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments
under this part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to
subtitle D of title II the following:
``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to
Indigent Individuals
``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo
identifications for voting to indigent individuals.
``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect October 1, 2007.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4484, the Federal Election
Integrity Act of 2006, and ask all my colleagues to support this
important bill.
This bill will require presentation of a government-issued photo ID
to vote
[[Page H6766]]
in Federal elections, effective November 2008. Though most of the
voting public already has an ID that can meet this requirement, there
is a percentage of eligible voters who do not have an ID, so these
extra 2 years will give them time to acquire it.
To ensure that only citizens are voting, the amendment will require
presentation by 2010 of an ID that could not have been obtained without
providing proof of citizenship. Once obtained, this ID can be used to
prove both citizenship and identity when voting.
This Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act which will
require people to prove their legal status in the country to get a REAL
ID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008. Citizens will be able
to use the IDs they obtain under this process to vote in elections
starting in 2010 and for all elections thereafter. H.R. 4844 will
require the ID to include some indicia of citizenship, so poll workers
and other election officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a
citizen.
Those who arrive at the polls without an ID will be permitted to cast
a provisional ballot. These ballots will be counted if the person
returns and presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48
hours. To help those who need but cannot afford the ID to vote, the
amendment requires States to provide them free of cost to the indigent
and authorizes funds to reimburse States for the cost of doing so.
To most people this proposal is a simple, commonsense proposal and a
necessary safeguard against vote fraud. To others it represents a
dangerous threat to some citizens' ability to access the polls. While
this debate may be heated in Washington, D.C., it seems the American
people have made up their mind. A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll
showed that 81 percent of those surveyed favored an ID requirement for
voting. A Rasmussen poll during that same time period showed a similar
result. Seventy-seven percent surveyed favored an ID requirement for
voting.
Likewise, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election
Reform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the report they
issued last year. While the division on this issue may be partisan here
in Congress, it certainly was not on this bipartisan commission. It
seems a large bipartisan majority there concluded by an 18-3 vote that
requiring ID is a necessary reform.
Once implemented, H.R. 4844 will put an important safeguard in place
that will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore
confidence in it. By putting in place procedures that ensure voting is
limited to eligible citizens, we can encourage participation and
increase turnout.
The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all the claims
that disenfranchisement would ensue after the enactment of the proof of
citizenship and ID requirements in Proposition 200, testimony in
Phoenix revealed that registration went up 15 percent after the
requirement to prove citizenship went into effect. The fact is, people
are encouraged to vote when they believe their vote will count and know
that their vote will not be canceled out by an illegal vote.
I know there will be some who oppose the action we will take today,
and there will be some controversy generated by the proposal. I wish it
were not so. It seems we should all be able to agree that voting should
be limited to citizens of the United States, because that has been the
law for years. If we can agree on that, we should be able to agree that
our voting systems must have procedures in place to ensure that.
We should all be able to agree that every eligible citizen should be
able to vote, should be encouraged to vote, to vote only once, and to
be assured that their vote will not be diluted by an illegal vote. If
we agree on that, we should be able to agree that making people
identify themselves when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard.
It was not always so. I grew up in a small town, Edgerton, Minnesota,
with 800 people. They did not need photo IDs. They knew everyone in
town. If a stranger had showed up to vote, he would have been ushered
out of the hall. But today we live in urban cities, by and large. We do
not know each other well, and we need some means of foolproof
identification.
I am sure that we will hear from the other side of the aisle today
that an ID requirement is not necessary and is too much trouble. But
every day millions of Americans show a photo ID to pay by check, board
a plane or buy alcohol or tobacco. Surely the sanctity of the ballot
warrants as much protection as these other activities.
In too many States, lax identification requirements mean people can
cast votes without ever having to prove their eligibility. Our voting
rights are too important to rely on an honor system. We need to make
sure we have procedures in place that protect the right to vote and
make sure only eligible citizens are able to do so.
I hope all Members will recognize the need for these necessary
reforms. They will advance the security of our electoral systems,
increase confidence in their integrity and reduce the opportunities for
fraud. I ask all Members to support this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I never thought as a girl growing up in Birmingham,
Alabama, that I would meet, again, a present-day poll tax. My goodness.
My father would be really amazed.
Therefore, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the so-
called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which requires all
States to demand that voters provide government-issued identification
in order to vote in the 2008 election and proof of citizenship in order
to vote in the 2010 election.
The Republican Party has acted without expressing any concern for the
millions of American citizens who currently do not have the necessary
documentation and consequently will be denied their right to vote.
Further, the majority has not been moved by the realization that the
burden of this legislation falls disproportionately on the elderly, the
disabled, and ethnic minorities. Unfortunately, the Republicans made no
effort to determine how many would be affected and be disenfranchised
by this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, with H.R. 4844, this Republican legislation devises a
modern-day poll tax in the form of a proof of citizenship requirement
that will keep some eligible voters from voting and make it harder for
all American citizens to vote. No citizen should have to pay in order
to exercise his or her constitutional right to vote.
I have heard today on this Floor that President Carter's and
Secretary of State Baker's reference to IDs fit within the intent of
this bill. Allow me to clarify this assertion. Their ID proposal does
not have requirements for citizenship, and they wish that everyone, not
just those who can not afford IDs, possess them free of charge. They
have not endorsed this piece of legislation.
Proof of citizenship requirements place on the voter the difficult,
time-consuming and costly burden of obtaining the necessary
documentation to prove citizenship or identity in order to cast a vote.
For example, our State Department reports that only 23 percent of all
Americans possess a passport, and the cost of obtaining one exceeds
$100. A majority of Americans do not currently possess the
identification required by H.R. 4844, and requiring them to obtain one
imposes an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote.
Additionally, some Americans may be unable to acquire the necessary
documents at any cost because they lack a birth certificate. We
recognize that there are many minorities, especially African Americans,
who were delivered by midwives, who did not have and do not have a
birth certificate. There are some rural Americans who do not have birth
certificates. We recognize that the State of Georgia indicates that 40
percent of their seniors would be denied their right to vote if this
piece of legislation passes.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, strikes
the appropriate balance between voter-ballot access and system-ballot
integrity, and it was accomplished with bipartisan effort. The
Committee on House Administration worked tirelessly to enact HAVA as a
solution to the problems associated with the November 2000 general
election. As a result of HAVA, $3.1 billion was appropriated to
[[Page H6767]]
the States to improve the voting process. My alternative calls for the
$800 million in shortfall funding to ensure full funding of HAVA.
The question of citizenship was directly addressed head on in HAVA
whereby Congress mandated that the mail-in registration form includes a
box that asks the question, ``Are you a citizen of the United States of
America?'' If you answer no, your form is rejected automatically. If
you answer yes, and you are discovered not to be a citizen, you are
subject to Federal prosecution.
Mr. Speaker, we have laws on the books that if someone votes
illegally, he or she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law. The penalties are stiff and have successfully served as a
deterrent to misrepresentation.
The voter ID question was asked and answered by HAVA. HAVA provided a
broad range of ID options for the narrow circumstances of first-time
voters who register by mail or appear in person at the polls to cast
their vote. A photo ID is only one option. All the other options
include employment ID, student ID, a current utility bill, bank
statement, paychecks, or a government document showing the name and
address of the voter.
{time} 1400
Neither voters nor States are required to comply with a one-size-fit-
all Federal mandate. The unavoidable consequence of enacting H.R. 4844
will be the decrease in the number of American citizens who are able to
vote. H.R. 4844 will do far more to suppress turnout and intimidate
voters than to prevent voter fraud, the purported objective of the
majority.
Now, we say to all of us here in Congress, if we know of fraud and of
persons voting illegally, we should tell our district attorneys. We
should not tarry on this type of thing, and I suggest to the majority,
if they know of any fraud, please call their district attorneys. We do
not need this type of bill to accomplish this task.
We should be, as Members of Congress, representing the people and
this people's House to do just that. For all the concern that the
majority expresses about protecting the right to vote, this bill does
nothing to stop voter suppression or correct the numerous
administrative problems that are plaguing our elections and robbing our
citizens of their right to vote.
I also previously heard that Andrew Young is in support of this bill.
In fact, we understand that Andrew Young is not in support of this bill
and that his remarks have been taken out of context. He is opposed to
this bill.
H.R. 4844, as amended, will do nothing to stop the intentional forms
of voter suppression such as the instances in 2004 when unsuspecting
voters were misinformed about the time or place of the election or
about the qualifications for voting. This bill will not remedy the long
lines, misallocation of voting equipment, voting registration rules, or
other election procedures that deny citizens their very critical
opportunity to vote.
These are the real issues that this Congress should be addressing. To
that end, I have offered a substitute piece of legislation that
addresses some of the problems of voter suppression and voter fraud
that are not addressed in H.R. 4844. Our Congress should be improving
voter access to the polls, preventing election fraud, paying for and
supporting election integrity, but it was not made in order. In fact,
this is a closed rule, which is what happens when the majority does not
want us to bring real legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, because of the critical adverse impact of this bill and
the affect it will have on our citizens' constitutional right to vote,
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4844. Instead of
making it difficult to vote, our job should be, in the people's House,
to promote civic participation more broadly.
There are 40 percent of registered voters who are not voting in our
elections. This issue is what we should be addressing. Instead of
erecting new barriers to voting participation, we should be devoting
our resources to prosecuting the illegal intimidation tactics and
solving the election irregularities which continue to surface with each
election cycle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) one of the most honorable persons in
the Chamber, one who has served well for so many years, the sponsor of
this bill, who has worked tirelessly for this Congress and for the
people of the United States, including on this bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate your warm,
gracious words.
There is a story that goes around in my hometown, Chicago. It says,
Bury me when I die in Chicago because I want to stay active in politics
after I am gone. This is not the problem we face here, but I thought I
would mention that anyway.
I rise in support of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of
2006, because the election system is the bedrock that our Republic is
built on and its security and oversight is of paramount concern. The
Constitution places the responsibility within this House to certify
Federal elections, and we ``may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations.''
It is the law that only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in
Federal elections, but our current system does not give State election
officials the tools they need to ensure that this requirement is being
met, which is why I have introduced this bill.
This bill will help election officials ensure accuracy at the polls
on election day. It amends Public Law 103-31, popularly known as the
``motor-voter bill,'' to require voters to show a current official
photo ID obtained with proof of their U.S. citizenship before voting.
This bill's requirements will extend nationwide for all Federal
elections.
H.R. 4844's provisions take effect gradually, allowing voters time to
adjust. In 2008, voters will have to show a current official photo ID,
and in 2010, they will have to display a photo ID that was obtained by
providing proof of their U.S. citizenship. A voter who forgets his ID
on election day will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and will
have 48 hours to present an ID to an election official to validate the
ballot. Furthermore, and this is so important, voters who cannot afford
an ID will be issued a free ID at no cost. That is some kind of poll
tax when somebody else pays for it. That is my kind of tax. Funds will
be appropriated, they are contemplated by this legislation, to assist
States in implementing the providing of a free ID.
Opponents argue requiring a photo ID backed by proof of citizenship
erects obstacles to citizen participation. That is certainly not true.
This bill is designed to increase participation by ensuring that each
legitimate vote will be counted and not be diluted by fraud.
There are many elections in this country every cycle that are decided
by just a handful of votes. How can we be certain that these elections,
without measures to certify the identity of voters, are not being
decided by fraudulent votes?
Opponents often claim that requiring a photo ID is a solution in
search of a problem. This argument is erroneous because election
officials cannot determine if a problem exists because they do not have
the tools to verify voters' identities on election day, nor when they
register.
Our laws operate largely on trust, trust that voters are truthful in
checking a box certifying that they are U.S. citizens. No documentation
is required. Under the current law, all you need to establish your
identity when registering to vote by mail is a utility bill or bank
statement, documents easily forged and which do not give any indication
of citizenship.
Our election system is too important to be safeguarded by mere
honesty alone. We must have verification.
Opponents claim that there are strict punishments already in place to
deter voter fraud. I agree there are sanctions in place, but they are
toothless measures when election officials do not have the tools they
need to concretely establish a voter's identity on election day.
Broad popular support exists for this bill. Photo IDs were called for
in the 2005 report issued by the bipartisan Commission on Federal
Election Reform.
Many States have recognized voter fraud is a problem and passed photo
ID laws as protective measures. Arizona
[[Page H6768]]
voters recently passed a law requiring valid photo IDs for elections,
and 22 States have implemented laws that require all voters to show
identification when casting a ballot.
Let me summarize by saying our voting rights were won by Americans
who were willing to lay down their lives for the freedom to elect our
representatives, and it is our duty to safeguard that freedom. If we do
not, our elections become meaningless.
This bill upholds the integrity of this election system for
everybody.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished and
outstanding member of the Committee on House Administration.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there is something we can
all agree on in this Chamber and that is that only Americans get to
vote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in
this bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a
felony for a non-American to vote.
Now, when this bill was introduced, the committee made it part of
Immigration August. We had hearings around the country, and what we
found out was that the issue of so-called illegal aliens voting
basically does not occur.
As the League of Women Voters has said, the voter fraud addressed by
this bill is a rare problem, and the witness in New Mexico said she had
never seen it in her entire professional career. And if you think about
it, it makes sense. Illegal aliens are sneaking across the border for a
job, not to vote.
We also got testimony that the impact of this will disproportionately
affect poor people and African Americans. In fact, in a Milwaukee
study, they found that 78 percent of the African American men aged 18
to 24 had no driver's license. Why? Because they are too poor to have a
car and they do not have a license.
In New Mexico, we heard from Mr. Yahzee, a Navajo, who told us that
the Navajos basically do not have this ID and they cannot get it either
because they do not have birth certificates, they do not have
electricity, they do not have phones. They do not have the document,
but they are the original Americans. They were the code talkers. They
are entitled to vote, but under this bill they would not be able to
vote. I do not know about this poll, but I think if you ask 81 percent
of Americans whether the Navajo should not be allowed to vote, they
would say, well, of course not.
