[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20710-20717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CITIZENS' RIGHT TO VOTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the 14th amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States guarantees every American citizen the 
right to vote.
  When our country was founded, the right to vote was preserved for 
white men and property owners. It took the Women Suffrage Movement to 
enfranchise women and the Civil Rights Movement to fully enfranchise 
African Americans and other people of color in this country.
  In the words of Susan B. Anthony, we, the people, not just the select 
few, but we, the whole people including all of us formed this union.
  Today, we have awakened to a new challenge for this republic, 
restoring the voting rights of men and women who committed crime but 
have paid their debt to society.
  While the Constitution takes away the voting rights of individuals 
convicted of serious crimes, the States are given the power to restore 
this right. Through our criminal justice system, hundreds of thousands 
of men and women have been politically disenfranchised, many of whom 
are poor and minorities who committed nonviolent crimes.
  Many of these individuals have paid their debt to society; and yet 
some States have restored their right to vote automatically, while 
others hold this right hostage to politics. Laws governing the 
restoration of voting rights after a felony conviction are unequal 
throughout the country.
  Persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while 
in other States persons effectively lose their rights to vote 
permanently.
  Mr. Speaker, two States do not disenfranchise felons at all times; 46 
States and the District of Columbia have disenfranchisement laws that 
deprive convicted felons of the right to vote while they are in prison, 
and in 32 States convicted offenders may not vote while they are on 
parole. In 29 States, probationers may not vote; 14 States 
disenfranchise ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences, no 
matter the nature or seriousness of the offense; 17 States require 
gubernatorial pardon, legislative action or administrative procedures 
to restore the right to vote.
  State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect the poor and

[[Page 20711]]

ethnic minorities. They are more likely to be arrested, charged more 
harshly, poorly represented in court, convicted and receive harsher 
sentences. Whether we like these people, whether we want to know them 
personally, or whether we want to share private lives with them, they 
are part of the whole people of America. They deserve a second chance 
to vote.
  Consider these statistics, Mr. Speaker: an estimated 3.9 million 
Americans, or one in 50 adults, currently cannot vote because of a 
felony conviction. Women represent about a half million of this total. 
Three-fourths, or 72 percent, of the 1.9 million disqualified voters 
are not in prison, but are on probation, parole or are ex-offenders.
  The last decade alone, over 560,000 Americans served their entire 
sentence, stood free and stand free and clear of incarceration and 
parole and have paid their debt to society. An estimated 65,000 of 
these Americans are women, and they cannot vote in some States. Now, 
today you will hear from fellow Members of Congress who believe firmly 
that those individuals who have committed crimes paid their debt to 
society and been released free and clear should be allowed to vote.
  This may seem like a radical proposition, but it is not. It is 
fundamentally consistent with the principles we live by in this 
country. When you pay your debt to society by spending time in prison, 
your punishment is complete. At that point, our society releases you 
back into society and expects you to be rehabilitated socially with 
family, friends, and community. They also look to ensure that you are 
economically upright with jobs, or should.
  It is time now to pay attention to your civic rehabilitation, that 
is, giving one the right to vote. Minority and poor people are 
overrepresented in these numbers. Tonight you will hear from my 
colleagues why we need to enfranchise all of these women and men.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 5158, the Second Chance Voting 
Rights Act of 2000, and this bill does just that. Others, like my 
friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), also have introduced 
legislation to enfranchise these Americans.
  My bill, H.R. 5158, simply says if you have served time, you are now 
out and have served your debt to society. If you are free of all parole 
and paroles, then you should have a restoration of your voting rights. 
That is only the right thing to do in this country we call America.
  Those persons who have had a mishap in life should be given a second 
chance. My bill simply says they should in those States that will allow 
that, and those States you see are listed here. Clearly, the States 
that you see on the chart are the States that automatically will have a 
restoration of those voting rights, once a person has served his or her 
debt to society through parole and is now free and clear standing. And 
those States are California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and 
Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  1630

