[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18713-18727]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4844, FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1015 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1015

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House 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. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House 
     Administration now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on House Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against 
consideration of the rule, H. Res. 1015.
  Section 425 of the same act states that a point of order lies against 
the legislation which, number one, imposes an unfunded mandate in 
excess of the annual amount specified in that section against State or 
local governments; or two, does not publish prior to floor 
consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of the 
amounts specified annually for State and local entities or in excess of 
the amount specified annually for the private sector.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive this point of order.
  On page 1, line 2, and on page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 1015, all points 
of order are waived against consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal 
Election Integrity Act of 2006. Therefore, I make a point of order that 
this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) makes a point of order that the resolution violates 
section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the act, the gentleman has 
met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the 
resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
  Under section 426(b)(4) of the act, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 
each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of 
consideration.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the act, after that debate the Chair 
will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the House now 
consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 18714]]

  Republicans want to erect a fence around the right of the American 
people to vote. They have offered a bill that will restrict voting 
rights for Americans. In effect, the Republicans are trying to dilute 
the fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. It fits 
right in with the Republican effort to suspend those rights they find 
inconvenient.

                              {time}  1045

  The president of the League of Women Voters, don't take my word, Mary 
Wilson summed it up this way: ``This is an attempt to politicize the 
voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible legal voters 
from participating. Congress should not be playing politics with our 
right to vote.'' Yet this is exactly what Republicans are doing, 
creating a nonexistent problem to appeal to their base. This is 
basically a PR opportunity just before the election.
  Just yesterday, millions of Americans across the country voted, 
including those in my State, and today there is not a single story 
anywhere in this Nation about noncitizens voting illegally. In fact, 
last week, the circuit court in Missouri threw out the Harmful ID law, 
the real name of what Republicans are trying to give us. Republicans 
have the superrich, so they would like to disenfranchise everyone else, 
anybody who doesn't have a photo ID, Native Americans, the elderly, the 
disabled, people who don't have a birth certificate. They fear what 
happens when every eligible American gets to vote.
  Democrats believe that the Constitution is worth protecting. We 
surely wish that the Republicans would start spreading democracy in all 
of America, not just those who have a photo ID.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to now recognize the chairman of the House 
Administration Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for 
as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I am astonished at the comments made by the previous speaker. It is 
certainly not my intent and certainly not the intent of the Republicans 
to in any way restrict the ability to vote.
  He mentioned the Constitution. The Constitution clearly specifies who 
are citizens of this Nation. Federal law clearly specifies that only 
citizens may vote.
  We have had numerous instances of fraud, voter fraud, in the history 
of this Nation. Let me just mention Tammany Hall, the Pendergast 
machine, the Daley machine, and on and on. There is no question that 
fraud has existed. Based on my work on the Committee on House 
Administration and being involved in some of the difficult decisions we 
make there on voting reviews, I assure you there is no question that 
there continues to be fraud.
  In recent hearings we had on the bill before us here, we had 
testimony in New Mexico that poll watchers, instead of doing what they 
were supposed to do, namely, noting who was absent and hadn't voted, 
and then calling these absent individuals to remind them to come to 
vote, instead of doing that, the poll watchers were calling friends to 
come in and vote illegally in place of the missing people. They would 
vote the party line for the party that was arranging this procedure. 
Fraud does exist and still occurs in elections.
  I think there is one very, very good way to solve this problem, and 
that is to make sure that every voter who votes proves that they are 
the person who has registered to vote. A good way to do that is photo 
ID.
  Now, the other side of the aisle tends to see this as a terrible 
calamity. They believe this is horrible. How can we do this? But at the 
same time they have approved, I am sure, the use of photo ID for 
getting on an airplane. They have approved the use of photo ID for 
purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. They have approved the use of photo 
ID for cashing a check. And on and on. We use photo ID all the time. We 
use photo IDs to get on governmental property. This is not a new 
concept.
  All we are simply saying in this bill is that by the year 2008 
election, every Federal election will require a photo ID of every voter 
wishing to vote in that and succeeding Federal elections. It further 
goes on to say that in the year 2010, that photo ID must also indicate 
whether or not this person is a citizen. So it is two-pronged, and 
straightforward.
  In the public hearings that we held, there was much made by, among 
others, the League of Women Voters and also by the other side of the 
aisle that this was going to deprive poorer people of the opportunity 
to vote because they can't afford to get a voter ID, or it's too 
difficult for them to get out of the house and do it, or they can't 
prove their citizenship because they were born at home, et cetera, et 
cetera. We took that to heart. So we modified the bill to say that the 
States will prepare these photo IDs that will vouch for the persons 
citizenship, and if there is any expense involved that cannot be 
reimbursed by the person receiving this information and getting the 
photo ID and the citizenship verification, and if they cannot pay for 
it because they are indigent and simply do not have the resources, of 
if they can't get out of the house, or whatever, the State is to pay 
for it, and we will reimburse the State.
  This is not an unfunded mandate. We include the authorization in the 
bill, saying that when the States incur this expense, they submit their 
bills to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is authorized 
to repay them. The only glitch might come if the appropriators don't 
appropriate the money, but I can assure you the appropriators will be 
happy to appropriate the money for this purpose as long as we continue 
in the majority.
  I think it is totally inappropriate to call this on a point of order. 
This is not a mandate for the States to spend. They have enough credit 
in every case to pay the bill and have us reimburse them a month or so 
later. Surely they can carry that small burden. The total expense for 
the entire country is estimated to be less than $77 million. That is 
the estimate from the CBO.
  So I think the point of order is completely unfounded. I believe it 
is very important to continue with this bill. My goal in every case is 
to ensure that every citizen of the United States clearly has the right 
to vote, and that right will be facilitated by using the methods 
outlined in the bill, but also every citizen who votes has the right to 
believe that their vote will be counted accurately, and that no one 
else will dilute their vote by voting illegally and, therefore, 
undermining the process.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time has been 
used on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman has 8 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I have 8 minutes. And my opponent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Five minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding. I wish 
specifically to address the statement made by Chairman Ehlers, for whom 
I have the greatest respect. And he is my friend.
  I disagree where you say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not an unfunded 
mandate. Although H.R. 4844 authorizes, as you correctly say and from 
the language of the bill, such sums as necessary to fund the program, 
it does not guarantee any funding to States to pay for the requirements 
of this bill.
  The Help America Vote Act was authorized for $3.9 billion, and to 
date only $3.1 billion has been appropriated, leaving an $800 million 
shortfall. The sponsors of H.R. 4844 simply cannot guarantee that 
States won't be stuck with the bill for the costs imposed by this 
legislation.
  The unfunded mandates law was the very first bill considered on the 
House floor when the Republicans took control of the Congress in 
January of 1995. I was here when it passed. They were highly critical 
of previous mandates imposed by Democratic Congresses and adamant about 
not allowing legislation to impose unfunded mandates on State