Now, recently there was a measure put into place to have Medicaid
recipients have a photo ID, and we had to repeal that rule. And you
know why? Because we would have had to see old people evicted from
nursing homes because they could not come up with that photo ID. Well,
I tell you, if you cannot come up with a photo ID to save your life,
you are not going to be able to come up with a photo ID to vote either.
That must be why the AARP is against this measure.
So why is this before us today? We have no evidence there is a
problem. We have ample evidence in the testimony that this will
disenfranchise many Americans.
I must say that the Republican Party is doing this throughout the
United States. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans,
Native Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for the
time. I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, we deal with an issue today that could likely determine
the long-term fate of our Republic. As Mr. Hyde just pointed out,
voting is the bedrock of our Republic, and today we deal with voter
fraud.
The U.S. Constitution and the constituents of several States clearly
define the legal requirements to vote. A voter must be of minimum age.
They must be a citizen of the United States, and each voter must vote
only once. I do not think anybody in this body would disagree with
that.
What we discuss today or debate is over how do we enforce the voter
laws we have on the books.
A tamper-proof photo ID is the only practical way to prevent the mass
input of fraudulent voters into our system. Some say, oh, we do not
have any. How the heck do we know we do not have any? We do not check
anybody to see if they are fraudulent or not.
That was the recommendation of the nonpartisan Federal Election
Reform Commission, headed by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter
and former Republican Secretary of State James Baker.
{time} 1415
It is also the opinion, by the way, if anybody is interested, of 80
to 90 percent of the American public. It happens in every poll that is
taken on this issue. My State of Georgia, in fact, has already passed
such a requirement. They have even gone back and amended the law to
include free State-issued photo IDs for anyone who needs one.
But that is not good enough for some. Yesterday, the State Superior
Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, Jr., legislated on the court and ruled
that requiring a photo ID, in his opinion, is unconstitutional because
it imposes a duty on the voter not specifically required in our State
constitution. I feel very certain our Supreme Court will satisfy this
problem within the next couple of weeks. He did not address, however,
Legislator Judge Jackson Bedford, Jr., the fact that, without the photo
ID, the legal votes of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens could
negate the legal ballots of hundreds of thousands of our citizens
around the country. He did not address the fact that, without a photo
ID, tens of thousands of partisans could fraudulently vote in another
person's name and cast multiple ballots, negating the legal ballots of
our citizens. He did not address the fact that legal voters of Georgia
have spoken loud and clear over and over through their lawfully elected
representatives that this measure is needed, and it is desired.
He did not, meaning the legislative judge, address that the
Constitution of the United States guarantees to each State a republican
form of government, and this ruling directly conflicts with the perfect
right of the citizens of Georgia. Our Governor and State legislature
must fight this tyrant in Georgia.
But we can speak loud and clear against those who show their contempt
against the right of the American voters across our Nation. We can stop
election fraud today by voting for this magnificent restoration of our
constitutional rights by my friend and my colleague Chairman Hyde.
Defend the Republic. Support this bill.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely
right. If we need to go after fraud, we need to get some quantitative
information before we bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to our distinguished
minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
``This cannot be.'' With those words, State Judge Jackson Bedford
yesterday struck down the infamous Georgia photo ID law. Let me repeat.
``This cannot be.'' Let these words guide us here, because right here
in this House of Representatives we take an oath of office to uphold
the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees all
American citizens the right to vote and the right for their vote to be
counted.
I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the
ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, for her
leadership on this issue. She has been an important force in protecting
the integrity of elections. And that is why it is so sad to see this
bill come here to the floor today, especially named the Federal
Election Integrity Act.
Integrity? It is not about integrity. It is about a tawdry attempt by
Republicans to suppress the votes of millions of Americans. That is not
integrity.
America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must continue to
send a message to the world that we honor the oath of office that we
take to protect and defend the Constitution. Every eligible citizen
must be able to vote, to exercise his or her right to vote, and those
votes must be counted.
Only a short month ago, many of us stood here, stood proudly on the
White
[[Page H6769]]
House lawn as the Voting Rights Act reauthorization was signed into
law. We overcame many obstacles even for the reauthorization of that
legislation to affirm the most precious right of our democracy, the
right to vote.
Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and we are
undermining the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, in doing
so, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the
foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today is indeed a
disenfranchisement of millions of American voters, the elderly, African
Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and, get this, Native
Americans. Native Americans, people here longer than any of our
families, unless we can proudly boast of being Native American. People
with disabilities. The list goes on.
As the NAACP has said, this bill would disenfranchise many of the
very citizens that the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect. And
the Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so.
A few weeks ago President Bush spoke before the NAACP in the first
time in his Presidency. He quoted President Lyndon Johnson in saying
that voting rights are the lifeblood of a democracy. And yet, here
today, after making that great statement, quoting that great civil
rights and voting rights President, President Bush is here today in a
transparent, it is obvious to all, attempt to suppress the votes of
millions of American citizens, cutting off the lifeblood of democracy.
Is that integrity? I don't think so.
Supporters of this Republican voter suppression bill would claim that
this bill is about preventing noncitizens from voting. It is just the
opposite; it is a bill designed to prevent citizens from voting.
Noncitizens are strictly prohibited under law from voting and face
tough penalties for breaking these laws. And that is right. No one
condones fraud. There is little evidence anywhere in the country of a
significant problem with noncitizen voters. As our distinguished
ranking member pointed out, if you want to make a case, document it,
just don't claim it and then come through with a clear and transparent
attempt to cut off the votes of those who do not share your political
point of view. You didn't take an oath of office to do that.
This bill is not about noncitizens as its supporters claim. Rather,
it affects all American citizens by making them prove that they are, in
fact, citizens even if they have voted for years. By forcing voters to
undergo time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive attempts to secure
documents, this Republican voter suppression bill is a modern-day poll
tax. It would especially impact our elderly citizens and low-income
citizens, and disproportionately affect minority individuals and
individuals with disabilities, many of whom do not drive and cannot
afford passports. This bill suspiciously appears to target and
disenfranchise American voters who might not be sympathetic to
Republican policy goals. Again, a modern-day poll tax. And the
Republicans call this modern-day poll tax integrity. I don't think so.
We have a responsibility to remove all obstacles to participation to
the right of all American citizens to participate in the electoral
process. And yet, the AARP has said that the obstacles this bill throws
up to voting, that they are particularly concerned about that such
rules will prevent many eligible older voters from exercising their
right to vote. That is why they join the NAACP, the League of Women
Voters, and this long list of over 110 organizations, civil liberties,
civil rights groups opposing this legislation.
It even goes into health, United Church of Christ, the United
Methodist Church, United States Steelworkers, United States Student
Association. How about this. The list goes on. But it even talks about
some of the groups that deal with the disabilities community in our
country. The Navajo Nation. I will put it in the Record for all to see.
The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, AARP. The list goes on.
Groups Opposed to Voter ID Bill--September 20, 2006
African American Ministers in Action
ACORN
Advancement Project
Aguila Youth Leadership Institute
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
American Immigration Lawyers Association
American Jewish Committee
American Policy Center
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Arizona Advocacy Network
Arizona Consumers Council
Arizona Hispanic Community Forum
Arizona Students' Association
Asian American Justice Center
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote)
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Brennan Center for Justice
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Center for Digital Democracy
Common Cause
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Concerned Foreign Service Officers
Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Consumer Action
Cyber Privacy Project
Democratic Women's Working Group
Demos
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Emigrantes Sin Fronteras
Fairfax County Privacy Council
FairVote
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Hispanic Federation
Hispanic National Bar Association
Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona
Intertribal Council of Arizona
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE)
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Laborers International
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
League of United Latin American Citizens
League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson
League of Women Voters of the United States
League of Young Voters Education Fund
Legal Momentum
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
National Congress of American Indians
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Disability Rights Network
National Education Association
National Immigration Forum
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
National Urban League
National Voting Rights Institute
Navajo Nation
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc./NYPIRG
Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation
Philip Randolph Institute
People for the American Way Foundation
Project for Arizona's Future
Project Vote
Protection and Advocacy System
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
Republican Liberty Caucus
Rock the Vote
SEIU Local 5 Arizona
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
Somos America/We Are America
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
The Arc of the United States
The Multiracial Activist
The Rutherford Institute
Tohono O'odham Nation
Transgender Law Center
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
U.S. PIRG
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Auto Workers
United Cerebral Palsy
United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society
United States Student Association
United Steelworkers
United Workers of America
UNITE-HERE
Velvet Revolution
William C. Velasquez Institute
[[Page H6770]]
YWCA USA
Mr. Speaker, the general public should understand what this bill
means to them. This doesn't mean that you don't have to prove your
identity at the polls. Many States permit forms of identification such
as Social Security cards and utility bills when voting. What this bill
does do, though, is starting in 2008, voters would have to present a
government-issued photo ID that many do not have. Or, if you are voting
by mail, you have to send in your picture. I mean, what is this? Submit
it before getting a ballot. And, starting in 2010, that ID would also
have to show proof of U.S. citizenship. This cannot be.
But just if you are a person out there listening to this debate, and
you think, my Social Security card is not enough? The fact that I have
voted in this community over time is not enough? Where is the basis of
our democracy, which is truth and trust? It is completely lacking in
this bill. And they call it integrity.
As we know from experience, Republican promises to authorize funds
for identification are meaningless. They say, oh, we are going to
authorize. We are supposed to have had $800 million allocated to remove
obstacles of participation and to facilitate voting, but because that
would expand the universe of people who have access to the right to
vote, the Republicans have rejected it for fear of the result of that
turnout. Republicans have a history of underfunding electoral reform.
Again, they have underfunded the Help America Vote Act by $800 million.
How they can explain that, I don't know. I know one thing, it is not
about integrity.
Mr. Speaker, problems with voting that were apparent in the elections
of 2000 and 2004 are well-known to the American people, and they are of
great concern to the American people. Those elections have
uncomfortable echoes to a past that had been long left behind. In the
2004 elections, voters in predominantly minority districts reported
higher rates of inactive voter registrations, a greater percentage of
inadequately staffed and equipped polling places, inconsistent
treatment of provisional ballots, many of which were never counted, and
sometimes even a lack of an adequate number of ballots.
Even with the best intentions, it is challenging, as we saw in the
State of Maryland last week. But if the design is to thwart voter
participation, how much of a disadvantage is the average voter?
Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, in one of our Nation's finest hours, our
country came together as a Nation to overcome bigotry and injustice and
to secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage of the Voting
Rights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate the many nefarious
methods, poll taxes, literacy tax, grandfather clauses, and, as our
colleague John Lewis can attest, brutal violence that had been used to
deny African Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote.
Today this legislation seeks to turn back the clock. And they call it
integrity.
Those of us who take an oath of office, I go back to that oath over
and over again, promise to uphold the Constitution. We are committing
ourselves to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to
vote, and that every vote will be counted. Any diminishment, any
diminishment of America's citizens voting is a diminishment of our
democracy. This cannot be.
{time} 1430
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the future Governor of Wisconsin.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4844,
the Federal Election Integrity Act.
Mr. Speaker, our democracy can withstand many things and that is what
our history shows. But one thing it cannot withstand is doubt over the
outcome of elections. We have to know whoever wins, your guy, my guy,
conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat, he or she really won.
Won, in fact. It is the only way our leaders have the moral authority
they need to take on the great challenges of our times.
As others have noted, we have had far too many elections in recent
years where serious questions have emerged over irregularities and even
fraud. During the last Federal election in 2004 in my home State,
Wisconsin, Wisconsin found itself mired with out-of-date voter lists,
fake names, invalid addresses, double and triple voting, and ballots
cast by convicted felons. Our State's largest newspaper found almost
300 cases of felons voting illegally, at least 100 cases of double
voting, and 1,200 votes from invalid addresses. And the list goes on
and on and on.
Every one of those illegal votes cancels out a vote legally cast,
cancels out a vote from a citizen for whom that right is so precious
and so fundamental to our Nation's future.
A photo ID will not solve all of these problem, not by a long shot.
But it is definitely a step in the right direction, a step that I
believe most Americans support, a step that I know most Wisconsinites
support. That is why last year I introduced comprehensive election
reform legislation that would have required a valid photo ID to vote in
any Federal election.
It is also why I am proud to support this legislation from Chairman
Hyde. It is legislation whose time has come. It is a way of ensuring
integrity in elections.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great
civil rights leader and icon from the great State of Georgia (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California for yielding and for all of
her great work.
Mr. Speaker, just 3 months ago this body passed the reauthorization
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, admitting the sad fact that voter
discrimination is still a reality in this great Nation. This Congress
decided we could do better, that history required us to protect the
right of all Americans to vote.
Today this bill moves us in a different direction, the wrong
direction. This bill, like the unconstitutional Georgia photo ID bill
and so many other photo ID schemes throughout the country, is an attack
on the voting rights of millions of American citizens.
I am beyond disgusted. I am shocked. I find it hard to believe that
the Republican leaders in Congress will put election year games ahead
of the voting rights of American citizens. We fought too long, fought
too hard, and suffered too long for the right to vote. People died to
participate in the democratic process. We must not turn back the clock.
We must not go back. We must go forward and open up the political
process and let all American citizens come in.
Call it what you may, this bill is a modern-day poll tax; $10 or $15
for a birth certificate, $100 for a passport, this is a poll tax. There
is no other way to say it. It costs money to get a birth certificate.
It costs money to get a passport. Why put an extra burden on American
citizens to exercise their most precious right, their right to vote?
There is no reason.