  Every vote counts. Every vote should count as we proceed into an 
election mode over the next month or so, a little better than a month. 
We should remember that the Constitution does give us this fundamental 
right, and we should also ensure that every person in this country has 
that fundamental right. We should not abridge that in any form once a 
person has paid his or her debt to society and is clear and free of her 
or his parole.
  I can recall in the early sixties before the 1965 Voting Rights Act 
in southern States there were many who had to pay poll taxes before 
they were given the right to vote. There were some who had to know the 
Constitution verbatim before they were given the right to vote. That 
was a certain amount of disenfranchising in and of itself. Yet, those 
were persons who were people of color, primarily African-Americans.
  After the 1965 Voting Rights Act that established their right to 
vote, then we saw large numbers of African-Americans voting, many of 
whom now have gone on but who recognize the type of disenfranchisement 
through not being able to vote unless they knew the Constitution 
verbatim or paid, as they had, so-called poll taxes.
  My bill is simply saying that person does not have to do any of this 
anymore. This person will not be allowed to vote if he or she is on 
probation, but for the persons who have cleared themselves of all of 
the debt that they owe, they should have a restoration of their voting 
rights.
  I say to the Members, Mr. Speaker, if they know of any such person 
who really has restored his or her rights, do let them know that they 
have a few days in some States; that there are some States where the 
deadline for voting is October 7. There are other States where the 
deadline is October 10.
  We are encouraging all of those who want to restore their rights and 
to vote to call their registered Recorder's office and ask simply, 
where do I get the affidavit? They have that responsibility to go to 
the registered Recorder's office and get that affidavit. We have a 
right to restore your rights by virtue of giving you that right through 
legislation.
  My bill also suggests that those States that do not automatically 
restore that, we should give them, through the Federal law, that right 
to vote, especially in Federal elections such as for the President of 
the United States.
  I do have now with me a gentleman who has made his mark early on 
coming to this House, who in 1999 also introduced a bill, a different 
bill than that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in that 
year, but his bill speaks to enfranchisement and restoration of voting 
rights.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), an outstanding 
Member, to speak on his bill, and just for general statements. I thank 
the gentleman for being here.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me. Also I want to commend her, not only for bringing an 
issue like this one to the floor, but for the outstanding work that she 
does on a regular basis on behalf of disenfranchised citizens 
throughout America, and her tremendous effort to make sure that those 
who are sometimes left out, those who are forgotten, those who are at 
the very bottom of everything in our society, are in fact given as much 
opportunity.
  So I am pleased to join in this special order organized by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  This issue has been neglected for too long in this country, and I am 
talking about those who have officially paid their debt for their 
infractions, but upon reentry into the mainstream were shunned by the 
very system that has claimed them reformed by denying them the 
opportunity to participate in our electoral process.
  It seems to me that it is unbelievable that for individuals in a 
society that values democracy, in a society that talks about each and 
every individual having the right to participate, a society that talks 
about the reclamation of individuals and finding ways to bring people 
back into the mainstream after they have committed infractions, and 
yet, we deny them the most basic of all rights in a free and democratic 
society, and that is the right to participate.
  I rise to emphatically declare that every American who commits a 
crime who sufficiently pays his or her debt to society and is rendered 
free to reenter back into society should have their right to vote fully 
restored upon return.
  In fact, as indicated by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald), last year I introduced legislation that would do 
exactly that.
  The fact of the matter is clear, that the right to vote is the most 
basic constitutional act of citizenship. Furthermore, it is my belief 
that this basic right should include law-abiding citizens. 
Unfortunately, many people who control the courts and legislatures 
throughout our country are divided on

[[Page 20712]]

this issue, and have passed laws that make it difficult if not 
impossible for people to come back.
  Some States have passed laws which allow ex-felons to easily regain 
their voting rights, and as a result, these citizens are able to freely 
exercise their regained right and carry on as productive members of 
society. Other States, however, are still rooted in archaic belief 
systems and have kept oppressive laws on the books that permanently bar 
ex-felons from the basic right to vote.
  It is imperative that we review these systems and establish a uniform 
standard which affords ex-offenders the opportunity to vote in Federal 
elections, but not only in Federal elections, in local elections as 
well. It is incredible, when we look at the number of individuals in 
some of our States, and especially the number of African-American males 
in some of our States, who have lost their right to ever participate in 
a meaningful way in the making of laws and the determination of who 
will represent them in public bodies.
  If a person can pay taxes, get a job, learn a trade, learn a skill, 
carry on all of the functions of citizenship, then I think it begs the 
question as to why they cannot also vote.
  So I would hope, I would hope that as we continue to look at this 
issue, that we would look at those States that have in fact restored 
and given back the right for these individuals, once they have paid 
their debt to society. I have not seen anything that has happened in 
any of these States that would cause me to believe that it is a harmful 
practice.
  Take, for example, my State of Illinois. I consider it to be a 
progressive State; not as progressive, perhaps, as it will be, and not 
as progressive as it should be. But I say it is a progressive State 
because it is a State where the Governor, even as we look at the death 
penalty, has determined that we need to review the way in which it is 
administered, because for some reason, for many reasons, there seem to 
be an inordinate number of African-Americans, Spanish-speaking 
citizens, low-income, poor, uneducated, undereducated individuals who 
end up in the penal system on death row, in the penitentiary, and 
individuals even who, once they serve whatever time they have been 
given, still do not have the hope of voting.
  So I say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), 
I think she has in fact given the country a great service by raising 
this issue, because it gives us a chance to explore; to look at, first 
of all, why are there so many people in this country in prison? There 
are more than 2 million people associated in some, way, shape, form, or 
fashion with our correctional system.
  Here we are, 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of 
the prison population. In a country as enlightened, we are the most 
technologically proficient Nation on the face of the Earth. The quality 
of life for mass numbers of people in this country is greater than we 
would find the quality of life for people anyplace in the world.
  Yet, we have not found a way to, in a seriously, not only humane way, 
yes, we can look at it as being humane, but we can also look at it from 
another vantage point. It is like having a car that has six cylinders, 
but if only three of those cylinders are functioning, think of all the 
power and energy that we are losing.
  Think of all the possibilities that we could have. Think of all the 
positive things that could take place if we would look for ways to take 
men and women who have committed crimes, who have been incarcerated, 
and while they are there, would it not make much more sense if they 
could learn a trade, if they could learn how to do computers, if they 
could acquire college degrees, if they could learn how to be carpenters 
and brick-layers and masons and to do maintenance work and to be office 
managers? Rather than coming back with no skill and not the right to 
vote, they could come back having paid their debt to society saying, 
``I am now ready to do my part. I am ready to do my share of helping to 
make this country the great Nation that it has the potential of being, 
so that it becomes even greater than what it is.''
  So I ask the gentlewoman to keep working, if she will, on these tough 
issues. Some of us will be there working with her. Ultimately, the day 
will come when those individuals who are now left out will in fact get 
cut in. I thank the gentlewoman for this evening.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman from 
Illinois, he just says it so eloquently. I want to enter into some kind 
of colloquy or dialogue with the gentleman, so I do not want him to 
leave.
  We have been joined by the outstanding gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. 
Carson), who has been in the forefront of mental health. We do 
recognize that a lot of those of whom we speak have a certain amount of 
mental health issues, yet it is not being addressed as they are being 
incarcerated and/or let out.
  The gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) comes with experience, 
having served in the State legislature of her State, with the know-how 
to address and dig into this issue of mental health.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) for her remarks 
on this particular issue.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, it is an esteemed privilege and pleasure to 
stand here in support of, first and foremost, a Member who hales from 
the State of California, who has the wisdom and foresight and the 
motivation and the spirit and the compassion and the humanitarianism to 
bring forth so many pieces of legislation on behalf of people across 
this country, not just confined to her own district and her own State.