[[Page 18715]]

and local governments as well as the private sector. Yet here we are 
today ready to impose enormous costs on these entities and on private 
citizens as well.
  I support the point of order and ask that it prevail.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Do we have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has the 
right to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Michigan, and 
he is an honorable man, but he is standing out here trying to sell 
snake oil to the U.S. Congress.
  This speech just given by the gentleman from Florida about the Help 
America Vote Act is living proof of the fact that this place promises 
all kinds of stuff and then doesn't deliver to the local government. We 
could spend a long time talking about the Leave No Child Behind Act. 
Over and over, after all that showboating you did when you took over 
the Congress about we're not going to have any more of those unfunded 
mandates, and then you come out here again and again and again, and you 
stick the States and the local governments with the cost.
  Now, if it doesn't make any difference to the Republicans that the 
State and local government are going to have a problem, it ought to 
worry them that 7 million people are affected. That is the estimate by 
the League of Women Voters about the people who will be affected by 
this bill. You don't worry about people who get on airplanes. All of us 
are rich. We've got money to fly on an airplane. There are 7 million 
people that don't go to the airport every week and have to show a photo 
ID. We get one given to us here in the Congress for free. None of us 
paid for that thing. And we show it.
  Our driver's license. We don't pay for the photo ID. We pay for the 
right to use the roads of our State. The fact is that there are 
millions of people in this country who you are going to make a serious 
problem for, and the States are either going to have to say you can't 
vote because you don't have a photo ID, or they are going to have to 
pay for it. And to count on you, the Republican appropriators, when you 
are wasting $400 billion in Iraq, to come up with even what is really a 
small amount of money, $77 million or $100 million or whatever the 
number is, it's not very much, is really betting on the tooth fairy.
  Now, I believe that the constitutional right to vote is preeminent. 
Everybody should have a right to it. Every year in Seattle, we bring in 
about 500 new immigrants on election day, or on the Fourth of July, and 
we send them up to register with the League of Women Voters because we 
tell them the most important thing in this country is to vote, that 
that is how you exercise your American rights.

                              {time}  1100

  And now you want to erect a barrier. Thank God for the courts in 
Missouri who threw out the Missouri law; but that is not good enough 
for you guys. You say, oh, no, Missouri didn't write it right. We will 
write it so we will get them. We will get everybody in the country.
  The elections in this country have hung on a very few number of 
votes, and to eliminate 7 million people from the opportunity to vote 
because they don't have a photo ID and put it in the loving hands of 
State governments and county governments to make sure that they have 
what is necessary is to limit their right to vote.
  You show me one bit of evidence that somebody has illegally voted, 
because you haven't shown that. I believe that in reality you are 
really only trying to protect your own grip on power in this House by 
making it harder for ordinary Americans to have a say in who leads this 
country.
  In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated 
that up to 10 percent of those eligible to vote do not have official 
State identification like a driver's license. Now these are people 
without cars, including the disadvantaged. Republicans are willing to 
leave those people behind. I am sorry if you can't drive a car and 
don't have a driver's license, your State is not going to have the 
money to pay for it. Where are they going to get it? They will take it 
out of the TANF program, or the schools, or somewhere. You can count on 
them to do that. That is what you are saying.
  Instead of finding ways to ensure that every American has a right to 
vote, the Republicans want to build a fence so it is harder and harder 
to get to the polls. Republicans would like you to believe that illegal 
aliens are a danger to the American political process, that they are 
sneaking in through the borders and then they are sneaking up to the 
polls and they are casting their ballots and are electing--come on, 
that is the fear tactic again. It is the fear tactic that you use over 
and over on the American people, and that is all this bill is about: 
the fear tactic.
  We are coming up to an election. The real danger is if the 
Republicans could put a fence around the Constitution, letting in their 
friends and keeping everybody else out. And it is not about protecting 
the right to vote, it is about subverting the right to vote for non-
Republican Americans perhaps, people who they think won't vote for 
them.
  Why would the poor people vote for the 1 percent party, the party of 
the rich? We know what this is all about. People just don't want to say 
it straight out, but it is really going after those people least able 
to defend themselves in our society casting their vote.
  The vision of the Republicans is if you don't vote Republican, they 
want to make sure you don't vote at all. They don't want you to vote. 
Democrats will never stop fighting to protect the rights of people to 
vote, to run their government, even when they choose you.
  A democracy requires allowing everybody to have a chance to vote, 
even when I might say they made a mistake here and there. But 
nevertheless, they have a right to vote.
  This bill is a sham. It is a PR piece and it doesn't belong in a 
Nation governed by all of the people.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond, and then I will yield to the chairman of the committee.
  First of all, I think this is serious business. When you talk about 
one of the most precious rights we have as citizens, it is to vote. 
Obviously that is how we all arrived here. And I think we have, 
shamefully, a very low percentage of people who are voting, when we 
compare worldwide, in this country. So I think highlighting voting and 
voting patterns and the way to vote and the way to legally vote is an 
important issue.
  But what I have heard just now is a very cynical and I think slightly 
mean-spirited attack on why we believe and why the committee has 
brought forward very thoughtful legislation on voting and voter 
identification.
  If you want instances of voter fraud, come to the State of West 
Virginia. We just had five people indicted and sentenced in Federal 
court for this very thing.
  If you want to talk about the Commission on Federal Election Reform, 
which was quoted just a minute ago, headed by former President Jimmy 
Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, they recommended this 
very thing, that photo ID be used as an identifier to vote.
  And I can quote as well, to go to the other point, the former mayor 
of the city of Atlanta, Andrew Young, who talks about the concept of a 
photo ID for voting. I think this is an interesting point he makes: At 
the end of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of 
poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood sees the 
ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts which thrive because other 
establishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks 
without a standard photo ID.
  To go to the point of order that has been raised, this is an 
authorizing committee. The House Administration Committee is an 
authorizing committee. They have made provisions in the bill for 
appropriators to provide the appropriate funds of money that would