Citizens will be denied the right to vote. This is no less than voter
suppression. We should open up the process to each and every American
citizen. Instead, this bill returns us to our dark past. Vote ``no'' on
this photo ID bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe for a moment
there will be no expense to any voter. It will be paid by the Federal
Government if the voter has to pay money to get a birth certificate or
a photo ID.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the
House Administration Committee, Mr. John Mica of Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ehlers for yielding me this
time, and I thank him for bringing out a bill that is both a reasonable
bill, a bill that looks out for the interests of the poor and those
that could be deprived of the right to vote.
I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis). He is a hero among heroes, and I am here to tell you if this
bill in any way infringed on anyone's ability to vote or discriminated
on any basis of allowing them to have access to the polls, I would not
support it.
But what we have in this legislation which has been so ably crafted
is legislation by a bipartisan commission, 21 members led by two very
distinguished individuals, the gentleman from Georgia, the former
President Carter, and the gentleman from Texas, former Secretary of
State Jim Baker, a 21-member commission, and by a vote of 18-21,
[[Page H6771]]
only three dissenters, they asked for and recommend this for protection
of the ballot.
Now we have been discussing here, day after day, border security. And
we want our borders safe. This issue is what Americans want. They want
safe borders and they want safe ballots.
I come from the State of Florida where we had the question of who
voted. This gives us protection because it asks for minimal
identification. So it is a good recommendation and it is a
recommendation because we don't want 50 States and some States with
different levels of requirements. We have a national standard, and that
is what was recommended by the commission to ensure that we have a safe
and secure ballot, ensure that we not only are protecting our borders
but we are protecting our ballots.
In Florida you can have a requirement for identification to buy a
six-pack or a pack of cigarettes. The very least we can ask is for
someone who is going to cast a ballot that is so precious in our
democratic process to show some identification, and I think this is a
good measure. I urge its passage.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Mica, perhaps you do want to consider not
voting for the bill because 60 percent of new registrants in Pima
County, AZ who are all eligible voters, were initially rejected. And
for every 1 percent of individuals who do not have the necessary
documentation of citizenship, 2 million voters are disenfranchised.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a
man who does know about all of this, a former Secretary of State, the
Honorable Jim Langevin from Rhode Island.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4844 because of the dangerous impact it would have on voter
participation in the United States. When I was Secretary of State, I
led an effort to reform our elections. We replaced our outdated voting
equipment, made polling places accessible, and significantly reduced
error rates.
My job was to make voting open and accessible to eligible citizens,
and to encourage people to participate in the process. From that
experience, I know this legislation would practically do nothing to
reduce fraud, while creating new barriers for Americans to vote.
Should H.R. 4844 become law, fewer eligible citizens will be able to
vote because they lack proper identification or documentation. Maybe it
is an elderly woman who leaves her home of 50 years to enter an
assisted-living facility. It could be a resident of New Orleans whose
public records were lost in Hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on.
However, these people have one thing in common: Once they are turned
away from voting, it is unlikely they will return. They may not return
that day because of a lack of time or transportation; or they may not
return in future elections because of the hassle they experienced. New
obstacles to voting will cause many to drop out of the Nation's
election system because it failed them.
Not only would the bill make it harder for every American to vote,
but it would also add massive new compliance requirements for election
officials. It also unnecessarily duplicates current law, which requires
that voters in Federal elections be U.S. citizens.
Fraudulent voter registration is a felony punishable by 5 years in
prison. Furthermore, the bill does not address other, more prevalent
forms of voter fraud and additional problems that we have witnessed in
recent elections.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a proud record of removing barriers and
increasing the opportunity of all Americans to vote. It guaranteed the
right to vote to citizens whose only disqualification was the color of
their skin. It opened polling places to the disabled. It extended the
franchise to Americans living overseas. It did all of this on a
bipartisan basis and while maintaining the integrity of our elections.
H.R. 4844 is a step away from that proud tradition because it would
erect new barriers for eligible citizens and disenfranchise many
Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4844 so that we
may preserve the most precious right, the right to vote.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who was kind enough to host us when we held a
hearing in his State.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I heartily support H.R. 4844. On election
day in 2000, President Bush was ahead by 31,000 votes. Before the
Secretary of State of New Mexico certified the election 23 days later,
the last State to certify, that gap had been closed to just 5,000
votes, and the voting was about 80-20 the reverse direction. The
estimate of fraud in that particular election was 7 percent in
statewide fraud.
One of the greatest frauds that is perpetrated in New Mexico is that
voting workers, campaign workers, come in and read over the shoulder of
the poll workers and find out names that have not been signed in. And
magically, that is the next name that appears. That is the next person
in line that comes up and signs his name, and it works over and over
again through the day.
It was against the law, and when candidates began to enforce the law,
in 2004 the New Mexico legislature went in and cured the problem. They
went in and said it is okay, it is okay for that worker to come in,
look over the shoulder and find a blank line and sign in. In fact, in
New Mexico it is against the law, it is against the law to check for
photo ID or any kind of registration even if you know that the person
is not the right person that is signing.
So that is the reason that I think a bipartisan commission supported
this bill. At the end of the day, the integrity of the election process
is the confidence in the process.
This is not about who gets elected. This is about making sure that
each person gets one vote and one vote only. For those who would say
call the district attorney, I would tell you when the college students
signed in and called us at 8, saying someone had already voted in their
place, I am here with my picture ID and they say I am already signed in
and it was someone else, the district attorney says if you can't find a
warm body signing the line at the time, then you have no case.
The county clerk in the county where these problems occurred was
convicted of four counts of felony fraud on election day; yet the
Secretary of State would not pursue the case. I support this bill
because it begins to restore some integrity to the election process. We
on this side will not allow disenfranchisement. We will not allow votes
to be suppressed, but we do need to clean up the mess that exists in
many States. I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding me this time.
We have had eloquent testimony and speeches dealing with the
practicality of why this bill is unconstitutional. But more than that,
let it be clear, let's pull the covers off of this, this is nothing but
a bold attempt, a shameless attempt by the Republican Party to target
those types of voters that they believe will not vote for them but
would vote for Democrats. That is exactly what it is.
I am here to tell you the truth about this because I am from Georgia
where this very same bill has been ruled not unconstitutional once, not
unconstitutional twice, three times it has been ruled unconstitutional
by a Federal judge, and just yesterday by the Superior Court of Fulton
County, the largest county in my State.
{time} 1445
It has been ruled unconstitutional. And the reason is this: The
Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear.
They said that the right to vote shall not be abridged, shall not be
infringed upon. That is the anchor. That is the basic thrust.
You come here and talk about needing a picture ID to get on a plane,
to get on a bus. Well, the right to get on a plane must not be
infringed was not written into the Constitution, but the right to vote
was. And if Alexander Hamilton was right, if Thomas Jefferson was
right, ought not we be right? If Madison was right, shouldn't we be
right? If Abraham Lincoln was right, shouldn't we be right? If Martin
Luther King, Jr., was right, shouldn't we be
[[Page H6772]]
right? When Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he said
the same thing. All throughout our history, and why?
Here are you, the Republicans, doing this dastardly un-American act.
And if John Lewis, who got his head bloodied on Edmund Pettus Bridge,
says it is right, then it should be right. And the right thing to do is
to vote down this dastardly un-American bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to Mr. Walden for purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
As the chairman knows, I support the fact that citizens should have
the right to vote and that the citizens' vote should be counted, and
the way to do that is to prove your citizenship. That is what American
elections are all about, so we do not have people here illegally who
are voting.
My concern with this legislation applies specifically to my State of
Oregon, which is entirely vote by mail, and the provisions contained in
this bill before us today give me some pause. And I would like to know
that I have the chairman's support in working with us in a conference
to address these issues.
In my district, 70,000 square miles, if every voter every time has to
photocopy their ID and put it with a ballot that they send in, it
raises some issues. I think there are other ways to guarantee that only
citizens get ballots to vote, and I would appreciate your support in
trying to address that issue in conference.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I recognize the
concern of the gentleman from Oregon, and we will certainly try to work
with him. We will solicit ideas not only from his State, but also from
the State of Washington, which has a considerable amount of mail-in
voting. And I would certainly like also to hear from the secretary of
state of both States and several county clerks from each State for ways
that we can accomplish the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that
every citizen has the right to vote, and only those who have the right
to vote will be allowed to vote. There may be more than one way to
accomplish that.
We will be happy to work with you when the bill reaches conference
with the Senate.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate that commitment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for another colloquy.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from
Michigan how this bill will impact those whose religious convictions
prevent them from having their photo taken for government ID. I
represent some 25,000 members of the Amish community. Many of them do
vote, but, because of their religious beliefs, will not allow their
photo to be taken. They wouldn't object to a fingerprint or biometrics.
But I would respectfully ask the gentleman to explain how the bill
deals with this issue, given our Nation's long tradition of protecting
freedom of religion, and if this matter could be addressed as the bill
moves along.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the
gentleman for raising the question. This is not the first time it has
come up. There are other groups. Many of the American Indians have
raised a similar objection, and I am quite sure that once we get in
conference with the Senate, we will be able to hear from that group and
all the other groups, the Amish, the Native Americans, and find another
method to ensure identity.
Clearly biometrics would be equally acceptable as a photo ID.
Thumbprints are generally not reproducible for other fraud; so I
believe this will help deal with the issue.
Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this just shows you how flawed
this bill is. This bill should have remained in committee so we could
really crank out and clear up some of these problems. We have heard two
colloquies from the majority on issues that are not a part of this
bill, for heaven's sake.
At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman whose
State has thrown out a similar type of law, the gentleman from
Missouri, the Honorable William Clay.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
With little to no evidence of past fraud, it is outrageous that my
Republican colleagues are going to extraordinary lengths to suppress
Democratic votes.
H.R. 4844 would impose undue hardship on seniors, women, minorities,
the disabled, and lower-income voters, who are all less likely to have
proof of citizenship. This bill qualifies as nothing more than a 21st
century poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
The malicious intent of this law was recently acknowledged in
Missouri when a State judge ruled it an impermissible additional
qualification to vote and in violation of the State constitution. It
would have disenfranchised over 170,000 voters.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill is nothing more than a sham
and fraudulent. In Missouri, for instance, we were not able to find any
cases of vote fraud over the last 50 years. So would the proponents
tell me where the fraud comes in?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they oppose making
sure that the people who vote in this country are American citizens.
We have 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and we all know
that there have been phony Social Security cards purchased and other
documents purchased, and, as a result, these people have been getting
benefits from this country, and many of them, we believe, have been
voting illegally.
The Constitution, as the minority leader said a while ago, guarantees
the rights of American citizens to be able to vote, and the
Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of American citizens.
She talked about the oath of office that we took to protect the rights
of the citizens of this country, and one of those rights is the right
to make sure that their vote counts. And if you have illegal voting
taking place, then every illegal vote takes away the right of one
American's vote to count in that election. And you have to guarantee
that right, that the American's vote is going to count. Now, how do you
do that?
We know that there has been fraudulent voting in the past. I know
some of my colleagues have said that hasn't taken place, but we know it
has happened. So with all the illegal aliens coming into this country,
all the border security problems that we have had, how do you guarantee
that only Americans have the right to vote? You have to have some kind
of an identification mechanism.
Now, one of the arguments that was made a while ago was that, well,
some people cannot afford it. This bill provides that anybody who
cannot afford this documentation, the government will pay for it. The
State and the Federal Government will pay for it. So the fact of the
matter is there are guarantees that people's right to vote, even if
they cannot afford an ID card, will be taken care of.
Now, I have listened to all the arguments. I have heard of all the
things that were said by my colleagues on the other side, and I have
great respect for them and their opinions. But the fact of the matter
is this boils down to whether or not Americans should have their vote
counted and not negated by an illegal alien or somebody else who comes
into this country who has phony documentation. And that is why a photo
ID is very, very important, and other documentation, which will be
worked out by my chairman here when it goes to conference.
This is very important for every American citizen, especially if they
are concerned about the problem of illegal aliens and border security
and their right to vote.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Burton, you are speaking about an
immigration bill at this point; so perhaps you should get that bill
out.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the great
gentleman who walks in the footsteps of his great father, the Honorable
Charles Gonzalez.
[[Page H6773]]
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me 1
minute.
The only thing phony about documentation, it is not the
documentation, it is the phony argument that is being advanced today.
And I am going to ask the authors, the sponsors, and those
individuals that espouse and support this bill to please stand at this
time if you were asked at any time in seeking your office that you hold
today for documentation such as a passport or a birth certificate to
seek this office.
The answer is no. All you did was what we all do. We attest that we
are citizens of this great Nation. And guess what? You get your name on
the ballot. But when it comes to the voters, we are going to say that
is not enough. Give us a passport. Give us a birth certificate. Prove
it to us. We may hold the office. You can vote for us. But lo and
behold, you cannot vote.
Think of the pure idiocy of the law that is being proposed today. And
the reason that it fails on logic, it was never meant to be logical. It
was meant to be political. And that is what we have here today.
And I am asking you to give up this charade. Give up November 7,
2006, politics and do the right thing and vote this down.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
yield 1 minute to a great leader from the great State of California,
the Honorable Sam Farr.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
The first thing you learn when you are elected to be a lawmaker is
not to pass laws that you can't enforce.
Why is this a bad bill? Because it cannot be enforced. What is in
your wallet that shows you are a citizen? None of the people sitting
here watching, listening has anything in their wallet that shows they
are a citizen of the United States.
This bill requires proof of United States citizenship. How are you
going to prove it? Your driver's license? You don't have to be a
citizen to have a driver's license. Your Social Security card? You
don't have to be a citizen to have a Social Security card. What is in
your wallet that shows you are a citizen? You don't have it. You don't
have it. So what this bill says is we distrust most the people we asked
to create a government.
Members of Congress couldn't even qualify because they do not have
cards in their wallet that shows they are a citizen. They can say, ``I
have got my voting card.'' Yes. Well, there are 435 of those. How many
people in the United States recognize a congressional voting card? You
can't even show it in the airport and get by.