                              {time}  1645

  I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) for allowing me an opportunity to come by just a little while 
and give just a few brief remarks, and to stand here with the 
incredibly distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), whose 
district is in a State that is contiguous with my State of Indiana, and 
to say a few words on behalf of H.R. 5158, the Second Chance Voting 
Rights Act of 2000.
  Certainly, there is not one among us in this country who does not 
seek a second chance for one reason or another. I have been given a 
second chance to live. I have been given a second chance to be a Member 
of the United States Congress and would hope that I would be given even 
another chance to be able to stand here with so many distinguished 
Representatives from across these United States of America.
  I say that because, since I was a little child, we harmoniously were 
taught to say ``My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.'' That 
is what the Second Chance Voting Rights Act of 2000 is, liberty. 
Liberty and justice for all is something that we were also taught to 
rehearse and memorize as we were growing up through the school systems 
and going out into the byways of life, liberties and justice for all 
people.
  When one thinks of justice, one thinks of either Frederick Douglass 
or Booker T. Washington that said ``Justice delayed is justice 
denied.''
  Elected officials are supposed to be the voice of the people. But 
what happens, when in their selection, a segment of the population is 
silenced? Silenced for life, not necessarily by choice, not by violent 
means, not through court procedures, but automatically upon conviction. 
A portion of our precious democracy dies and society suffers.
  A very poignant point came to my attention when I first ran for 
Congress in 1996. The field was crowded as is in cases where a retiring 
Member seat exists, somebody who had held a seat for some 30-some 
years, and is open, and everybody jumps in it.
  It was interesting that we had three people who were running for 
Congress who were convicted felons. The reason they chose to run for 
Congress instead of municipal or local office is because the State law 
prohibited felons from running for State office. But no law anywhere 
prohibited felons from running for a seat in the United States

[[Page 20713]]