[[Page 18716]]

be necessary to create the photo ID for the, and I will take the 
gentleman's figure, the 7 million people who are without.
  I think it is important to note that the REAL ID Act which is going 
to be going into effect in the next several years is going to require 
federally issued photo ID as a means for identification and 
citizenship.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield the balance of my time to the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
who is very thoughtful, very well respected, and certainly is known for 
his intense study of a subject, and this one is no different.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, several points. First of all, I am surprised 
that anyone regards this bill as an attempt to prevent people from 
voting. It is intended to aid them in voting. I am committed, as I said 
earlier, to allow every citizen the opportunity to vote, and make 
certain they can be assured that no one else is diluting that vote 
through illegal action.
  Having said that, and recognizing that Andrew Young has also endorsed 
this, I don't understand the arguments of the Democrats on this. When 
the bill was first introduced and we had our first hearing, all of the 
complaints from the Democrats and the League of Women Voters was that 
we are disenfranchising the poor because they could not afford to get a 
photo ID and they could not afford to prove they were citizens.
  So I said, fine, we will provide the money so that the poor can get a 
photo ID, and so that the poor can prove their citizenship. Then we are 
truly helping them, because not only can they vote, but as Andrew Young 
said, they can cash their check more readily. Also, if they want to 
apply for Social Security or Medicare benefits, they have proof of 
citizenship which speeds up the process tremendously; otherwise they 
have to go through the effort of proving citizenship at that time.
  So this bill not only will help with voting, it will help the poor in 
many other ways because it provides payment for them to properly be 
able to identify themselves to get government services, to cash checks, 
et cetera, et cetera.
  What we have done here is a good bill, and the point of order is 
simply invalid. If we are going to apply the point of order for this 
bill because the appropriators haven't yet acted, then every 
authorizing bill we pass that provides for funding through the States 
or localities is not going to pass the test either, because they won't 
have the appropriations in hand yet. I think it is a farce. I urge all 
Members to vote against this point of order, and I urge that we proceed 
on to the debate of the bill itself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 1015?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 190, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     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
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     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
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     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
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     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
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     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
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Beauprez
     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Cardoza
     Case
     Cooper
     Costa
     Culberson
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ford
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hyde
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Nunes
     Oxley
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ryan (OH)
     Shays
     Strickland
     Westmoreland
     Wolf

                              {time}  1132


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

[[Page 18717]]