So this bill is not enforceable because there is no proof of
citizenship card in the United States, which this bill requires. You
shouldn't enact a bad bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
yield 1 minute to another great leader out of the State of Texas, the
Honorable Sheila 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, let me offer my great
appreciation to Juanita Millender-McDonald. I cannot think of a Member
of this House who has been so persistent on these issues.
But I do want to say to the American people that we understand that
we want to secure the vote, but you might note and might want to
understand that out of 197 million people that have voted since 2002,
there have only been 52 voter fraud cases.
I want to join you in stamping out voter fraud. I want to make sure
that we have one vote/one person. But I do not want to step on the
Constitution.
This legislation steps on your rights, one vote/one person. And for
every 1 percent of the electorate who does not have the necessary
documentation, where you were born with a midwife, you have lost your
documents, you were in Hurricane Katrina or a volcano or an earthquake
or a mudslide, 2 million voters will be disenfranchised. And, my good
friends, this is a 21st century poll tax.
I will include in the Record ``The Long Shadows of Jim Crow'' because
this is voter intimidation.
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in
America Today
Overview
In a nation where children are taught in grade school that
every citizen has the right to vote, it would be comforting
to think that the last vestiges of voter intimidation,
oppression and suppression were swept away by the passage and
subsequent enforcement of the historic Voting Rights Act of
1965. It would be good to know that voters are no longer
turned away from the polls based on their race, never
knowingly misdirected, misinformed, deceived or threatened.
Unfortunately, it would be a grave mistake to believe it.
In every national American election since Reconstruction,
every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965,
voters--particularly African American voters and other
minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at
intimidation and suppression. The bloody days of violence and
retribution following the Civil War and Reconstruction are
gone. The poll taxes, literacy tests and physical violence of
the Jim Crow era have disappeared. Today, more subtle,
cynical and creative tactics have taken their place.
Race-Based Targeting
Here are a few examples of recent incidents in which groups
of voters have been singled out on the basis of race:
Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the
Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly
black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a
state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's
March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the
tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which
could suppress their turnout in this year's elections. Six
members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John
Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in
the matter.
This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation
of a ``potential felon'' purge list to remove voters from the
rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which
removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-
Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after
news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also
included thousands of people who were eligible to vote,
and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually
ignoring Hispanic voters.
This summer, Michigan State Representative John Pappageorge
(R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ``If
we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a
tough time in this election.'' African Americans comprise 83
percent of Detroit's population.
In South Dakota's June 2004 primary, Native American voters
were prevented from voting after they were challenged to
provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present
under State or Federal law.
In Kentucky in July 2004, Black Republican officials joined
to ask their State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to
place ``vote challengers'' in African-American precincts
during the coming elections.
Earlier this year in Texas, a local district attorney
claimed that students at a majority Black college were not
eligible to vote in the county where the school is located.
It happened in Waller County--the same county where 26 years
earlier, a Federal court order was required to prevent
discrimination against the students.
In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African-American areas
were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards,
driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs
designed to look like law enforcement insignia.
In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African-
American communities telling voters they could go to the
polls on Tuesday, December 10--three days after a Senate
runoff election was actually held.
In 1998 in South Carolina, a State representative mailed
3,000 brochures to African-American neighborhoods, claiming
that law enforcement agents would be ``working'' the
election, and warning voters that ``this election is not
worth going to jail.''
Recent Strategies
As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression
is not a problem limited to the southern United States. It
takes place from California to New York, Texas to Illinois.
It is not the province of a single political party, although
patterns of intimidation have changed as the party
allegiances of minority communities have changed over the
years.
In recent years, many minority communities have tended to
align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades,
the Republican Party has launched a series of ``ballot
security'' and ``voter integrity'' initiatives which have
targeted minority communities. At least three times, these
initiatives were successfully challenged in Federal courts as
illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on
race.
The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the
use of armed guards to
[[Page H6774]]
challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a
scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated
voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree
prohibiting efforts to target voters by race.
Six years later, similar ``ballot security'' efforts were
launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia,
Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican
National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone
would ``eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls,''
again drawing a court settlement.
And just three years later in North Carolina, the State
Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others
sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were
African-American, giving them false information about voter
eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter
fraud--again resulting in a decree against the use of race to
target voters.
Historical Perspective
This report includes detailed accounts of the recent
incidents listed above, and additional incidents from the
past few decades. The report also lays out a historical
review of more than 100 years of efforts to suppress and
intimidate minority voters following emancipation, through
Reconstruction and the ``Second Reconstruction,'' the years
immediately following the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act was among the crowning
achievements of the civil rights era, and a defining moment
for social justice and equality. The stories of the men and
women who were willing to lay down their lives for the full
rights of citizenship, including first and foremost the right
to vote, are the stuff of history.
Their accomplishments can never be erased. Yet as this
report details, attempts to erode and undermine those
victories have never ceased. Voter intimidation is not a
relic of the past, but a pervasive strategy used with
disturbing frequency in recent years. Sustaining the bright
promise of the civil rights era, and maintaining the dream of
equal voting rights for every citizen requires constant
vigilance, courageous leadership, and an active, committed
and well-informed citizenry.
The Challenges of the 2004 Election and Beyond
The election problems in Florida and elsewhere that led to
the disenfranchisement of some four million American voters
in the 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our
voting system, problems that involved both illegal actions
and incompetence by public officials, as well as outdated
machines and inadequate voter education. As election
officials nationwide struggle to put new voting technology
into place, redesign confusing ballots and educate voters,
the opportunities for voter intimidation and suppression
have proliferated along with opportunities for
disenfranchisement caused by voter confusion and technical
problems.
With widespread predictions of a close national election,
and an unprecedented wave of new voter registration,
unscrupulous political operatives will look for any
advantage, including suppression and intimidation efforts. As
in the past, minority voters and low-income populations will
be the most likely targets of dirty tricks at the polls.
Voter Intimidation in Recent Years
Voter intimidation and suppression efforts have not been
limited to a single party, but have in fact shifted over time
as voting allegiances have shifted. In recent decades,
African American voters have largely been loyal to the
Democratic Party, resulting in the prevalence of Republican
efforts to suppress minority turnout. Those efforts have also
been extended in recent years to Latino communities.
During the 2003 mayoral election in Philadelphia, fully
seven percent of a poll of 1000 African American voters
described troubling experiences at the polls. Men with
clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at
many precincts in African American neighborhoods.
Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation campaign
for Democratic candidate John Street, said this deployment
included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely
resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as
the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms. Many prospective voters reported being
challenged for identification by such workers. Lindenfeld
told reporters from the American Prospect that ``What
occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and
expensive than anything I'd seen before, and I'd seen a
lot.''
In fact, the scope of such efforts during the past two
decades is startling. Based primarily on reports gleaned from
newspapers across the nation, there have been documented
instances of the following:
Challenges and threats against individual voters at the
polls by armed private guards, off-duty law enforcement
officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors, and poll
workers and managers.
Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for
``voter fraud'' or ``noncitizen'' voting, or illegally urging
support for a candidate.
Poll workers ``helping'' voters fill out their ballots, and
instructing them on how to vote.
Criminal tampering with voter registration rolls and
records.
Flyers and radio ads containing false information about
where, when and how to vote, voter eligibility, and the false
threat of penalties.
Internal memos from party officials in which the explicit
goal of suppressing black voter turnout is outlined.
A Republican effort in New Jersey in 1981 provided a model
that was repeated across the country in the last two decades.
The Republican National Committee and the New Jersey
Republican State Committee engaged in a ``concerted effort to
threaten and harass black and Hispanic voters'' via a
``ballot security'' effort. It involved widespread
challenging of individual voters and an Election Day presence
at African American and Latino precincts featuring armed
guards and dire warnings of criminal penalties for voting
offenses. A legal challenge eventually led to a court order
and an agreement by the GOP groups not to employ such
intimidation tactics.
But such tactics persist.
{time} 1500
This is voter intimidation. And this intimidation cannot stand. This
is a bad bill. It is not about those who are not documented, it is
about you, America. You will be prevented from the right to vote with
this bill. We should defeat it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am the person from
Florida where in the 2000 election, 27,000 votes was thrown out in my
precincts, 7, 8, 9 and 10, that are 95 percent Democratic. And they say
that President Bush won by 527 votes. But the unique thing is in the
primary recently, in every single African American precinct, they sent
thousands of Republican ballots, and only hundreds of Democratic
ballots.
That is unheard of. In every single precinct they sent thousands of
Republican ballots and not sufficient Democratic ballots. Now, that is
the stupid, incompetent right trying to disenfranchise those same
voters. Let me just say that in the supervisor's office, they carried
the equipment home the night before the election.
Where our men and women are dying in Iraq for the right for them to
vote, we do not have the right right here in the United States of
America. It is a crying shame. Shame on them. Vote down this terrible
bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Millender-McDonald for
yielding me time and her leadership on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844. It is a shame that
this Congress, who just months earlier joined together in a bipartisan
effort to renew the Voting Rights Act, would now propose such a
divisive piece of legislation that has the potential to disenfranchise
millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I witnessed firsthand in my home State, Ohio, the great
lengths that people have gone to in order to suppress votes. Now
Congress is trying to implement its own brand of voter suppression. I
have heard them argue that funds will be provided to allow people to
get ID cards. Funds were provided in HAVA to allow the Secretary of
State to educate voters, but instead our Secretary of State took $2.5
million, put his own face on TV in order to lead his own gubernatorial
race.
Similar legislation was enacted in Ohio. On September 1, Judge
Kathleen O'Malley granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits the
enforcement of parts of that Ohio bill that would have allowed poll
workers to inquire if a voter is a naturalized citizen and ask for
proof. In her ruling, Judge O'Malley stated it was inconsistent with
and undermined the purpose of the National Voting Rights Act. I ask
each of my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chairman
how many more speakers he does have.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, then I will close.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H6775]]
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the question is should we put forward
a modicum of effort to keep political machines from stealing elections?
Do they? Yes. Yes, they do. Just last year, a judge in the State of
Washington ruled that 1,678 fraudulent votes were cast in that
election.
As we look at the work of the FBI, we see that their investigation in
the city of Milwaukee found 4,500 more votes cast in that election than
there were people on the rolls. They found evidence of people voting
multiple times, people voting for the deceased, people voting
illegally. And we have the example in the State of Georgia where an
audit showed that 5,412 votes had been cast by deceased voters.
Personally I am tired of constituents of mine telling me that someone
else voted for them at the polls. It seems to me that an ID system or
showing an identification, a photo ID, will take care of this problem.
How do the American public, how do they react to this? Well, an NBC-
Wall Street Journal poll recently found that 81 percent of the American
people support requiring a photo ID to vote.
By requiring voters to provide a valid form of identification, we can
handicap those trying to undermine the process. We can ensure the
sanctity of one person-one vote. And we should not have to deal with a
situation where our voters go to the polls and repeatedly tell us,
somebody else already voted for me.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard many folks on the floor talking about
fraud in our election process. We have heard various speakers talking
about getting rid of this alleged fraud. There is no Member on this
floor who does not want to get rid of fraud. But, Mr. Speaker, this
bill does not address real fraud. This is not a good bill.
We have heard many speakers on the floor today delivering colloquies,
trying to see whether or not this will fit or that will fit, when, in
essence, this legislation merely does not get to the bottom of the real
fraud, the problem of voter suppression.
Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting for the Record letters from the
National Association of Counties and local election administrators who
are objecting to this piece of legislation because they say it imposes
a fee on themselves and voters all of whom assert that they cannot
afford to comply with this legislation is mandate.
We have heard from the chairman and others on the other side who say
that if one cannot pay for the ID, it will be paid for. But what they
are doing is establishing an unfunded mandate with this piece of
legislation, which is why NACO is objecting to this bill.
We also have heard from the election commissioner and county clerk
out of Fairbury, Nebraska and the administrator of elections from
Anderson County, TN. I will submit these letters opposing H.R. 4844 for
the Record.
Mr. SPEAKER, the proponents of H.R. 4844 characterize this
legislation merely as an administrative protection that it is simple to
implement and necessary to prevent fraud. The truth is, H.R. 4844 is a
misguided measure that will suppress voter turnout and undermine laws
that Congress has already passed to assure all citizens will have a
full and equal right to participate.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that HAVA is in place now, which is a
bipartisan bill that was passed out of this House with bipartisan
support.
To enact this law would be an affront to that bill, to all Americans
who take pride in the progress our country has made in extending the
franchise to all of its citizens, and to all individuals who take
offense to the political manipulation of the majority.
Partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome proof of
citizenship requirements are not the direction this Congress or this
country should be taking. We know that the States of Georgia and
Washington, have already thrown out legislation similar to this one.
Democrats, along with well-intended Republicans, have fought for and
won the extension of the Voting Rights Act for eligible Americans.
During the last century, our country has expanded the right to vote to
millions of Americans with the passage of the 19th amendment, gives
which women the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was
reauthorized on this floor just a couple of months ago, and we know
that the VRA prevented institutional voter suppression. The 26th
amendment, which gives 18-years-old the right to vote, is another bill
that we have passed. Why should we consider a bill like this that does
nothing to address voter suppression? This is an intimidation-type
bill. It is a partisan attempt to allow the Republicans to maintain the
majority.
I tell you, this bill violates State constitutions and the U.S.
Constitution because it disenfranchises citizens who are otherwise
qualified to vote. The Democrats will not shirk our responsibility to
defend the gains put forth by the bills already on the books. We will
not shirk our responsibility to ensure that every eligible American has
the right to vote. And we will not let these gains be lost to
undocumented allegations of fraud that have not been quantitatively
proven and have not proven by any empirical data that reveals this so-
called type of fraud is widespread.