Congress. I thought that was very interesting that one could not run 
for a local office but one could run for Congress because Congress has 
the jurisdiction in terms of determining its membership and its 
eligibility.
  Now, would it not just make sense for here in the United States of 
America is the only country in the world that permanently takes away 
the right to vote from its citizens. In 14 States, offenders are barred 
from ever voting again, even after serving their time. It sounds like 
something we hear often about double jeopardy.
  The opinions of ex-offenders are no less important than that of other 
citizens because they are still human beings. In matters of government 
action, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall recognized that and 
said ``ex-offenders are as much affected by actions of government as 
any other citizen and have as much right to participate in government 
decision making.''
  It is estimated that 3.9 million citizens are barred from voting, 
including more than 1 million who have fully completed their sentences. 
How can the justice system and States say that an individual is 
rehabilitated and worthy of another chance in society when that 
individual is stripped from their voting rights in government?
  This goes beyond the denial of individual voice. The policy has 
implications beyond an individual being denied to vote. The origins of 
voter disenfranchisement can be traced back to medieval times where 
offenders were banished from the community. It is later revived in the 
segregation era as a supposed race-neutral voting restriction to 
exclude blacks from voting.
  The practice of barring ex-offenders from voting has a 
disproportionate racial impact, even though it may seem race neutral. 
Consider that the rate for voter disenfranchisement for African-
American men is seven times the national average. Consider that the 1.4 
million or 13 percent of African-American men are barred from voting. 
Consider that 36 percent of the total disenfranchised population is 
comprised of African-American men. Clearly, the impact of this policy 
falls disproportionately on our Nation's black men.
  As a result, the voice of African-American communities as a whole is 
weakened. A large segment of our population is denied the opportunity 
to decide who will shape public policy, who will make our laws that 
affect all of us.
  According to the Human Rights Watch, if this current trend continues 
in a dozen or more States, 30 to 40 percent of the next generation of 
black men will be permanently prohibited from their right to vote.
  Because the States lack uniformity on this matter, the right to vote 
is dependent upon geography rather than reason. Some States will 
reinstate the right to vote only through a Governor's pardon or parole 
board, while in others a bill must be enacted to restore the right.
  Some States like Virginia permit the restoration of voting rights. 
However, in 1996 to 1997, of the 200,000 ex-convicts in Virginia, only 
404 had their right to vote restored.
  There is no compelling reason, Mr. Speaker, for this national policy 
interest to be ignored. We must understand why ex-offenders should be 
denied the right to vote and redress it and reverse it.
  As long as America denies some citizens the most fundamental of 
democratic rights, the right to vote, true democracy cannot exist in 
silence. When you silence some, you silence all.
  We bemoan the low voter participation especially in the African-
American community where there is no wonder. A disproportionate number 
of citizens of the African-American community are in fact 
disenfranchised in terms of their voting opportunities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, please know that I give the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) a standing ovation, that I give her 
the tip of my hat for bringing this long overdue issue before the ears 
and eyes of America and certainly in the halls of the United States 
Congress.
  I would trust that as we go along and begin to educate the Members 
about this injustice that exists, that perhaps they will decide that it 
will no longer persist, and rectify this situation that is a bad mark, 
I believe, on a Western civilization.
  I thank the gentlewoman so very much for allowing me to come, and I 
praise her highly.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana 
(Ms. Carson) is a gracious lady, and I appreciate her coming. The 
gentlewoman kind of hit the nail on the head, if you will. We all have 
been given second chances. So why not give those who have had a mishap 
through this penal system a second chance, too, to have a restoration 
of their voting rights.
  I will be working with the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), not 
only with this issue, but with the issue of mental health as it 
absolutely integrates into this whole issue of incarceration.
  Mr. Speaker, we now have a man who has gained enormous respect across 
this country as we saw him during the impeachment process. The 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is known to challenge anyone on 
this floor when there is an infringement on the Constitution. He is 
highly respected in this House because of his constitutional background 
and expertise. But today he comes because he questions the Constitution 
as we talk about fundamental rights of those who should have those 
rights be restored.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) for her strong support of this fundamental basic 
right, the right to vote.
  The right to vote is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as 
citizens of the United States. In fact, it is the cornerstone of our 
democracy. Unfortunately, many citizens have been denied that basic 
fundamental right. States first limited the right to vote to white men 
only with property, excluding women and racial and ethnic minorities.
  While the post-Civil War constitutional amendments secured the right 
to vote for those previously excluded, many States enacted laws 
designed to circumvent those amendments by erecting new barriers such 
as the poll tax and other schemes to deny that basic right to vote. 
Through the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other related 
legislation, we have eliminated those barriers and expanded the number 
of citizens who can participate in this great democracy.
  Here we are today, however, because a significant segment of our 
population continues to be left out of the process. Specifically, many 
States maintain barriers to voting for former offenders, denying them 
the right to vote in an election.
  A recent study by the Sentencing Project and the Human Rights Watch 
shows that some 3.9 million Americans are either currently or 
permanently disenfranchised as a result of State laws. Among those who 
are disenfranchised are 1.4 million African-American men or 13 percent 
of the total black population of adult men.
  The disparate impact on black adult men not only denies that group 
the right to vote but also limits voter opposition to unfair and 
discriminatory crime policies which result in so many minorities being 
imprisoned today.
  We have to put an end to this cycle of discriminatory crime policy 
which results in bad crime policy, resulting in the victims of that 
policy losing their right to vote and then they cannot complain 
democratically about the discriminatory policy and new policies are 
enacted.
  I am talking about policies like racial profiling where one picks 
people off the street because of their race or the crack cocaine-powder 
cocaine disparity where crack cocaine, which is a drug of choice in the 
black community, one can get 5 years mandatory minimum for a weekend's 
worth of crack. Ninety-five percent of the defendants in those cases 
are African American or Hispanic, while powder cocaine one has to get 
caught with over $50,000 worth before one is subjected to the same 
mandatory minimum. Once one is subjected to that, one cannot complain 
because one loses one's right to vote.

[[Page 20714]]