  Messrs. JEFFERSON, HOLT and FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. EHLERS, BONNER and HALL changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454, consideration of H. 
Res. 1015, I am not recorded due to travel delay. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules granted a closed rule 
for consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as 
reported by the Committee on House Administration shall be considered 
as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is our most cherished freedom as 
American citizens. Over the years our Nation has evolved and progressed 
to include many more citizens in the voting process. Who could forget 
the wonderful accomplishments of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, 
and Martin Luther King and countless others who fought to extend the 
right to populations that had previously been discriminated against?
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that today all American citizens, 
regardless of gender, race, creed or ideology, are free to vote for 
candidates from the Presidential election all of the way through to the 
school board.
  But, sadly, there are those who have taken advantage of this 
cherished freedom by distorting our election system. We have all heard 
stories about the rolls of deceased voters mysteriously voting from the 
grave, sometimes even voting more than once.
  Furthermore, with an increasing population of illegal immigrants 
populating our States, the possibility of noncitizens voting continues 
to grow. When voters go to the polls, they are electing representatives 
like us that will set policies for all citizens. Therefore, we should 
not allow these outcomes to be affected by individuals who have 
intentionally broken the law.
  In my home State of West Virginia, I am not proud to say, five 
individuals were recently convicted of illegally influencing elections. 
Our State has long suffered from these illegal and unethical tactics 
used to stifle the voice of our voters. While many of these problems 
that have been plaguing our system cannot be fixed overnight, the 
underlying legislation is a step in the right direction.
  The Federal Election Integrity Act simply requires that in order for 
a person to vote, they must be able to show proof of identification 
with a photo ID by 2007, and then 3 years later, in 2010, all voters 
will be required to provide a photo ID that could not have been 
obtained without proof of citizenship.
  We all understand this is going to be a challenge for some of our 
rural, elderly and indigent populations, but the REAL ID Act already 
requires all people to have a compliant ID to prove their legal status 
by 2008.
  Furthermore, this legislation authorizes funds to reimburse the 
States for providing IDs to the indigent at no cost. Seventeen States 
currently have similar requirements in their laws, most recently 
Arizona.
  The Secretary of State for Arizona recently testified that voter 
registration has increased in Arizona by 15.4 percent since the 
implementation of Proposition 200, a measure that requires all voters 
to present identification at the polls before casting a ballot, as well 
as provide a proof of citizenship before registering to vote. Recent 
reports show that the primary election held last week in Arizona, that 
there were no stumbling blocks to this new provision. Certainly this 
has been a success as more voters are registering, and they have peace 
of mind that their registration is protected by proof of their 
identify.
  During a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 81 percent of those 
surveyed expressed support for requiring ID at the polls. Clearly the 
voting population is concerned with voter fraud and is yearning for 
action. Even former President Carter and former Secretary of State 
James Baker, a bipartisan duo, have endorsed this approach.
  Mr. Speaker, integrity in our election system is a goal that is 
shared across party affiliation. We want everyone to participate, to 
vote, and to know that their vote counts. And it is my hope that we can 
all work together to improve our system for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for the time, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to this closed rule. This so-called 
Federal Election Integrity Act places an unconstitutional burden on the 
fundamental rights of eligible citizens to participate in our country's 
democratic process.
  I agree with the words of President Lyndon Johnson when he said, 
``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for 
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible wall which 
imprisons men and women because they are different from other men and 
women.''
  Today, before millions of Americans, the majority is trying to 
reconstruct the walls of injustice and imprison our poor, disabled, 
elderly and young by putting up barriers to the voting process. This 
majority Congress has decided to embarrass itself further by coming up 
with a solution in search of a problem instead of passing legislation 
that would rectify actual problems that plague our citizens.
  Out of all of the issues that this Congress could be considering in 
the last 2 weeks before we adjourn, the majority has decided that the 
priorities of the American people include trying to make voting harder 
for segments of our population that already have it difficult.
  In today's USA Today, it says, ``Crisis Seen in Luggage Screening.'' 
And this is a report by TSA and airports highlighting the urgency of us 
needing to screen baggage that goes onto airplanes, and here we are 
screening voters who have done nothing wrong in the first place rather 
than dealing with urgent matters.
  Although the majority of Americans have and use IDs as a routine 
matter, approximately 10 percent of the public, disproportionately 
people of color, elderly citizens, disabled citizens, and young people 
and low-income citizens, do not have government-issued photo IDs.
  When I think about the latest schemes of the majority, I cannot help 
but think about who exactly this bill would affect. I call attention, 
for example, to elderly blacks born into segregation, as my mom and 
grandfather and grandmother were, and racism that existed in the pre-
civil rights era in the South.
  My mother was born in Florida in the early 20th century at a time 
when the birth of most blacks was not officially acknowledged by States 
or localities. This meant that my mom and thousands like her were not 
issued birth certificates. This practice continued in some areas of 
this country into the 1950s. Furthermore, many persons at this time do 
not drive, like my mom, so they never obtained licenses either.
  Mr. Speaker, the claim that voter fraud is such a rampant problem is 
really beyond the pale. There is virtually no empirical evidence. I 
might add they held no hearings, did not take

[[Page 18718]]

into consideration anything other than some nominal reports regarding 
this matter. There is virtually no empirical evidence that voter fraud 
with any frequency would warrant such a restrictive and potentially 
harmful legislation.
  Furthermore, proponents of the voter ID requirements cannot even 
prove that existing safeguards do not adequately address the minimum 
problems of fraud. I heard all of the talk about something happened in 
Arizona and what the people did. All of that was prosecutable under the 
law as it exists. This legislation is nothing short of yet another 
political ploy at a political time when we are in high political 
dudgeon to bamboozle, disenfranchise American citizens.
  The fact that this bill is being considered as a closed rule with no 
amendments and no debate confirms my suspicions that the majority is 
actively doing everything in its power to stifle democracy instead of 
letting it flourish.
  Mr. Speaker, this country needs a new direction. This bill is nothing 
but a distraction to real issues that deserve real solution. Currently 
States have several alternative means to address potential problems 
associated with voter fraud. When those alternatives are executed 
correctly, which includes statewide voter registration databases, in-
person affirmation and signature comparison, they pose less of a burden 
on eligible Americans than a mandatory ID. I also note that most of 
these alternatives have long been used successfully in States across 
the country.
  If Republicans were serious about carrying out real election reform, 
they would not have voted against the two amendments offered by my two 
good friends on the House Administration Committee, Ranking Member 
Millender-McDonald and Representative Lofgren, that sought to improve 
voter participation and access to polls.