The right to vote, Mr. Speaker, is too precious to allow any
citizen's vote to be sacrificed by those who would treat it carelessly.
I would hope that the other side thinks about this and not vote for
this bad bill. This is not a good bill. It does nothing but hamper the
American people.
This bill creates a poll tax. I want the American people to know that
Democrats are against all types of voter fraud and we are against your
paying a poll tax to be able to vote. So I say to the other side that
if you really want integrity, then let's look at these electronic
voting machines that voters are worried stiff about because they do not
know whether their votes will be counted.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that every Member who really has good
intentions of trying protect the laws that are on the books will vote
this legislation down.
National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2006.
Re H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of county governments across the nation, I am writing to urge
a ``NO'' vote on H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2006''.
This bill would impose a staggering unfunded mandate on
states and counties. We fear that it could require county
clerks and registrars across the country to take on the major
new responsibility and expense of issuing photo voter
registration cards that would duplicate the Real ID and
existing state driver licenses. These cards would have to be
issued to every voter in the nation who does not possess a
current U.S. passport. Further, we fear that counties would
likely have to issue these cards entirely at their own or at
state expense.
While regulations have not yet been issued by the
Department of Homeland Security, we are given to understand
that federal structures will likely not be in place before
the statutory deadline for states to be prepared to issue the
Real ID. Even if states do have the capacity by 2010 to issue
a Real ID to and confirm the citizenship of every voter, H.R.
4844 creates an incentive for states to separate this
function from driver licensing and place it within the
existing apparatus of voter registration. States that
incorporate the requirements of this law into their Real ID
for voter identification purposes would be ineligible for
even the weak commitment of funding in H.R. 4844.
H.R. 4844 bars counties from imposing a fee on voters who
assert that they cannot pay it. States and/or counties may or
may not receive sufficient federal funds to pay these costs
depending on annual federal appropriations. Furthermore, we
fear that any fee imposed on other voters could be
characterized as a poll tax and be subject to challenge in
court.
If you have any questions about our position on this or any
related issue, please feel free to contact me or Alysoun
McLaughlin at [email protected]. Thank you for your
attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director.
____
Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: I wish to
express my concern about the voter IDs where we are to
provide at no cost to indigent voters. We live in a rural
area that a lot of the voters are under poverty level. I do
not think the county should have to pay for these. You may be
going to reimburse the state for the program, but you know it
will come back down
[[Page H6776]]
to the counties to do the IDs. If you will fund this for the
counties I probably wouldn't have any problem with this, but
the way the election is going now it has cost the county more
over $6,500.00 for the primary election than ever before for
an election. This is all because of the HAVA regulations.
This was not to cost the counties anything. I hate to see
what this general election is going to cost me. I did not
have any rotations in the primary, but with the general I
have a bunch. Just got my proofs for the ballots and had 256
pages for 10 precincts. This is because of all the splits I
now need to have because of the consolidations everyone
wanted also. I'm sure this election will more than cost me
all of the budget of $26,000.00. You may think this is a drop
in the bucket, but for our small area it isn't, since I have
never spent more than $12,800 in any other budget year.
Our county is up against the levy limit now so don't know
where this money is going to come from.
Please provide for all of the funding, not just to the
state, for these IDs.
Thank you
Sandra Stelling,
Jefferson County Clerk,
Register of Deeds.
____
Dear Representative Millender-McDonald: I am vehemently
opposed to H.R. 4844. As an election official in Anderson
County, TN, I can assure you that the provisions of this
legislation will have an adverse affect on many of the people
I serve every day.
During my tenure as an election administrator, the trend
has been to remove barriers to voting, this bill throws logs
in the roadway to exercising the right to vote. The need to
prove citizenship has never been required and doing so now
will deny voting rights to many who have voted all their
adult lives.
Many individuals in our east Tennessee county do not have
birth certificates let alone passports--furthermore they do
not have the money or the wherewithal to secure either.
You need to know that our voter registration forms require
that an individual registering to vote attests to their
citizenship when they register and to answer untruthfully
subjects that person to prosecution.
What bothers me as much as anything is that the bill has a
disproportionate impact on the elderly, the disabled, the
poor and ethnic minorities in our county.
Our constitution guarantees the right to vote and this law
can potentially affect that basic right.
I urge you to vote against this legislation when it comes
before your committee.
Jo Ann Garrett,
Administrator of Elections,
Anderson County, TN.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to respond to all of the
erroneous comments that have been made. Some of them may have been
pertinent as relating to the original bill as introduced. But I wish
all those commenting would have read the amended bill that we have
before us now.
There has been much discussion about poll taxes. Absolute nonsense. I
would never stand for putting a poll tax on any citizen of this
country. There is no poll tax. We specifically provided that the State
and the Federal Government will pay for any cost. There is no poll tax
in this bill.
Furthermore, it is said the burden falls on the poor. Again,
nonsense. We help the poor. There is no burden on the poor. We assist
them by helping them prove citizenship and paying for it. So when they
apply for Social Security, when they apply for Medicare, when they
apply for prescription drug coverage, they will have proof of
citizenship in hand.
{time} 1515
This benefits the poor. It benefits those who do not have
citizenship, because we help them to prove citizenship and we pay for
it.
This bill is designed to cut down fraud. I put the question, Where is
the fraud? Several have said, there is no fraud. There is fraud.
In the 2000 election in Philadelphia, they had 103 percent of the
voter turnout in one precinct. That is fraud. When you have the number
of voters who appeared was greater than the number registered for a
district, that is fraud.
Then there is the gubernatorial race in the State of Washington. The
final result that judges certified, was that the number of illegal
votes cast was over 1,000 percent greater than the margin of victory
for the winner of that race. That is fraud. Conclusioin: There is fraud
in voting in this Nation.
It is time for us to get rid of fraud in voting in this Nation. This
bill will make a big step towards doing it. It will not endanger
anyone's right to vote. It is not a poll tax. It helps citizens to vote
legally.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to explain my
opposion to H.R. 4844, the so-called Federal Election Integrity Act.
Proponents of this legislation claim to be ensuring the integrity of
our election system against voter fraud and voting by noncitizens. That
is a goal I share. However, the hastily written legislation threatens
the privacy of Oregonians due to the unique nature of our full vote-by-
mail system.
I do strongly support the goal of establishing more secure
identification for American citizens. That is why I voted in favor of
the REAL ID Act. The legislation fulfilled a recommendation made by the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission that the federal government set standards
for the issuance of driver's licenses. The REAL ID Act established
minimum document standards for issuing drivers licenses and limited the
issuance of licenses only to those who can prove they are American
citizens or are migrants who are legally in the United States. This
bill, when fully implemented by 2008, will address many of the concerns
about proving citizenship that H.R. 4844 raises.
The problem with H.R. 4844 is not its requirement of proof of
citizenship when registering to vote, but its continual requirement to
present such proof every time a citizen votes.
In my state we conduct all elections by vote-by-mail. This bill
requires citizens voting by mail to submit photocopies of documents
proving their citizenship along with their ballot every single time
they vote. That means, at least twice a year, the 2.1 million
Oregonians registered to vote will have to provide the same photocopied
birth certificate, passport, driver's license etc. along with their
ballot to election officials. This extra paperwork creates a big burden
for citizens and election officials alike in Oregon. Under the current
system in Oregon, election officials match the signature on your ballot
with our signature that's on file. That should be sufficient to confirm
your identity. Repeatedly submitting photocopied proof of sensitive
documents is not necessary.
I also have serious privacy concerns about what is done with the
sensitive, personally identifiable information that will be required to
be submitted by millions of Oregonians. How long must election
officials keep these sensitive documents on file? How should they be
disposed of? Who has access to the documents and under what
circumstances? How can the information in the documents be used? The
bill is silent on these issues.
Further, this bill requires Oregonians to repeatedly submit this
personal information despite the lack of evidence of a voting fraud
problem in Oregon. According to the Oregon Secretary of State, since
1991, over 10 million votes have been cast in Oregon. Of those 10
million votes, only 10 people have met the criteria that would want an
investigation into their citizenship. Of those ten, two have been
prosecuted. So the level of fraud in Oregon over the last 15 years has
been 1 in 5 million votes, and these two instances were prosecuted. It
is important to keep in mind that the penalties for voting fraud are
already severe. Immigrants who try to vote are automatically given a
one-way ticket home, no criminal conviction is necessary.
If the majority was truly concerned about guaranteeing the integrity
of federal elections, we should be focusing on widespread concerns
about new electronic voting technology. Concerns and questions over the
integrity of these machines have been proven in recent elections.
Machines fail, votes are lost, hard drives are damaged. Secure and
auditable electronic voting machines that provide a paper ballot for
verification should be the focus of Congress, not this hastily written
bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the
Federal Election Integrity Act.
This legislation would require individuals voting in federal
elections to provide photo identification that also shows proof of
citizenship in order to vote.
I am extremely concerned that this legislation would disenfranchise
many eligible voters and depress voter turnout. Congress and the states
should pass measures to increase, not decrease, voter turnout, and to
encourage eligible voters to go to the polls.
Studies indicate that illegal voting or voter fraud is extremely
rare, and such behavior is already punishable by law. However, we have
numerous documented instances of actual problems in our electoral
systems which are not addressed by this legislation, such as improper
purging of voters from the rolls and distributing false information
about when and where to vote. In my own state of Maryland in last
Tuesday's primary election, we experienced numerous problems with
voters being turned away because of malfunctioning computer voting
machines, a lack of provisional paper ballots, and poorly trained or
absent poll workers.
This legislation would have a disproportionate impact on economically
disadvantaged persons--such as the homeless, the elderly, persons with
disabilities, frequent movers, and
[[Page H6777]]
other minority groups and persons of color--who are far less likely to
have current state-issued identification. Requiring voters to bring
identification to the polls will serve as a poll tax for some eligible
voters, who can afford neither the cost nor time to obtain a new or
duplicate drivers' license, passport, or birth certificate. The bill
contains weak provisions to reimburse states that cover the cost of
issuing identifications to indigent individuals. Indeed, Congress has
yet to fully fund implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of
2002, passed after the 2000 presidential election which disenfranchised
many eligible voters.
Finally, proof of citizenship requirements will severely hamper the
ability of nonpartisan organizations to conduct voter registration
campaigns within minority communities, by limiting what documents can
be accepted as valid identification for the purpose of registration.
I note that several leading voting rights groups have opposed this
legislation, including the NAACP, League of Women Voters, and the U.S.
Public Research Interest Group. The AARP has also opposed this
legislation, which may disenfranchise older Americans.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National
Association of Counties (NACO) also oppose this legislation. NCSL wrote
that this ``ill-advised bill . . . places a potentially huge unfunded
mandate on states . . . and would preempt current states' voter
identification requirements.''
Just a few months ago I was pleased to co-sponsor and vote for
legislation to reauthorize the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 for
another 25 years. Discrimination and prejudice still exist against
minority voters, in addition to disenfranchisement at the polls caused
by faulty equipment or poorly trained poll workers. We must redouble
our efforts to make sure that every eligible vote is counted, and that
this democracy does not continue to shamefully turn away eligible
voters at the polls.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4844, the
Federal Election Integrity Act.
Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act, this body--led by the
Committee on House Administration on which I proudly serve--has paid
careful attention to our electoral process and has considered several
recommendations on how we can improve the way we vote.
One such recommendation came from the bipartisan Commission on
Federal Election Reform which was headed by Former President Jimmy
Carter and Former Secretary of State James Baker and recommended that
in order to deter and detect voter fraud, we should require photo IDs
at the polls.
In this day and age, it is shocking that we still do not verify U.S.
citizenship when people vote. Motor-voter laws have allowed driver's
license applicants to simply check a box to register to vote regardless
of whether they are a U.S. citizen.
This loophole has facilitated the many instances of non-citizen
voting that I we have heard about today.
While there may be disputes about the nature and extent of voter
fraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. In close elections even
a small amount of fraud can affect the outcome. Do we really want
foreigners to cast the deciding votes in our elections?
When an illegal immigrant casts an illegal vote he does more than
break the law. He is canceling out a legal vote and robbing Americans
of our constitutional right to be heard in an election.
The Federal Election Integrity Act that we are debating today can
help restore integrity to our elections.
Requiring individuals who vote in a Federal election to provide proof
that they are a United States citizen will help prevent voter fraud--
plain and simple. It is the best way to ensure the utmost accuracy in
realizing the will of the American people.
In short, requiring a photo ID is the best way to make sure that only
U.S. citizens are casting ballots.
Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, this isn't a
radical idea. Showing proof of identification and citizenship is
warranted and commonplace in today's society.
Individuals are required to have photo identification to engage in
routine activities such as boarding an airplane, entering a government
building, purchasing cigarettes and cashing a check. Our voting system
deserves at least as much protection as these other activities.
Democrats have argued that this bill will disproportionately affect
racial minorities and have even alleged that this is one of the motives
behind our Republican Leadership bringing this bill to the floor today.
These claims are outrageous and unsubstantiated--voter fraud affects us
all.
In fact, under this bill states must provide the necessary photo ID
free of charge to individuals who cannot afford to pay. This bill is
simply about protecting the will of all Americans.
When an illegal vote is cast, an American citizen with the
constitutional right to have his vote counted becomes disenfranchised,
regardless of race.
When voting, our citizens should be able to trust that the system
will honor their voice and reveal the will of the American people. I
urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of every
American by supporting the Federal Election Integrity Act.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to object strongly to the voter
disenfranchisement proposal before us.
According to the Election Assistance Commission's comprehensive
Survey of the 2004 election, there were more than 197 million voting-
age American citizens at that time. According to the Brennan Center for
Justice in its September 2006 voter identification study, as many as
10% of eligible voters do not have, and maybe will not get, the
documents required by strict voter ID laws. Thus, the very first thing
this bill will do is disenfranchise as many as 20 million eligible
voters.