  Now, I applaud the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender-
McDonald) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and others for their legislation to 
address this problem. It is a difficult problem because of the 
constitutional complications.
  Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution shows where you find the 
qualifications for electors. Let me just quote what that says: ``the 
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for 
electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature,'' which 
means that the electors in Federal elections are those who can vote for 
the local State House of Representatives. The State gets to decide who 
can vote.
  Now, the Federal Constitution in section 4 says, that the times, 
places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives 
can be prescribed in each State, but Congress shall be able to make 
regulations involving the time, place and manner; but according to 
section 2, not the qualifications.
  Now, the 14th amendment and equal protection clause says that the 
States cannot discriminate against people as they determine the 
qualifications except for participation in rebellion or other crime, 
which says specifically that the States may discriminate based on 
felony records.
  Now, Richardson v. Ramirez, a 1974 case recognized that felony 
disenfranchisement law does not on its face violate the Constitution, 
and so we are somewhat limited in what we can do. But the vote to 
determine voter qualifications is not unlimited.
  Rogers v. Lodge, 1982, held that at-large electoral systems are 
unconstitutional if conceived or operated as purposeful devices to 
further racial discrimination by minimizing, cancelling out, or 
diluting the voting strength of racial elements in a voting population.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, the court identified a number of considerations. The presence of 
racially polarized voting, the impact of past discrimination on the 
ability of African Americans to participate, the lack of responsiveness 
to the African American community, the depressed socioeconomic status 
of African Americans can all be considered. And consistent with that, 
in Hunter v. Underwood, a 1985 case, the Supreme Court determined that 
Alabama's felony disenfranchisement law, in fact, violated the Equal 
Protection Clause of the 14th amendment because ``Discriminating 
against black as well as poor whites was a motivating factor for the 
law.''
  Thus, the standard becomes clear. Any Federal legislation on this 
topic must be supported by specific evidence in the record as to the 
discriminatory intent of each State's statute, similar to the evidence 
gathered when we passed the Voting Rights Act. Findings which just show 
a possible disproportionate impact may not be enough. But certainly if 
we can find intent in those State laws, we can develop legislation. 
This means that in States that have no minority population, we probably 
cannot show that those laws were affected to discriminate against 
minorities, but we should have a hearing record to show which States in 
fact do. And we can target our remedy just to those States, just like 
the Voting Rights Act did where only certain States are subject to the 
preclearance provision. Those States were caught discriminating. We 
identified those States and affected the remedy just in those States 
and not others.
  So we need to have hearings next year and establish the record that 
we all know is true, that felony disenfranchisement has a disparate 
impact on black adult men, and exists in many States because of 
discriminatory reasons. Laying such a foundation will permit us to 
establish a compelling State interest for Federal intervention and 
permit us to narrowly tailor the legislation to address the problem. 
That legislation will enable those presently disenfranchised to fully 
participate in our democracy, and we will be able to craft legislation 
which could withstand constitutional challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the advocacy of the gentlewoman from 
California, the gentleman from Illinois, and others who have called 
this special order to expose the compelling issue before us; and even 
though the solution may be complicated constitutionally, we can work, 
because we must, to address this problem, and we must support our basic 
fundamental constitutional rights to vote.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. My God, you have done well by my spirit and 
by my soul. I will certainly call on the gentleman as we engage further 
in hearings, because the gentleman has given some compelling arguments 
with the cases that he has outlined that suggest to me that we can 
perhaps fight this, and we will do just that as we go around this 
country hearing from folks and hearing what they have to say in terms 
of discriminatory practices and then challenge even States and their 
attorneys general so that we can then fight this on this floor.
  I thank the gentleman so much. I told my colleagues that he was a 
scholar in his constitutional knowledge and, indeed, he has reflected 
that today.
  We have with us another great lady from the great State of 
California, who in her own right has worked in this House on numerous 
issues, but what she has been so noted for is her fight for women and 
children, for funding for women's health and for the HIV/AIDS epidemic 
in minority communities. Those of us who are people of color cannot say 
enough of this woman, who may not be a person of color, but she is a 
person of conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to none other than the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi). California has brought us one of its 
finest, and I thank her so much.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman so very much. I thank her for her 
great leadership and that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott). We have been blessed in this institution with 
great legal minds and great minds that care about equality.
  I support the Civil Participation Rehabilitation Act of 1999, which 
would grant persons, as the gentlewoman has spelled out, who have been 
released from incarceration, the right to vote in Federal elections.
  The points have been very well made by the Members who have spoken 
already. I just want to give a little perspective from the standpoint 
of the Committee on Appropriations, on which I serve. I spent some time 
on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, where 
judges would come before us for their appropriation, and we would have 
the opportunity to ask them about issues like mandatory minimum 
sentences or making a Federal offense on certain crimes that really 
should not have been raised to that level.
  This rampage that the Congress seemed to have been on, and not only 
the Congress but the State of California too, where we have the ``Three 
Strikes You're Out,'' and mandatory minimum sentences, etcetera, where 
we have had these sentences which go beyond a year and a day and, 
therefore, are considered a felony, we have so many people now who run 
the risk of being disenfranchised.
  This denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the 
twin values of democracy and rehabilitation. Felony voting restrictions 
only serve to alienate and isolate individuals from civil society. 
Americans believe in rehabilitation, that if a debt to society is paid, 
there is no longer a debt. Why then should we not have a universal 
Second Chance Voting Rights Act so that people all have a stake in 
America's future?
  Our colleague from Virginia has mentioned the number of African 
American men, that there are estimates that 1.4 million African 
American men, or 13 percent of the total population of black adult men, 
have been disenfranchised either currently or permanently 
disenfranchised as a result of State felony voting laws. This is 
outrageous. This is outrageous. We have a chance here to do something 
about it.