                              {time}  1145

  As it stands, the current legislation before us today does absolutely 
nothing to alleviate the problems Florida had with recent elections on 
September 5, and would not address current problems that many States 
are still experiencing today.
  Maryland, just last week, had all sorts of problems that this measure 
here would not have covered in their flawed election. I am not the only 
one who is concerned about the effectiveness of this bill. Our 
colleague, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, expressed extreme concern about there 
not being a paper trail in the voting process. I strongly agree with 
his concerns and those of Robert Wexler, who has fought the paper trail 
problem in my district, and note that this bill provides nothing, 
nothing, for States to improve electronic vote.
  Several States, including Florida, Missouri, where Mr. Skelton is 
from and who will speak, has personal experience. Ohio, Michigan, 
Arizona, and the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have enacted voter ID 
requirements that have been challenged in court. Many have already been 
found unconstitutional and thrown out while others are still pending. 
Just yesterday, another judge, a superior court judge in Georgia, threw 
out that State's voter ID, which has been litigated ad nauseam.
  For a party that doesn't like trial lawyers, the Republicans would 
almost guarantee big business with trial lawyers, with the increase of 
litigation that would immediately follow the passage of this 
litigation.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot bypass the opportunity to pursue real election 
reform. We cannot let the majority pass harmful and vague legislation 
that would only nullify the advances we have witnessed with such 
legislation like the Voting Rights Act.
  Two years ago, in response to what I believe is going to be recited, 
that this is not an unfunded mandate, 2 years ago, the Democrats on the 
Appropriations Committee tried to provide funding under the Help 
America Vote Act, but the Republicans on that committee voted it down. 
So your argument that there would be funds for this falls on deaf ears. 
Once we pass a measure like this, the localities are going to have to 
bear the brunt, whether we fund it or not. Voting is for all of us, not 
just most of us. We can and must do better in the people's House.
  For these reasons, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I think the perspective of a chief election 
officer of a State is one that can shed great wisdom and knowledge 
concerning this bill, so it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, certainly the fundamental 
building block of our democracy for the last 208 years has been a 
constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Prior to my service in 
Congress here, I had the great honor and privilege to serve as my State 
of Michigan's chief election officer and the secretary of State.
  In that role I viewed it as my duty to ensure the integrity of our 
elections process, to ensure that every eligible voter had an 
opportunity to vote, to ensure that every registered voter would turn 
out on election day, and to root out any fraud, any type of fraud in 
our elections process, and to ensure that every vote that was cast was 
properly counted.
  I would like to think that I do have a deep understanding and 
certainly a respect for our Nation's electoral process, and not from a 
partisan tint. In fact, after the 2000 elections, the NAACP gave my 
administration the Nation's highest grade of any of the secretaries of 
State in the entire Nation for election reform.
  Mr. Speaker, since the 2000 election, this Congress has also taken 
action to improve the process through the Help America Vote Act, that 
they authorized and appropriated millions and millions and millions of 
dollars for, which has improved the quality of our voting equipment and 
improved the registration voter list throughout the Nation.
  Now, today, we have another positive electoral initiative that will 
help ensure the integrity of our process. H.R. 4844, the Federal 
Election Integrity Act, will require voters in Federal elections to 
show a photo ID to prove their identity and to be sure that their vote 
is counted.
  I know that we are hearing concerns from the other side that for very 
partisan political reasons that this is going to disenfranchise voters, 
but nothing could be further from the truth. This important reform will 
ensure that every voter who presents himself at the poll, is who they 
say they are, and will limit diluting the votes of lawful voters by 
rooting out fraud.
  Mr. Speaker, the call for photo identification at the polling places 
is not simply coming from Republicans. In fact, in my home State of 
Michigan, during the 2005 Detroit mayoral race, we heard calls there 
from both candidates, both camps about electoral improprieties that 
were happening in the city of Detroit. Both of the candidates engaged 
in that process and in that election were Democrats.
  In fact, Freeman Hendrix, who lost that close race, actually came out 
after the election with a litany of things that we needed to do in the 
State of Michigan for election reform and paramount, a priority amongst 
them from him, was that we needed to have photo identification.
  In addition, as has been mentioned on the floor already, the 
bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission, that is Jimmy Carter, former 
President Jimmy Carter, the Carter-Baker Commission on Electoral Reform 
recommended that we require photo ID at the polling places, again to 
ensure the integrity of our electoral process. I don't think there is 
anybody in the Nation that would accuse former President Jimmy Carter 
of being a Republican or a partisan Republican. We need to enact the 
photo identification requirement.
  Another problem is that from some estimates, we have as many as 12 
million illegal aliens in our Nation. Many of my constituents are 
concerned that votes of our citizens are being diluted by noncitizens 
illegally participating in the electoral process. This legislation 
actually builds on the REAL ID

[[Page 18719]]