Who are these 20 million voters? The poor. The elderly. The disabled.
Persons of color. Native Americans. Students. Why would anyone vote in
favor of disenfranchising these citizens?
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an imperfect bill, but it did
reach a bipartisan compromise on voter identification. HAVA's already-
existing requirements for voter identification and the integrity of
voter registration rolls go on for pages. Among the requirements:
States must make ``a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are
ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters;''
Voter registration applications may not be ``accepted or processed''
unless they include an applicants driver's license number or, in the
case of voters who don't have one, ``the last 4 digits of the
applicants Social Security number;'' or, in the case of voters with
neither, a ``unique identifying number'' assigned by election
officials;
First time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must
show photo ID at the polls when they vote.
Voters can't get around that requirement by voting absentee--first
time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must send a
copy of a photo ID with their mail-in ballot.
And HAVA provides for criminal penalties for violations for the
foregoing--``any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly
makes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry,
or alien registry of such citizen . . . shall be fined, imprisoned [for
up to five years], or both.''
The measure before us is a solution in search of a problem. The
Department of Justice (DOJ), in its ``Report to Congress on the
Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity for 2004,'' reported
that at the end of 2004, the Public Integrity Section had approximately
133 election crime matters pending nationwide. That is an average of
just over two cases per state for the entire year--hardly an avalanche.
In addition, most of the cases described in the report concerned
campaign finance violations, not voter fraud. Only one described a
vote-buying scheme, and none referred specifically to non-citizen or
double voting. On the other hand, the same Report noted that a total of
1,213 public officials had been charged with corruption in 2004, that
1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases
remained pending. In other words, according to the DOJ's own findings,
the problem of corruption among public official is at the very least
ten times worse than the problem of citizens cheating in elections.
Meanwhile, other studies have found that instances of double voting
and voting using another's identity are virtually non-existent.
Washington State--a study of 2.8 million ballots cast in 2004 showed
that only 0.0009 percent of them reflected double voting or voting in
the name of deceased individuals.
Ohio--a statewide survey found a mere four instances out of more than
9 million votes cast where ineligible persons voted or attempting to
vote in 2002 and 2004--a rate of 0.00004%.
Georgia--(which recently passed one of the strictest voter ID laws,
which was subsequently struck down); Secretary of State Cathy Cox
stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not recall one documented
case of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter
at the polls.
I have introduced legislation, the Electoral Fairness Act of 2006
(H.R. 4989), that would require that all voters, upon being duly
registered, be issued a durable voter registration card at no cost to
the voter, ``which shall serve as proof that the individual is duly
registered to vote'' at the polling place which services the
individual's address. The bill would preserve HAVA's existing voter ID
requirements, but add no more, an the voter registration cards would
serve strictly to protect voters who are removed from the voter rolls
wrongfully or erroneously.
My legislation would protect the 1.2 million voters who were, in
fact, wrongfully denied access to a regular ballot in 2004 when they
[[Page H6778]]
showed up at polling places. The legislation before us, in the absence
of meaningful or documented justification, would leave those 1.2
million voters in jeopardy of wrongful disenfranchisement and add 20
million more to the pile. In the name of solving a problem that is
evidently a tiny problem these legislators--at great expense to
individuals and to states--would add requirements that will turn away
legitimate, deserving, honest voters. This is poll tax, pure and
simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down.
Groups Opposing H.R. 4844
A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project;
Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired
Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities;
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American
Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of
Arizona; American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers
Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic
Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council;
Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students'
Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American
Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander
American Vote (APIAVote); and Asian Pacific American Labor
Alliance, AFL-CIO.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for
Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers;
Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy
Project; Democratic Women's Working Group; Demos : A Network
for Ideas & Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center;
Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council;
Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic
Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith
Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona;
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); La Union Del Pueblo
Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;
and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United
Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater
Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal
Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for
Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians;
National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La
Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education
Association; National Korean American Service & Education
Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights
Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc./NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA
Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; and
Project for Arizona's Future.
Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition;
Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service
Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America/We Are
America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The
Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono
O'odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian
Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto
Workers; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness
Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church
and Society; United States Student Association; United
Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C.
Velasquez Institute; and YWCA USA.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support ensuring
that only American citizens vote in our Nation's elections. The right
to vote of all Americans is diminished if ineligible and illegal votes
are cast. That is the goal and intent of this bill, which is why I vote
to move this bill forward today.
There are provisions of the bill, however, that have me greatly
concerned about the impact it would have on Washington state voters who
are required to vote by mail. The bill would mandate that voters
photocopy their driver's license and mail that copy in with their
ballot. This places a heavier burden on mail voters than poll voters.
It creates a higher hurdle for mail voters to get their vote counted.
And it raises serious questions about personal privacy and the
potential for identity theft. These requirements are not acceptable and
must be addressed during any conference committee talks with the
Senate.
Chairman Ehlers has given his assurance that the mail voting
provisions will be addressed in a conference, and specifically that the
views of Washington's Secretary of State will be heard. I appreciate
this commitment and believe there are certainly far less burdensome
ways to ensure only citizens are casting mail-in ballots.
Clearly, Washington and Oregon stand out among other states when it
comes to voting by mail and federal law must respect differences among
the fifty states.
Action needs to be taken to ensure only citizens are casting ballots
in elections and that is why I vote to move this bill forward today,
but I will oppose and vote against any final bill or conference report
if my concerns on the mail voting requirements are not addressed.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 4844, the so-called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006.
Beginning in 2008, this bill imposes a requirement that eligible voters
must present a government-issued photo identification and beginning in
2010, eligible voters must present a government-issued photo
identification that would prove they are a citizen.
Proponents of this bill claim that requiring a photo identification
and proof of citizenship to vote will combat voter fraud. But, too
often, anecdotal stories are put forth as evidence to prove the claim
they are using to make the case for this bill. However, there is no
concrete evidence to back up the need for this proposal. According to
Demos and People for the American Way, to date there have been no major
studies to document actual election fraud in the United States.
Furthermore, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
nationally since October 2002, only ``86 individuals have been
convicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud, while
196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections.''
There needs to be more safeguards to protect the integrity of the
electoral process, but this can only be done by addressing actual
problems that are currently undermining voting rights, almost all of
which have the effect of disenfranchising eligible voters. The bill
doesn't address voter intimidation and discrimination at the polls and
it doesn't take into account the costs to states to implement the
requirements of H.R. 4844, making it an unfunded mandate.
This bill is not just guilty of being a solution in search of
problem. It actually will create a problem. The real impact of this
bill will undoubtedly be an increase in voter disenfranchisement,
because the burden and cost involved in obtaining the identification
required would likely discourage many Americans from voting, an
essential Constitutional right. Also, even though H.R. 4844 has a
provision that requires states to give free photo identification to
those who cannot afford them, it does not take into account the time
and cost that eligible voters would incur to get the supporting
documents needed to obtain this required identification. Essentially
this forces people to pay for their Constitutionally guaranteed right
to vote.
Mr. Speaker, the burden that this legislation creates falls squarely
on the shoulders of seniors, and the disabled. The AARP is strongly
opposed to this bill because of the disproportionate impact it has on
seniors. Many seniors no longer drive and therefore do not have a
driver's license, many were born at home by midwives and do not have a
birth certificate, and have limited mobility, making it extremely
difficult for them to obtain a government-issued identification to meet
this bill's requirements. Even those who wish to vote by provisional
ballot are required to present the required identification for their
vote to be counted.
Elections should be open to all eligible voters and as Members of
Congress we should be enacting legislation that encourages more
Americans to vote, not erecting new barriers to voting. Laws such as
the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted to create a
more inclusive democracy by making voting easier. H.R. 4844 will
seriously undermine that goal and will be a disservice to the memories
of those courageous civil rights heroes who fought for its
implementation.
I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4844.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, three months ago we stood on this floor
debating the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9) in an
effort to make sure elections are fair, that every vote is counted, and
that people have equal access to the polls. Yet today we are faced with
the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844) which would
directly disenfranchise people of color, rural voters, young people,
low-income people, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.
At a time of decreased voter participation, it seems unwarranted to
impose extraneous burdens on eligible citizens who want to participate
in the democratic process. The identification requirements imposed by
this legislation serve as a strong reminder of the poll taxes imposed
by many Southern states in the 1950s to prevent poor and black
Americans from voting.
According to the Department of Transportation, currently 6-12 percent
of eligible voters do not have the proper identification mandated by
this legislation. Acquiring the required documents places a huge time
and financial burden on those least able to afford. For instance, a
U.S. passport costs approximately $85, while replacing naturalization
documents can cost up to $210.
[[Page H6779]]
This legislation creates an outrageous burden on my state of Oregon.
In 1998, Oregon voters passed an initiative requiring that all
elections be conducted by mail. Should this bill pass, our voters would
be required to photocopy their identification every time they wanted to
vote which further hampers the accessibility to vote by mail. As for
voter fraud, during the last 15 years of general elections over 10
million votes have been cast by Oregon voters and yet only 10 people
have met the criteria to warrant an investigation.
This legislation discourages voter participation, many who continue
to lose confidence in our electoral system, while enabling voter
discrimination in select communities. Overall, this legislation tries
to create a solution to a voter fraud problem regarding voter
identification that does not exist, while overlooking obvious and real
problems.
Just last week during Maryland's primary elections many voters were
delayed or turned away. In one county computer cards were not delivered
to precinct workers while in another computers incorrectly read party
affiliation and could not be tabulated.
Anyone who examined what happened in Ohio last election cycle,
including voting problems and potential abuse due to the under funded
and ill-thought-out congressional meddling, must wonder what will
happen in the 2008 election.
Every American should be alarmed and outraged by Congress indulging
in partisan political shenanigans regarding elections rather than
implementing long overdue protections for the integrity of the ballot
box.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Voter ID Act.
Sensing electoral defeat in the fall, the Republicans have done what
they always do--act desperate and deflect attention.
Mandating voter IDs to prove citizenship will do nothing to protect
our homeland security, make the voting process more secure, insure
every vote is counted or keep non-citizens from voting.
News flash to my colleagues, the fear that non-citizens may vote is
not what is keeping my constituents up at night.
Completing the war on terror, finding Osama bin Laden, bringing our
troops home, and figuring out how to pay for their kids college
education are the issues my constituents care about.
Not passing a not-needed bill for a total non issue.
Today, we are mandating citizenship IDs at the polling places, in a
voter disenfranchisement act that would make Bull Connor smile from
below.
The Republicans continue to place all the blame on immigrants instead
of accepting the blame themselves that they dropped the ball on
comprehensive immigration reform, they dropped the ball on homeland
security by underfunding our ports and border security and they dropped
the ball on the war on terror.
There is a problem at the ballot box, but it isn't illegal immigrants
voting, The problem is that American citizens aren't voting.
Instead of promoting voter participation, this bill creates
disincentives.
Instead of encouraging voter participation by all Americans, we are
adding roadblocks.
Instead of building one America, we are creating a divisive America.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, while this bill is entitled the Federal
Election Integrity Act, that is highly deceptive. Make no mistake;
there is no integrity in trying to deny thousands of legal voters their
right to vote.
Voting is a sacred right. A right that, unfortunately, seems to be
under attack in this Congress. It was barely two months ago that this
body voted on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize crucial provisions of
the Voting Rights Act--the nation's most effective mechanism for
protecting minority voting rights. But now, as we debate H.R. 4844,
that vote seems disingenuous. H.R. 4844 is a misguided approach that
would add unnecessary obstacles to the voting process. Congress should
not be in the practice of disenfranchising voters under the guise of
protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately, that's precisely what this
bill would do.
This legislation is quite likely to be struck down by the Supreme
Court. As recently as yesterday, state photo ID laws were found to be
unconstitutional. This is because photo ID laws disproportionately
affect racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, people with
disabilities, rural voters, students, the homeless, low-income people,
and frequent movers.
Many of our constituents would be at risk of not being able to vote
because they do not have the time, money or ability to obtain their
birth certificates or their passports. And let us not forget the
hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, now dispersed
across the country, who lost their birth certificates in the muddy
waters left by the hurricane.
Since consideration of this bill began, many of our colleagues have
shared their own personal stories of not being able to obtain their
birth certificates, or being turned away at the voting booth. The same
is true for one of my constituents in Sacramento who contacted me
because he was experiencing difficulty proving he was an American
citizen. Adopted as a child by a member of the Armed Forces, the crux
of the problem centered around the fact that his adopted father was
born in the south and did not have a birth certificate. If this
legislation were in place, my constituent may have been turned away at
the polls. That is unforgivable and it is unconstitutional. I am sure
this is just one example of many.
What's even more alarming is that we are debating a bill that seeks
to rectify a problem that hardly exists. Worse still, there are already
laws on the books to address this very issue. Instead of just enforcing
those laws, this bill is an attempt to scare voters by inferring that
illegal immigrants and others in our country are misrepresenting their
identity when they go to vote. The truth is that there is little proof
of that.
What we do have proof of are the problems with our voting system.
That's what Congress should be working on now. We need to be working on
laws that ensure that our voting machines are not susceptible to
tampering and that those machines have a paper trail--laws that ensure
every vote is counted.
That is what my constituents are writing to me in the hundreds about.
They are distrustful of the voting machines and with good reason. Just
last week, a professor at Princeton hacked into a Diebold e-voting
machine. Clearly our voting machines are vulnerable to malicious
attacks and potential voter fraud.
Rather than address these serious concerns before a major election,
this Congress has decided to take up a bill that seeks to limit the
rights of legal voters. Congress must work on ways to encourage voter
participation, not create undue obstacles to vote. I urge Members to
vote against this denial of voting rights.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4844.
I am a strong supporter of re-establishing the integrity of our
elections. The last 6 years have exposed serious flaws in the way we
conduct elections.