[[Page 20715]]

  And while I am at it, I have talked about people paying their dues to 
society and the mandatory minimum sentences which elevate some of these 
offenses to felonies; but, in conclusion, I want to make one other 
point. We do not have equal representation for all the people in our 
society when they are accused of a crime. It simply does not happen. It 
comes into play when we talk about the death penalty, which is a 
different issue; but when we have everyone having the same caliber of 
legal representation, then we can talk about everyone having the same 
risk in terms of where penalties are concerned.
  So where we have a situation where Congress is interested in making 
some offenses felonies, by either making the sentence a year and a day, 
or we have the situation where young people simply do not know about 
the ``Three Strikes You're Out,'' the mandatory minimums, the risks 
they take in making mistakes when they are very young, they cannot 
afford to pay for the kind of representation that somebody else, who 
might get off because they had a much better lawyer, gets.
  Also, there is an interest on the part of prosecutors sometimes for a 
plea, and people with information have a plea. Lots of times these kids 
have no information. Lots of times they just got caught with a small 
amount of a drug. They do not have information, so they go to jail. 
Somebody higher up, who has information, can plea, can afford better 
representation; and these kids, again, are the ones who go to jail, 
lose their right to vote. Even after they pay their debt to society, 
they may not be able to vote.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for doing this. It is so fundamental to 
our democracy that everyone have a stake in it; that everyone be able 
to fully participate. We cannot say to young people who have made a 
mistake that they are going to pay for it forever in terms of their 
full enfranchisement as a citizen in our country. Certainly as long as 
we are a country where representation is unequal as far as 
representation in the courts, we cannot have these, shall we say, 
capital punishments, as far as voting is concerned.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for what she is doing from the perspective 
of my district and from the perspective as a proprietor who has heard 
over and over and over from the judges, please, stop, Congress, from 
making all these mandatory minimum sentences. Give us some discretion. 
Stop federalizing these offenses. That takes us down a path which is 
exacerbated by the disenfranchisement that you are trying to correct 
here.
  So I commend the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our distinguished 
ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary; and I am pleased to 
join all my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), as well as our 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who I know 
will be speaking as well, and so many Members who have spoken on this 
issue today.
  I thank all my colleagues for their leadership. We are all in your 
debt.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentlewoman so much. The 
gentlewoman has touched on an issue that we certainly will be looking 
at as we probe into this whole notion of discriminatory practices when 
it comes to voting rights, especially for those who have served their 
debt to society, and one is mandatory sentencing. We really need to see 
how that plays into the inability of one having to have the restoration 
of their voting rights. So that is one thing we will look at critically 
as we move into venues with hearings.
  As I said, the gentlewoman from California may not be a woman of 
color, but she is a woman of conscience.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, now we have a woman of color who once was a 
prosecutor and a judge out of the great State of Ohio. She has come in 
and put her paw prints on this place in such a short time. She has gone 
around this country talking about predatory lending.
  As her predecessor said, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) is 
someone she knew was going to come in like a strike of lightning, and 
she has done just that. With her experience in the courts, with her 
experience in other areas of the justice system, she has certainly 
served us well even in her short time.
  I thank the gentlewoman so much for being with us tonight.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) this afternoon in the special 
order, as well as my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I am pleased to stand and rise in support of 
the special order with regard to H.R. 5158, Second Chance Voting Rights 
Act of 2000 and H.R. 906, Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 
1999.
  It is interesting that while voter registration drives move at full 
speed, and while campaign speeches are given to varying constituencies, 
one group is still left out. We always say, ``It is your vote that is 
your voice. If you do not vote, you do not have a voice.'' The people 
without a voice today are those in the States wherein convicted felons 
who have completed their time in jail or who are off of parole do not 
have the right to vote. That is why I am proud to stand in support of 
both of these bills, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Think about it. America was founded as a second chance; a second 
chance for freedom, a second chance away from religious persecution. 
Why then are we stripping rights from people who have served their 
time, paid their debt to society and now want a second chance?
  We must remember that this Nation stood up when it granted women the 
right to vote. This Nation stood up over 2 decades ago when African 
Americans were disenfranchised by Jim Crow, by all the poll taxes, all 
the literacy tests, and recognized that disenfranchisement runs counter 
to our democratic ideals of freedom, justice, and liberty.
  In the United States, felony convictions bring civil consequences. We 
all know that. Offenders may lose the right to vote, sit on juries, 
hold offices, and obtain various licenses. The problem is that these 
penalties continue long after the sentence is served and long after the 
debt is paid. Let us give those rights back to give an opportunity for 
the offenders to be whole again.
  Forty-six States and the District deny convicted adults in prison the 
right to vote; 32 States disenfranchise felons on parole; 29 
disenfranchise those on probation; and 14 bar ex-offenders for life. We 
have already gone through the statistics. Think about it like this. My 
predecessors died for me to have the right to vote. What that did was 
it not only gave people the right to vote, but it gave them the 
opportunity to be heard, and it also made them responsible citizens in 
their community.
  By disenfranchising so many people in our communities, particularly 
disproportionately African Americans, we disenfranchise a Nation, a 
generation of young people whose parents will not know about voting. So 
how can they take their children to the ballot box if they have not had 
the right to vote? If we want the people to believe that they have a 
part in this society, that they are useful in this society, we need to 
give them the opportunity and the right to vote so that they can then 
act responsibly and go out and vote.
  Some will argue this legislation makes legislators soft on crime. 
Nonsense. Legislation like Second Chance and Civic Participation make 
legislators not soft on crime but strong on democracies. Others are 
concerned that victims and ex-felons might determine election outcomes, 
particularly where local sheriffs and judges have run tough-on-crime 
campaigns. Nonsense. Voting is a right that comes with citizenship. Let 
us give it back.
  Why do I support both these pieces of legislation? Because 
participation aids in rehabilitation and public confidence. Ex-
offenders have served their time; let us not punish them forever. And 
felony voting restrictions have strong racial overtones, since African 
Americans are

[[Page 20716]]

disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.