Act, which ensures that no States issue either driver's licenses or 
State identification cards to illegal aliens, and it assures the 
validity of the documents which establish the identity and the 
citizenship of the individuals.
  This legislation will be yet another safeguard to ensure that those 
who are in our country illegally, or who are not citizens, do not 
participate in our electoral process. It also ensures that citizens who 
do not now have a government-issued photo ID, or cannot afford one, 
will have access to free, literally free, identification.
  So there are a lot of reasons as to why people don't vote. Perhaps 
they think, they are very apathetic, they don't like the negative 
campaigning, or they don't like their choices of candidate, or they 
might think that there is too much fraud in the system and that their 
vote will not count, for whatever reason.
  I truly believe that enhancing the integrity of the process will be 
an impetus to show people that their vote does count, that it is going 
to be counted, that it is going to be counted properly. In fact, this 
bill has the potential to actually increase voter participation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense reform that will make our democracy 
stronger. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to correct one 
thing with reference to President Carter. What he said was that there 
should be identification, not proof of citizenship, and that it should 
be free to everybody. I am sure he didn't allow for an unfunded 
mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, a decorated veteran and hero that all of us 
respect. I would be interested, the kind of hero that Ike Skelton is, 
that he tell his story; or hear his story about what happened to him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Missouri legislature 
passed a law just like the one that we are considering today for the 
State of Missouri. Since I don't drive, I needed a nondriver's license 
identification card. I went in to the Lafayette County license bureau, 
waited like all the others for 45 minutes to see the very nice young 
lady, and I told her that I needed a government, State of Missouri-
issued nondriver's license identification card.
  She said, ``I know you.'' Of course, she did. I produced the voting 
card identification card that I always carry with me. It has my 
picture, United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Ike 
Skelton, Member of Congress, Missouri Fourth District, No. 190465, and 
has a facsimile of my signature, 109th Congress, January 2005-2007.
  She said that ought to do it, but let me call the Jefferson City 
Department of Revenue and check. She did, and they said, no, that is 
not enough identification for me. I would have to go get either a 
passport or a birth certificate. As I was running out of time, I 
thanked her, and I would come back at a later moment. Thus, I was 
turned down trying to get a Department of Revenue nondriver's license 
voter identification card.
  A month later, just a few days ago with my passport, which was up 
here in Washington in my safe, I waited in line and did get my voter 
nondriver's license identification card. So I am pleased to tell you 
that I can vote in November.
  I also should tell you that in recent days the law that was passed by 
the Missouri legislature was held to be unconstitutional by the trial 
judge in Jefferson City, Missouri. This law, if allowed to stand in our 
State, or on a Federal level, will disenfranchise some very nice 
people, particularly senior citizens who walk in without a photo ID or 
driver's license. I just thought I would share my personal experience 
with my friends and colleagues here in the House.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
House Administration Committee, the author of this bill, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the comments raised by 
the gentleman from Missouri, who is one of the most outstanding Members 
of Congress. I am sorry that his State has adopted a law such that you 
have to have a certain type of State ID. I am not at all sure why they 
did not recognize his congressional ID.
  Under the bill that we have written, the bill that is on the floor 
today, a congressional ID would be recognized and would be appropriate 
for the process, simply because it is issued by the Federal Government. 
It shows the picture of the person carrying it. It establishes, by 
virtue of the position, that this person has citizenship, and so the 
voter, the Member card, which I incidentally use for ID every time I 
board a plane, would apply equally well for voting. The event described 
is an isolated case, and he was affected by State law, not by the law 
that we are proposing here.
  There has been so much said about how this is going to keep people 
from the polls, I don't see that at all. We have worked very hard on 
this bill. We have conducted three hearings. I understand that while I 
was out of the room, someone on the other side said we hadn't had any 
hearings. We had three hearings: one in Washington, DC, one in New 
Mexico, and one in Arizona.
  I have also heard that this is going to keep people away from the 
polls. But in Arizona, when they passed their referendum requiring 
photo ID and citizenship proof, registration went up 15 percent. It did 
not go down, it went up. I think that is simply because the people 
could be assured that their vote would be entered properly, their vote 
would be legal, and that there would not be illegal votes nullifying 
what they had done.
  Most of the argument that I have heard against this bill is simply 
not germane, or simply erroneous, because they simply haven't read the 
bill or understood it. We worked very hard to take into account the 
objections raised by the members of the committee, members of the 
public who had testified, and we thought we had taken care of all of 
those concerns.
  Why is it unacceptable to help individuals prove their citizenship 
and obtain a photo ID and proof of citizenship free of charge. It is 
beyond me why that is unacceptable. Andrew Young says it is wonderful. 
Why don't the people in the House of Representatives think it is 
wonderful?
  We are actually helping them to collect Social Security eventually, 
and collect Medicare benefits. We are paying the bill to allow them to 
do this, and I think this is a really good side benefit of a bill which 
not only will do that, but which will ensure that all votes cast in 
this Nation are valid votes, and that fraud will be minimized.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ehlers continues to use Arizona. In the first 6 
months of 2005, as a result of Arizona's Proposition 200, more than 
10,000 Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected as a 
result of failure to provide adequate proof of citizenship. I think 
that is horrible.
  Mr. Speaker, someone else that knows about protecting us from fraud 
is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, who I believe 
has had a substantial career dealing with the subject of voter 
problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, integrity is having the 
wisdom to say what you believe and the courage to do what you say.
  Here on the floor of this House, we talk about our beliefs in 
democracy, we talk about preserving and protecting the Constitution, we 
talk about the importance of voting. But talk is not enough. We must 
act. And if we enact this bill, we will fail the second test of 
integrity, to have your actions in line with your words.

[[Page 18720]]