We use electronic forms of voting that cannot be audited, there is no
verification system in place and we all remember the month that this
country stood still while we tried to figure out who won the
Presidential election in 2000.
In the countless election problems this country has seen recently,
none of them were because of voting by non-citizens.
H.R. 4844 would require voters to present government-issued I.D. in
order to vote. Currently, that document is a U.S. Passport. Aside from
the impact this would have on minority voters, this will also impact
the elderly.
Under the bill, mail-in ballots would have to include a photo copy of
an ID proving that you are a citizen. Currently, that document is a
U.S. passport.
Seventy-five percent of Americans don't have a passport and many of
the senior citizens in my district don't have the resources to pay $97
dollars to get a passport.
Forcing Americans to spend their hard earned money to get a passport
or some other form of identification in order to vote sounds a lot like
a poll-tax.
Finally, it is already illegal to vote if you are not a citizen.
State and local officials are already able to enforce these laws.
Secretaries of State and County Clerks have the authority to remove
ineligible voters from the rolls to prevent voter fraud.
This system works and there is no need for this legislation.
If we want to address election integrity, let's talk about providing
a paper-trail and having audits of election returns so we can ensure
every vote is counted come election day.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 484.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that during the 40th
Anniversary of the historic passage of the Voting Rights Act, that
anyone could propose mandating nationwide photo ID requirements. Given
the cost, difficulty and bureaucracy involved in obtaining photo ID for
many minorities, elderly, and indigent, the idea of a national voter ID
and proof of citizenship requirement amounts to nothing less than a
21st Century Poll Tax, that could disenfranchise as many as 20 million
American voters.
a national voter id requirement will operate as a poll tax
We all know that the States will never fund an unfunded mandate, and
even if they do, for many Americans it will be quite difficult,
extensive, and time consuming to obtain the requisite ID cards.
Georgia, which just enacted a new voter ID requirement did not even
bother to provide an office in Atlanta.
Data developed during the debate over the Georgia voter ID bill
indicated that 36 percent of Georgians over the age of 75 do not have a
driver's license and that African-Americans in Georgia are nearly five
times less likely
[[Page H6780]]
than whites to have access to a motor vehicle and thus even to need a
driver's license.
Moreover, in Georgia, residents who do not have a driver's license
must buy a State ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card
or $35 for 10 years. For many living on a fixed or low income, $20 to
$35 is cost-prohibitive. People should not be forced to choose between
a bag of groceries, needed medications, or the right to vote.
In addition, the proof of citizenship requirements that are outlined
in this bill will place on the voter the difficult, time consuming, and
costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to prove
citizenship in order to cast a ballot.
a national voter id and proof of citizenship requirement will lead to
discriminatory implementation and will disproportionately burden people
of color
There is strong empirical evidence that photo ID requirements
disproportionately burden people of color.
In 1994, the Justice Department found that African-Americans in
Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned
photo ID than white residents. As a result, the DoJ denied pre-
clearance for that State's proposed photo ID requirement because they
found that ``it would lead to retrogression in the position of racial
minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral
franchise.''
Moreover, in 2001, the Carter-Ford National Commission on Election
Reform found that identification provisions at the polls are
selectively enforced. Even in places that do not require voters to show
ID, poll workers are known to ask certain voters to prove their
identity, in many cases demanding ID from minority voters, but not
whites.
many americans do not and will not have the requisite state-issued
photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements
In 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform
estimated that 10 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a drive's
license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID. That translates into
as many as 20 million eligible voters who will not be allowed to vote
on Election Day.
Moreover, proof of citizenship requirements, such as the one proposed
in this bill, are impossible for members of some communities to acquire
and very hard for others. It is widely known that in certain parts of
the country, elderly African-Americans and many Native Americans were
born at home, under the care of midwives, and do not possess birth
certificates. People of color, people with disabilities, the elderly,
and low-income citizens are among the demographic groups least likely
to have documents in their possession to prove citizenship.
Further, for victims of natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, it may be impossible to obtain birth certificates or other
documents because they have been destroyed.
an id card system will lead to a slippery slope of surveillance and
citizen monitoring
A national voter ID card system would significantly diminish freedom
and privacy in the U.S. because once put in place, it is unlikely that
such a system would be restricted to its original purpose. A national
voter ID system would threaten the privacy that Americans have always
enjoyed and will gradually increase the control that government and
business wields over everyday citizens.
conclusion
We all want clean elections. But that is not what legislation like
H.R. 4844 will accomplish. A federally mandated voter ID and proof of
citizenship requirement will make it harder for people to vote, and not
just people generally, but lawfully registered voters who happen to be
seniors, young people, living in cities, lower-income and minorities.
That is an effect clearly at odds with our most fundamental values as
Americans.
Voting is an invaluable right--the one that guards all of our other
rights and ensures every American an opportunity to participate in our
democracy. We must do everything in our power to make voting easier,
not harder, and to resist the imposition of new requirements to vote
that do not serve a fair and compelling purpose that actually promotes
our democracy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4844--the so-called
``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, it almost seems that each day that goes by,
this Congress stands idly by while we lose more and more of our
fundamental rights.
When there is voter fraud--anywhere, anytime election officials must
react immediately to right the problem.
And at every turn in this democracy, we must work to increase what is
still an anemic voter turnout in the world's leading democracy.
Where's the problem to solve?
The voting problems in recent mid-Atlantic areas were related to the
new electronic devices that neither voters--nor poll workers--were
familiar with using.
This bill is not about integrity or reducing voter fraud--it is all
about depressing the number of voters in U.S. elections by requiring
all citizens to show proof of citizenship in order to vote.
This Congress would have voters show both a drivers license and a
birth certificate in order to cast a vote.
Where's your birth certificate?
Ask those you know born in this country--do you know how to put your
hands on your birth certificate?
Imagine the difficulty for the elderly, students, the disabled,
Native Americans and other minorities in finding that document . . . or
perhaps that was imagined when this scheme was conceived.
Members of this House should not fear great numbers of voters in
elections--we must encourage it.
Hispanics in South Texas will be profoundly impacted by this
legislation.
This bill will suppress turnout and intimidate voters--which is a
slap in the face of democracy and our Constitution.
Millions of Americans will be denied their right to vote because this
Congress is so determined to address a problem that does not really
exist.
This bill imposes the 2nd poll tax on voters--through this 2nd
unfunded mandate for voting requirements on the states.
Let us not move backwards on this matter.
In my very first election--as Constable in Nueces County, Texas, in
1964--the poll tax was in its final throws . . . but was still the law
in Texas.
My mother borrowed against her house to help offset my filing fee . .
. and to help my voters pay the poll tax.
Let's not ever see that day again where citizens are taxed in order
to vote . . . let's stop putting unfunded mandate on our states . . .
and let's seek more ways to increase voting, not suppress it.
We've come too far on civil rights in this Nation to move backwards.
Let us act boldly . . . let us find ways to increase voting in the
United States, not suppress it, or tax voters to DE-crease voter
turnout.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the
wrongly entitled Federal Election Integrity Act. Like so many
Republican window dressings, this bill might seem like a no-brainer to
some. Only citizens can vote, so why not have them show their ID and
prove their address and citizenship to reduce fraud? If only the real
world were as simple as country club Republicans imagine.
What about students whose driver's licenses show their home address
but who register to vote on campus? Nursing home residents who have
been voting for over 50 years but whose documents are nowhere to be
found? Low-income Americans who don't drive and have never had a state-
issued identification? It's no coincidence that the people who will be
disenfranchised by this bill are core Democratic constituencies.
Powerful interests have figured out that there are lots of ways to
institute a poll tax by another name.
What about reducing voter fraud, something we all support? It will
come as no surprise to anyone who has run for office or worked in
campaigns that there is little evidence of fraudulent voting. It's hard
enough to convince most registered voters to go to the polls. What is
the incentive to engage in voter fraud, a felony offense? In
particular, there is little incentive for immigrants--against whom this
legislation is targeted--to vote illegally. Voter fraud by immigrants
is subject to immediate deportation without appeal. Do the sponsors of
this bill really believe that thousands, or even tens, of immigrants
would risk deportation to cast a single vote?
If anything shatters confidence in our election system, it is the
thousands of votes that are not counted because of dimpled chads,
electronic voting breakdowns, provisional ballot mishaps, three-hour
lines at polling places, and the like. The Help America Vote Act, which
was supposed to address some of these problems, has never been fully
funded or enforced, and yet the Republican Majority wants to further
restrict voting and create a new administrative nightmare for our
states and localities.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, so that all Americans
might have the opportunity to cast their vote in November against this
desperate cling to power.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, because it will
sacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all American
citizens by the Constitution--the right to vote. Contrary to its title,
the bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by
imposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal
elections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo
identification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in
reality they will create an
[[Page H6781]]
unprecedented regime of disenfranchisement aimed at seniors, minority
voters, low income voters, students and voters with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes an undue burden on eligible voters. As
the United States District Court found last year in Common Cause v.
Billups, 406 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia
law requiring ID at the polls, ``photo identification requirements
unconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible
American citizens.'' The district judge issued an immediate injunction
against the law, likening it to a segregation-era poll tax because the
digital picture ID would cost voters $20. The court found that these
provisions disproportionately affect traditionally disenfranchised
voters, including senior citizens, minority voters, poor voters,
disabled voters and young voters.
And the decisions keep coming. A state judge yesterday again rejected
the Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo
identification, writing in his decision, ``This cannot be.'' In his
ruling, the judge said that the law places too much of a burden on
voters, and ``Any attempt by the legislature to require more than what
is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot
withstand judicial scrutiny''. Lake v. Perdue, No. CV 119207 (Ga.
Super. Ct. Sept. 19, 2006) In Michigan, the photo ID requirement was
declared unconstitutional by the State's attorney general and his
decision is now being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. In
Pennsylvania, a similar voter ID bill was vetoed by the governor.
Proponents of this bill claim that these draconian constraints are
necessary to guard against identity fraud at the Nation's polling
places. The truth, however tells a far different story. According to
the United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871 votes cast
since 2002, only about 80 voters were convicted of federal election
fraud. Mr. Speaker, when we compare the number of eligible voters that
will be disenfranchised because of this bill to the number of
documented cases of fraud, it's clear that this bill will do more harm
than good--the cure is clearly worse than the disease.
Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe that the same Congress that
reauthorized the Voting Rights Act two months ago could now seriously
contemplate passage of this bill. There is plenty that needs to be done
to fix our electoral system, but instead of addressing problems that
don't exist, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have a model
system of choosing our elected officials--one that exemplifies the true
principle of democracy and serves as an example to other nations around
the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Republicans' National Voter ID act. This bill imposes new Federal ID
requirements on all voters in Federal elections and would have the
effect of disenfranchising millions of American citizens. H.R. 4844
requires all States to demand that voters provide government-issued
identification in order to vote in the 2008 election, and a copy when
voting absentee or by mail, and proof of citizenship in order to vote
in the 2010 election.
Unfortunately, H.R. 4844 undoes the progress of the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization enacted just 2 months ago by imposing a 21st century
poll tax. This bill would disenfranchise the elderly, people with
disabilities, and minorities. The costs of obtaining the documents
needed to prove you are citizen are high. A birth certificate usually
costs $1- $15; and according to the State Department only 27 percent of
eligible Americans have passports, which cost $97. Naturalization
papers, if they need to be replaced, cost $210. While supporters of
H.R. 4844 promise to help some citizens who don't have money to pay for
these documents, we cannot bank on the promise from the Republican
majority who have refused to honor their commitment to the Help America
Vote Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me state clearly that I oppose voter fraud.
Currently, there are very strong federal statues on the books to
penalize voter fraud and I support their vigorous enforcement. The Help
American Vote Act, which I supported, gave States resources to both
expand access and prevent voter fraud. Yet, the Republican majority has
under-funded the Help American Vote Act by $800 million. I oppose this
legislation, and urge my colleagues to reject this 21st Century poll
tax.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4844, and
express my dismay with this distraction. I fear that actions taken
today will sear doubt and weakness into one of our treasured and
fundamental rights as a democratic Nation.
Not 3 months ago, we dedicated significant amounts of time land
resources to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We celebrated the fact
that these rights will be secure for another generation. And yet, with
this bit!, we are reminded that these rights are fleeting, and must
continually be protected.
This bill undermines the very provisions we have been fighting for--
and clearly have not yet won--for over 40 years. This bill compounds
the disproportionate discrimination that persists across this Nation.
This bill attempts to address a problem that does not exist, and this
is crucial to understand. There is no voter fraud problem. It is simply
not a documented issue. Suggesting that it may be plays into bigotry
and xenophobia.
Data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows that while 196,139,871
votes have been cast in Federal elections since October 2002, only 52
individuals have been convicted of Federal voter fraud. Most of these
convictions were for vote buying or for voter registration fraud,
neither of which would be prevented by restrictive ill requirements at
the polls.
If convicted of voter fraud, an individual can be given up to 5 years
in prison and a $10,000 fine: The Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation has an active--and fully funded--prosecution
team to enforce Federal and State election laws.
In reality, the bill is a 21st century poll tax. Instead of money
collected at the poll door, however, the tax will now be collected at
the Department of Motor Vehicles. Congress cannot place itself on the
wrong side of this debate--history will see this clearly.
The crux of discriminatory measures in this bill rests with the fact
that the right to vote is tied to documents that are not readily
available. The burden of obtaining these documents--whether the cost of
obtaining supporting documentation, investing the time to navigate
bureaucracy or the waiting period to receive the documents in the
mail--is prohibitive, and yet familiar. Anyone who has waited in line
at the DMV must understand what a mistake this is.
I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from
voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill
is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal
immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are
unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to
register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less
likely to risk deportation just to influence an election.
If for no other reason than Hurricane Katrina, we must all understand
how vulnerable our system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes last
summer suffered loss of property that included lost documents.