                              {time}  1715

  We must do better. If we are discouraged about low voting 
participation from the general public, let us do something positive 
about it. Let us give ex-offenders a new chance, a second chance, a new 
start to start their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  We must clear up this stain on our Nation and support both of these 
pieces of legislation.
  Let me finally close with a couple of anecdotes.
  When I served as a judge and people I had placed on probation 
completed their probation and were sent out in the world, they were 
discouraged because they could not get a job, they were discouraged 
because they did not have a right to vote, they were discouraged 
because they could not get a license. We must give these persons an 
opportunity to become useful citizens in our community.
  Think about it like this: Right now on the TV on the Divorce Court, 
we have a young judge who was a juvenile offender. He turned his life 
around. He is a shining example of young people who can turn their 
lives around when aided and supported and make a difference in our 
society.
  Support the right thing. Support a second chance. Support H.R. 5158 
and H.R. 906.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) for her leadership on this issue and I would ask all my 
colleagues to join in the leadership team and vote in favor in support 
of these pieces of legislation.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments. I think she made a very telling statement when she says 
penalties last long after probationary periods. What a telling 
statement that is.
  I am told I have a shorter period of time than I thought I had, and 
so I will give the remainder of the 5 minutes that I have to an 
outstanding young woman who hails from the great State of Texas, who 
everyone knows in my State because of the absolutely sterling 
presentation she did during the impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues on reemphasizing to 
the American people and to our House colleagues and to the other body 
the importance of H.R. 5158, Second Chance Voting Rights of 2000, and 
H.R. 906, the Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  I know that we have heard these numbers, but might I, Mr. Speaker, 
emphasize again that 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults, 
currently cannot vote because of a felony conviction.
  Now, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I think it 
is important for the American public to realize that we, too, uphold 
the Constitution and believe in its tenets, and that is the value of 
the right to vote, the value of democracy, but we also realize that 
juxtaposed alongside of the Constitution are a myriad of State criminal 
statutes that make our country a country of laws governed by the 
people. We understand that.
  But in this time of great necessity of human capital, the great need 
for human capital, is it not shameful that we waste those individuals 
who have dutifully paid back to society for what they have done?
  I would hope that people would understand or that, as we are 
participating in this discussion, that all who are listening would 
understand that what we are talking about are individuals who have in 
fact paid back their time, and yet they cannot be allowed to vote. They 
cannot vote in Federal elections, and many times they cannot vote in 
our State elections.
  Let me applaud some of the work that has been done in the State of 
Texas which is now working to indicate to those ex-felons who have done 
their time that they can be re-enfranchised. This is a key element of 
what we are trying do on the Federal level.
  Last evening about 75 to 80 million people listened to the 
Presidential debates, as they will listen over the next couple of days. 
I would simply say that they are privileged to not only listen, but 
they are privileged to vote.
  Why would we extinguish the valuable human capital of young people in 
our community, of individuals who made a mistake when they were young 
and have paid their dues, why would we extinguish their right to vote?
  And so, I think that we must look to this Federal legislation because 
I believe there are only about 20 States that automatically restore the 
right to vote. And, therefore, this Second Chance Voting Rights Act of 
2000 is to re-enfranchise our brothers, our sisters, mothers, fathers 
and others.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for 
leading on this special order, not only to educate but to help us 
legislate freedom. Freedom is not easy. It is not cheap. Let us not 
deny those Americans who have now come forward and say, I know that I 
did not do right, but I have paid the time. Let us enfranchise them.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my 
appreciation to the leadership and for the bill that has been 
introduced for this subject because I think that it is of high 
priority.
  Mr. Speaker, today I became a cosponsor of H.R. 5158, the Second 
Chance Voting Rights Act of 2000. The legislation, authored by my 
colleague Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, would 
automatically restore federal voting rights to any formerly 
incarcerated person upon the unconditional release of that individual 
from incarceration and completion of their sentence, including parole.
  This legislation is necessary because thousands of ex-offenders are 
denied the fundamental right to vote. Under the Constitution, states 
have the authority to deny the right to vote to an individual who is 
imprisoned and to restore that right once a person is released. Many 
states automatically return the right to vote once the former 
prisoner's sentence has been completed. However, some states require 
prisoners to meet certain procedural requirements to have their voting 
rights restored, and a few go as far as requiring a ``pardon'' for 
voting rights to be restored. In my own state of Texas, the right to 
vote is not restored until two years after the prisoner receives a 
certificate of discharge, two years after completing probation, or by 
pardon. In other words, former prisoners in Texas do not share in the 
basic rights that other Texans enjoy because they must wait two years 
before regaining their voting rights.
  This situation in Texas and in many other parts of the country is 
fundamentally wrong. Citizens should not be deprived of the right to 
vote once they have paid their debt to society in full.
  Allow me to share with you that in Texas I am coordinating with 
Yvonne Davis and Terry Hodge, Texas state representatives and members 
of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, an effort to reach out to 
individuals who have been released from incarceration. The effort will 
involve enlisting voter education groups to reach out to these 
individuals and public service announcements to encourage these 
individuals to register and to vote on November 7th. This effort was 
launched in early August. It will remind individuals that although they 
lost many of their rights while incarcerated, they are again full-
fledged Americans who have the same rights as their fellow citizens to 
help elect leaders who will shape the future direction of this country.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the 14th Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States guarantees every American citizen the 
right to vote. When our country was founded, the right to vote was 
preserved for white men and property owners. It took the women's 
suffrage movement to enfranchise women and the Civil Rights Movement to 
fully enfranchise African-Americans and other people of color in this 
country. In the words of Susan B. Anthony, ``we the people'' were not 
just the select few but ``we,'' the whole people, including all of us, 
formed this Union.
  Today, we have awakened to a new challenge for this Republic--
restoring the voting rights of men and women who committed crimes but 
have paid their debt to society.