  In 2002, we passed the Help America Vote Act. HAVA set a baseline for 
voter identification requirements. Only three States in the Nation have 
interpreted HAVA to require photo identification at the ballot box. 
Each of these State laws is being challenged. Yesterday the Georgia 
court struck down the State's voter ID law. They said it violated the 
State constitution.
  States that require photo ID at the ballot box provide a provisional 
ballot if a voter does not have an ID, but the bill before us today 
will go a giant step further. Without a valid ID, a voter can only get 
a provisional ballot if they can prove citizenship. So even if you 
voted for years, were born in this country and served in the military, 
you could be turned away.
  Mr. Speaker, I am from Mississippi, and I know what voter suppression 
is when I see it. We stand here today ready to short-circuit the 
judicial process and impose a system that all 50 States have outright 
rejected.
  My colleagues on the other side of this aisle have stated that this 
bill will help stamp out voter fraud, but look at the facts. The 
Department of Justice statistics show that over 196 million votes have 
been cast in Federal elections. Only 52 individuals have been convicted 
of voter fraud. In Ohio, 9 million votes were cast in the last two 
elections and only four cases of ineligible voters were found. In 
Wisconsin, the U.S. Attorney General conducted an investigation into 
alleged widespread voter fraud. He found 14 cases.
  Today we are asked to mandate that State and local elections 
officials in every State train an army of volunteer poll workers to 
spot an acceptable photo ID, but we give them no money to do so.
  Why the rush? This requirement will create massive confusion at the 
polling sites all over the country. People who have never had a photo 
ID will be required to produce it. Many people will have an ID. Some 
will go home and get their ID and come back. But others will not. Some 
of these people who are turned away may not have a driver's license or 
a passport at home. They will not come back. And they will wonder, as 
my fellow Mississippian Fannie Lou Hamer wondered, is this America?
  I know it is hard for some folk to understand, but there are millions 
of people in this country that will not have an acceptable ID.
  Mr. Speaker, I have found what WMD really stands for, weapons of mass 
disenfranchisement, and it is here in this bill. An election with 
integrity is one in which every eligible voter is encouraged to vote. I 
oppose this rule.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of 
clarification. If this goes into effect, and somebody does arrive at 
the polling place without their photo ID, they would be given a 
provisional ballot and be permitted to vote with the caveat that they 
would return within 48 hours to show their photo ID. I just wanted to 
make that point of clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules 
Committee, my esteemed colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate over immigration and border 
security, it is important to remember the security of the ballot box. 
Most importantly, we need to uphold the concept of the citizen voter, 
which is the foundation, of course, of our democracy.
  Voting in our democratic government needs to be preserved for United 
States citizens to protect the legitimacy of the voting process as well 
as the interests of the United States.
  One of the first bills I introduced, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of 
Congress, was the Voter Verification Act to address concerns about 
noncitizens voting and reaffirm that only United States citizens have 
the right to vote.
  The Voter Verification Act simply stated that before voting in a 
Federal election, a citizen has to provide proof of citizenship. 
Whether the proof of citizenship is a birth certificate, a passport or 
a driver's license from a State that limits driver's licenses to 
citizens, the important point is to make sure our election workers are 
checking credentials before allowing people to vote.
  This bill is slightly different from the Voter Verification Act, but 
it is very similar, and I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hyde of 
Illinois, for introducing H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act 
of 2006, and, of course, as well as Chairman Ehlers.
  In Georgia, Governor Perdue has twice signed legislation to address 
the issue of voter registration. Since Georgia requires proof of 
citizenship before any method of voter registration, the concern is 
matching a registration card to a legitimate photo identification card.
  Combine the REAL ID Act, which passed earlier in this Congress to 
mandate secure and reliable State identification cards, with the 
Georgia ID law, starting this November the State I represent has a 
better system for knowing who is voting in our elections as well as a 
means for deterring illegal voters.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe we need to preserve and limit the 
right to vote to citizens. The right to vote is a sacred right, and we 
need to preserve its integrity.
  I ask my colleagues, support this rule and the underlying 
legislation. And, yes, I have finally found an issue on which I agree 
with former President Jimmy Carter.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Jimmy Carter also said that States should 
make voter registration and IDs accessible to all eligible citizens by 
using mobile offices and other means to register more voters and issue 
photo ID cards, and he also called for comprehensive electoral reform, 
which you all are not willing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, my 
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to this bill.
  The gentleman who has just spoken represents Georgia. Georgia passed 
a bill. The superior court has now twice held that bill to be 
unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it undermines the 
ability of Americans to vote. It in effect imposes additional tests.
  In my State, I have been active for 40 years, I will tell my friend, 
I don't remember a case, not one, where citizenship was raised in our 
State. I venture if I asked all of you to prove to me you were a U.S. 
citizen right now, nobody on this floor could do it. Not one of you. 
You might give me a license. You might say, well, I was born here, 
there or everywhere. But nobody could prove they were a U.S. citizen.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll 
tax. It will disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters and 
disproportionately affect elderly people with disabilities, rural 
voters, students, racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income voters. 
Indeed, that may be its purpose. Hear me. That may be its purpose. All 
of these folks are less likely to have the current valid photo 
identification required by this bill.
  It is highly ironic, Mr. Speaker, that just a few short weeks ago, 
this Congress reauthorized key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965 after defeating a number of crippling amendments offered by the 
other side of the aisle, that landmark law designed to make voting 
easier and more fair, to address centuries, centuries, of 
discrimination. People were told they couldn't vote because of the 
color of their skin. People were told they couldn't vote because of 
their gender. They were told you can go to war, but you can't vote. We 
have changed that. Let us not now retreat and say, yes, but we are 
going to make it more difficult.
  Today, through this voter ID bill, the Republican majority would make 
voting more onerous and burdensome for many, many Americans. Show me 
the cases. Show me the examples of the problem you are trying to solve.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing more than a partisan 
political stunt. All of us are united in seeking to eliminate voter 
fraud. I stand against voter fraud. I worked with the Help America Vote 
Act Coalition to pass the Help America Vote Act. We have staff on here 
who worked very hard on that