Compounding this was the devastation of the region, which virtually
shut down civil services in the area. New Orleans residents were
scattered across 44 States. And had difficulty registering and voting
both with absentee ballots and at satellite voting stations for the
April 22 city elections this year. Those elections took place fully 8
months after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits,
such as the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are
constitutionally guaranteed.
In addition, this bill hands State governments yet another unfunded
mandate. By 2010, we must all submit photo IDs with proof of
citizenship in order to vote. Currently, no more than 4 States have
driver's licenses or IDs that match these requirements. The only other
document that does satisfy this requirement is a passport. Therefore,
every State that does not have this kind of photo ID must restructure
and create the ID system to provide adequate voting permits for
everyone who does not have an updated passport with a current address.
This would involve reissuing driver's licenses or identification cards
in almost every State.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 4844
would cost about $1 million in 2007 and $77 million over the 2007-2011
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. This exceeds
the allowed amounts in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In addition,
CBO estimates that the cost of providing photo identification for
voters who cannot afford them would be about $45 million in 2008.
This is simply ludicrous. We need to address the election fraud that
we know is occurring, such as voting machine integrity and poll
volunteer training and competence. After every election that occurs in
this country, we have documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and
errors. In 2004, in New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously
failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000
ballots. One million ballots nationwide were spoiled by faulty voting
equipment--roughly one for every 100 cast.
[[Page H6782]]
Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor,
minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose
addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty
providing documentation.
In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to
completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to
receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another 2 weeks (and a
full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and
finally, 3-4 weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a
significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds
from voting if they are married within 3 months of election day.
An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible
voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our
elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible
Americans.
The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected
civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge
justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me
in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective
solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot
let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon
which we have established liberty and freedom.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1015, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Ms. Millender-McDonald
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I am opposed at this present time, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Millender-McDonald moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4844
to the Committee on House Administration with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
(a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as
Condition of Receiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register
by Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo
Identification''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Individuals voting in person.--
``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as
provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the appropriate
State or local election official may not provide a ballot for
an election for Federal office to an individual who desires
to vote in person unless the individual presents to the
official--
``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid photo
identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office, a government-issued,
current, and valid photo identification for which the
individual was required to provide proof of United States
citizenship as a condition for the issuance of the
identification.
``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an individual
does not present the identification required under
subparagraph (A), the individual shall be permitted to cast a
provisional ballot with respect to the election under section
302(a), except that the appropriate State or local election
official may not make a determination under section 302(a)(4)
that the individual is eligible under State law to vote in
the election unless the individual presents the
identification required under subparagraph (A) to the
official not later than 48 hours after casting the
provisional ballot.
``(C) Exception for elderly and disabled voters.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any elderly
or handicapped individual. In this subparagraph, the terms
`elderly' and `handicapped' have the meanings given such
terms in section 8 of the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-6)).
``(D) Exception for victims of hurricane katrina.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any
individual who certifies to the appropriate election official
that the documentation which would enable the individual to
obtain the identification required under such subparagraph
was lost or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and
(D), the appropriate State or local election official may not
accept any ballot for an election for Federal office provided
by an individual who votes other than in person unless the
individual submits with the ballot--
``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current, and valid
photo identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office, a copy of a
government-issued, current, and valid photo identification
for which the individual was required to provide proof of
United States citizenship as a condition for the issuance of
the identification.
``(B) Exception for absent military voters and their
families.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a
ballot provided by an absent uniformed services voter. In
this subparagraph, the term `absent uniformed services voter'
has the meaning given such term in section 107(1) of the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ff-6(1)).
``(C) Exception for elderly and disabled voters.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a ballot
provided by a elderly or handicapped individual. In this
subparagraph, the terms `elderly' and `handicapped' have the
meanings given such terms in section 8 of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ee-6)).
``(D) Exception for victims of hurricane katrina.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any
individual who certifies to the appropriate election official
that the documentation which would enable the individual to
obtain the identification required under such subparagraph
was lost or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For
purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--
``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it is
issued by the Federal Government or by the government of a
State; and
``(B) an identification is one for which an individual was
required to provide proof of United States citizenship as a
condition for issuance if the identification displays an
official marking or other indication that the individual is a
United States citizen.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 15483) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER
BY MAIL'' and inserting ``FOR PROVIDING PHOTO
IDENTIFICATION''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections
(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by amending the item relating to section 303 to
read as follows:
``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements
and requirements for providing photo identification''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by
this section shall apply with respect to the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office held in
November 2008 and each subsequent election for Federal
office.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with
respect to the regularly scheduled general election for
Federal office held in November 2008 and each subsequent
election for Federal office.''.
(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or section
303(d)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as amended by
paragraph (2)), this section and the amendments made by this
section shall not apply with respect to any election which is
held in a State during a fiscal year for which the amount
provided to the State pursuant to the authorization under
section 297A of such Act (as added by section 3(c)) is not
sufficient to cover the costs incurred by the State in
carrying out the amendments made by section 3.
SEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.
(a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--
Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Making photo identifications available.--
``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each
succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a program
to provide photo identifications which may be used to meet
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by individuals who
desire to vote in elections held in the State but who do not
otherwise
[[Page H6783]]
possess a government-issued photo identification.
``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent
individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee for
providing a photo identification under the program
established under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to
the State of providing the identification to the individual;
and
``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any individual who
provides an attestation that the individual is unable to
afford the fee.
``(C) Identifications not to be used for other purposes.--
Any photo identification provided under the program
established under subparagraph (A) may not serve as a
government-issued photo identification for purposes of any
program or function of a State or local government other than
the administration of elections.''.
(b) Report on Number of Individuals Unable to Cast Ballots
as a Result of Photo Identification Requirement.--Section
303(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by
subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(7) Report on number of individuals unable to cast
ballots as a result of photo identification requirement.--Not
later than December 31 of each year during which a regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office is held
(beginning with 2008), each State shall submit a report to
the Commission on the number of individuals in the State who
were registered to vote with respect to the election but who
were prohibited from casting a ballot in the election, or
whose provisional ballots were not counted in the election,
because they failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)
or (2).''.
(c) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title
II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new part:
``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO
INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS
``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING
PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT
INDIVIDUALS.
``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make
payments to States to cover the costs incurred in providing
photo identifications under the program established under
section 303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the
fee that would otherwise be charged under the program.
``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to
a State under this part for any year shall be equal to the
amount of fees which would have been collected by the State
during the year under the program established under section
303(b)(4) but for the application of section
303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information
furnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in
such form as the Commission may require.
``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments
under this part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to
subtitle D of title II the following:
``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to
Indigent Individuals
``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo
identifications for voting to indigent individuals.
``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.
(e) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect October 1, 2007.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW VOTER
IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Availability of Funding for States.--The amendments
made by this Act shall not take effect unless--
(1) the amount provided to States pursuant to the
authorization under section 297A of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 (as added by section 3(c)) is sufficient to cover the
costs to the States of meeting the requirements of section
303(b)(4) of such Act (as added by section 3(a)); and
(2) the amount provided to States for requirements payments
under subtitle D of title II of such Act is sufficient to
cover the costs to the States of meeting the requirements of
title III of such Act (other than section 303(b)(4)), taking
into account the additional requirements imposed by the
amendments made by this Act.
(b) Requiring Access to Photo Identifications Prior to
Implementation of New Requirements.--The amendments made by
this Act shall not take effect unless the Election Assistance
Commission reports to Congress that not less than 95 percent
of the voting age population of the United States has
obtained photo identification which meets the requirements of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which are added by the
amendments made by this Act, and that individuals who were
not able to afford the fee imposed by a State for the
identification were provided the identification free of
charge by the State.
(c) Requiring Certification by Attorney General, Chief
State Election Official, and Governor Prior to Implementation
of New Requirements in State.--
(1) Certification.--The amendments made by this Act shall
not apply with respect to elections held in a State unless
the chief executive of the State, the chief State election
official of the State, and the Attorney General certify to
Congress that, on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence--
(A) voting by noncitizens in the State is a persistent and
significant problem; and
(B) the remedies and prohibitions applicable under the laws
in effect prior to the implementation of the amendments made
by this Act are insufficient to prevent and deter this
problem.
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``chief State election official'' has the
meaning given such term in section 253(e) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15403(e)); and
(B) the term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in
section 901 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15541).
(d) Study and Report on Anticipated Effect of
Implementation on Participation by Elderly, Disabled, Native
Americans and Minority Voters.--The amendments made by this
Act shall not take effect unless the Election Assistance
Commission--
(1) conducts a study on the anticipated impact of the
amendments on voter participation; and
(2) submits a report to Congress on the study which
concludes that the implementation of the amendments will not
disproportionately affect voter participation by the elderly,
the disabled, Native Americans, and members of racial
minorities.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to vote
out a proof-of-citizenship requirement to allow citizens to exercise
their constitutional right to vote, then we should consider who will be
disenfranchised by this new requirement, and we should ensure that the
States have both the funds and have determined their needs to implement
this mandate.
Of course, we should exempt those who will be greatly burdened and
are least likely to fit the straw man profile which the majority has
thrown up as its excuse to pass this bill, voting by noncitizens. There
is no showing that this straw man is a problem of sufficient
proportions to justify a 21st century poll tax.
There is no empirical data on which to justify this unfunded mandate,
and the personal financial burden and, in some cases, the sheer
impossibility of citizens to obtain the required documentation must be
taken into consideration.
I therefore offer a motion to recommit, which does the following
things to the Republican proof-of-citizenship photo ID obstacle to
voting.
First, the motion to recommit exempts all military voters and their
families from the requirement of submitting a copy of their photo ID
when mailing in an absentee ballot, not just those uniformed personnel
overseas, as the underlying Hyde bill allows.
Second, my motion exempts all elderly and disabled voters from having
to provide their photo ID at polls or when mailing in absentee ballots.
They have financial and access obstacles which ordinary citizens simply
do not have, and we need to recognize and adjust for that.
Third, the motion prevents the bill from taking effect in any State
and during any fiscal year in which the Federal Government is acting
irresponsibly by not providing sufficient Federal funds to cover the
State costs of the unfunded mandate of making photo IDs available.
Fourth, my motion to recommit empowers the States by requiring that
this new proof of citizenship photo ID provision will not take effect
until the State's chief executive, chief election officer, and attorney
general have each certified to Congress that voting by noncitizens in
the State is a persistent and significant problem that can't be
resolved by existing State and Federal laws.
Fifth, the motion seeks to enlighten the Congress on the impact of
this law by having States issue a report to the Election Assistance
Commission on the number of individuals who are
[[Page H6784]]
disenfranchised because of a photo ID requirement.
Sixth, the motion seeks to temper the likely effects of this harsh
new statute by holding its application in abeyance until the Election
Assistance Commission reports to Congress that 95 percent of the
voting-age population has acquired a photo ID which meets the
requirements of this act.
Seventh, my motion prevents the law from taking effect until the
Election Assistance Commission studies and reports to Congress that the
photo ID law will not disproportionately disenfranchise the elderly,
disabled, minority and Native Americans.
Finally, the motion exempts Katrina victims whose records were
destroyed and who were unable to obtain the requisite documentation, as
long as they certify under penalty of perjury to the appropriate State
election officials.
These are major concerns but by no means the only ones.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Would the gentlewoman yield just for one
moment?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is very important on two
points. The poll tax, which is a very important point of our argument,
it has been said this is not a poll tax. It has been said that this is
not an unfunded mandate. However, it is important to know that at the
same time they say that this effort will be paid for, but there is no
funding in this bill to pay for it, that makes it an unfunded mandate.
That puts the onus on the individual senior citizens, those without it.
Therefore, this was the consideration for the Georgia ruling that it
was a poll tax and unconstitutional.
It is also important to note within the case in Georgia it was
pointed out that clearly there were 600,000 Georgians, and not just
Georgians, but registered voters in Georgia, 600,000, who did not have
either a driver's license or a birth certificate. In order for that to
happen, they would have had to provide the costs for doing so, which
was not in the bill.
Subsequently, the Governor of Georgia said, to solve this we will put
a bus to travel, follow it around the State. The bus made it for 2
hours and broke down. I wanted to make that clear for the Georgia
record.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond without having
seen the text of this beforehand, but it appears clear to me that it
has the purpose to provide a number of exceptions. Our bill does not
provide exceptions, because we are interested in ensuring that every
voter has the right to vote. We also want to ensure that there are no
illegal votes cast.
References have been made to unfunded mandate. The House just
defeated that suggestion and said there is no unfunded mandate. There
are concerns about no money being provided. Our committee, the House
Administration Committee, is an authorizing committee, not an
appropriations committee.
If this bill is unfunded, it is simply because we are an authorizing
committee, and any bill passed by an authorizing committee is unfunded.
We have to follow the procedures here. We pass authorizing bills. The
appropriators then provide the money to implement authorizing
activities.
I strongly urge the Members of the body to recommit this bill and to
pass the original version of the bill, as amended, and which was
introduced to this body and debated for the last 2 hours. It is a good
bill that will provide the safety and security we need to ensure the
vote is taken properly. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. 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.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
H.R. 4844, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res.
976.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196,
nays 225, not voting 11, as follows
[Roll No. 458]
YEAS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
[[Page H6785]]
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bishop (UT)
Calvert
Case
Cubin
Evans
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Moore (KS)
Ney
Reynolds
Strickland
{time} 1550
Messrs. PICKERING, LUCAS, TERRY, NUNES, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of
California, WALDEN of Oregon, HEFLEY, LaHOOD and GARY G. MILLER of
California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. HOLT and Mr. UDALL of
Colorado changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 196, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 459]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--8
Case
Cubin
Evans
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Moore (KS)
Ney
Strickland
{time} 1600
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require each individual who
desires to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the
appropriate election official with a government-issued photo
identification, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________