[[Page 20717]]

While the Constitution takes away the voting rights of individuals 
convicted of serious crimes, the States are given the power to restore 
this right. Through our criminal justice system, hundreds of thousands 
of men and women have been politically disenfranchised--many of whom 
are poor and minority and who committed nonviolent crimes. Many of 
these individuals have paid their debt to society. Some States have 
restored their right to vote automatically while others hold this right 
hostage to politics.
  Laws governing the restoration of voting rights after a felony 
conviction are unequal throughout the country. Persons in some States 
can easily regain their voting rights while in other States persons 
effectively lose their right to vote permanently.
  Two States do not disenfranchise felons at all.
  Forty-six States and the District of Columbia have disenfranchisement 
laws that deprive convicted offenders of the right to vote while they 
are in prison.
  In thirty-two States, convicted offenders may not vote while they are 
on parole.
  In twenty-nine States probationers may not vote.
  Fourteen States disenfranchise ex-offenders who have fully served 
their sentences, no matter the nature or seriousness of the offense.
  Seventeen States require gubernatorial pardon, legislative action, or 
administrative procedures to restore the right to vote.
  State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect the poor and 
ethnic minorities. They are more likely to be arrested, charged more 
harshly, poorly represented in court, convicted and receive harsher 
sentences. Whether we like these people, whether we want to know them 
personally, or whether we want to share private lives with them, they 
are part of the ``whole people'' of America. They deserve a second 
chance to vote.
  Consider these statistics:
  An estimated 3,900,000 Americans, or one in fifty adults, currently 
cannot vote because of a felony conviction. Women represent about a 
half million of this total.
  Three-fourths (73%) of the 3,900,000 disqualified voters are not in 
prison, but are on probation, parole or are ex-offenders.
  Over the last decade alone, over 560,000 Americans served their 
entire sentence, stand free and clear of incarceration and parole and 
have paid their debt to society. An estimated 65,000 of these Americans 
are women. And, they cannot vote in some States.
  Today, you will hear from fellow Members of Congress who believe 
firmly that those individuals who have committed crimes, paid their 
debt to society, and been released free and clear should be allowed to 
vote. This may seem like a radical proposition, but it is not. It is 
fundamentally consistent with the principles we live by in this 
country--when you pay your debt to society by spending time in prison, 
your punishment is complete. At that point, our society releases you 
back into society and expects you to be rehabilitated socially with 
family, friends, and community, and economically with jobs. It is time 
now to pay attention to your civic rehabilitation.
  Minority and poor people are over-represented in these numbers. 
Tonight, you will hear from your colleagues why we need to enfranchise 
all these women and men. I have introduced H.R. 5158, the Second Chance 
Voting Rights Act of 2000, to do just that. Others like my friends and 
colleagues Representative John Conyers and Representative Danny Davis 
also have introduced legislation to enfranchise these Americans. You 
will hear from them now.
  Representative Danny Davis; Representative Julia Carson; 
Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Representative Nancy Pelosi 
(maybe); Representative Bobby Scott; Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee; 
and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson; for unanimous consent.
  The last day to register is coming up soon. Every person who is not 
registered should check with your county registrar of voters and make 
sure you get registered. I want to encourage all Americans of every 
political persuasion to register and vote on election day, November 7. 
I particularly want to encourage ex-offenders who live in States that 
have restored their voting rights automatically to register and vote. 
These States are: California; Colorado; District of Columbia; Hawaii; 
Idaho; Illinois; Indiana; Kansas; Maine; Massachusetts; Michigan; 
Montana; New York; North Dakota; Ohio; Oregon; and Pennsylvania.
  In our great representative democracy, we must not deny anyone who is 
eligible to vote; even those who have paid their debts to society not 
be given this fundamental right.
  Remember. Every vote counts and your vote can make a difference. 
Register to vote by October 8 and vote on November 7.
  Mr. Speaker, again, thanks to all of the Members who have come 
tonight.

                          ____________________