[[Page 18721]]

bill. We debated this issue, and the Congress rejected it. But now, 7 
days left in the session, let us appeal to the fear, and, yes, perhaps 
the prejudice of people.
  I ask that this bill be defeated. It is a bad bill for America. It is 
a bad bill for democracy. It is a bad bill for the House of 
Representatives to pass.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for examples? I have an 
example here of a study that was done by the Johns Hopkins University 
computer science students that found 1,500 dead people listed who had 
voted in past elections. Now, you want to talk about onerous voting. It 
is difficult to get out of a grave and vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. They found 1,500. Can the gentlewoman cite me one instance 
of a criminal charge being proven that that is the case? I don't doubt 
that you can assert that some people said there is fraud. Yes. Can you 
cite me one conviction of anybody who facilitated one of those 1,500 
dead people going in, saying, ``I am Sam Brown,'' who is dead, ``and I 
want to vote''? Can you cite me one example of one conviction where 
that was found to be the fact, as opposed to an assertion?
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, after the fact I cannot 
cite you one example, but I don't think the gentleman would deny that 
fraud occurred and has occurred under this.
  Mr. HOYER. Can I respond that I do agree with the gentlewoman that 
fraud does occur, and when it occurs, we ought to prosecute it. When 
fraud occurs, we ought to put those people in jail, because they 
undermine the rest of us who are voting honestly and fairly.
  What we ought not do is respond to that by making it more difficult 
for many Americans to cast the basic right that they have as American 
citizens, the vote.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We don't want 
to disenfranchise anybody from voting, because voting is something that 
we all cherish not only in this Hall, but in every household in 
America. I believe that asking somebody to show a photo ID, which we do 
for many things, to buy cigarettes, beer, get on an airplane, travel, 
and many other instances, cash a check, we are asked for photo ID in 
many instances, and I think we provide in this bill for those who might 
not have photo ID who need it.
  Once they get it, I think it would be viewed as a positive thing for 
them, so they wouldn't be going, as they do in many cases to check-
cashing facilities that don't require a photo ID, and they end up 
paying 30 and 40 percent surcharges for that.
  I would like to say, in my State of West Virginia, we just had five 
Federal convictions for vote fraud, vote buying. So it exists. And it 
is a defeating thing that occurs from State to State, because it 
defeats those of us who get up on that election morning or have gotten 
up earlier to early vote or send in our absentee ballot. It feels like 
our vote is being disenfranchised.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify, as somebody who 
supervised one of the largest counties in the United States for 10 
years in the voter registration system, that voter fraud is not 
something you can come back on after the fraud is committed. The person 
who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on 
the record that somebody who has got a death certificate filed is also 
somebody who supposedly voted. Then to say why didn't we catch the 
person who was doing it, it is too late to stop voter fraud once the 
vote is done and they are out of the booth.

                              {time}  1215

  That is just a practical experience of actually administering the 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, last June, in the 50th District, my constituency was 
rocked by statements made by a candidate that you do not need papers 
for voting. Those words were rocked across this country as the scandal 
over the issue of whether a candidate was actually soliciting people 
who were not U.S. citizens to vote in a public meeting.
  The fact is in the State of California there is no checking, no 
reviewing, and not even the ability for those of us who supervise the 
electoral process to be able to question those, when they register to 
vote, if they were qualified. It was strictly on an honor system, and 
the honor system did not even say I am a citizen. It just says I am 
qualified.
  The integrity of our republican form of government, the electoral 
process that we like to call democracy, has two major threats. Yes, 
stopping those who can qualify to vote from being able to participate 
if they are franchised. But the other violation that we have not 
addressed enough of when it comes down to violating voters' rights is 
disqualifying a legitimate vote by allowing those who do not have the 
constitutional right to vote to cancel out those legitimate votes. That 
is the violation of the Voting Rights Act that we have not addressed in 
this body enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask us to stand up for our process, for fairness, and 
with the American people, that we will do everything we can to protect 
our process.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), 
my good friend. Ms. Solis is the first Hispanic woman to be elected to 
the California senate. She has had a lot of experience in this voter 
business.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for offering me this 
moment to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my strong opposition to the closed 
rule and the underlying piece of legislation, H.R. 4844, which 
restricts the right of citizens to vote.
  With the cast of one vote, this legislation would undo what women and 
communities of color have fought for decades: the sacred right to vote 
and have a voice in the electoral process.
  The bill will suppress the vote of groups like the elderly, people of 
color, and low-income citizens who are less likely to possess documents 
or prove their citizenship. Elderly citizens especially, who were born 
at home and do not possess their birth certificates, would be denied 
their right to vote. Citizens who lost their possessions because of 
natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina would be denied the right to 
vote. Women change their last name when they marry. Will they have the 
right to vote or will that be restricted?
  The bill might as well be a poll tax for low-income citizens who 
would be required to obtain and pay for a document like a passport, 
which would cost them $97 just to acquire one. That is a big, big 
amount of money for many of our low-income seniors to meet.
  It is already a felony, as we know, in this country to vote 
fraudulently. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized.
  The bill is a breach of the American citizens' right to vote and 
undermines everything that the Voting Rights Act stands for.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote down this closed rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I just want to make a statement that there is no law that says that 
you cannot have people go out and help participate in campaigns and 
knock on doors and pass out literature. I believe the candidate in that 
San Diego race was asking for that support. So I would like to clarify 
the record on behalf of Ms. Francine Busby, because I know after 
meeting her that she was very excited about talking to students and 
engaging them in the art of voting and getting people out to understand 
the importance to take on your civic responsibility.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all we are looking for is common sense here. 
You have to have a photo ID if you look like you are under 18 years of 
age and want to buy alcohol. You have to have a photo ID if you are 
going to get on board an airplane. You have to have a photo ID if you 
are going to enter

[[Page 18722]]

many office buildings here in the United States.
  It seems to me that the notion of providing photo identification when 
you are getting ready to exercise that very important franchise to vote 
is something that we should have in place.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is only the things you cite, 
I just am curious. For beer or to cash a check or get on a plane or buy 
cigarettes or go into a building, do you need citizenship on that ID?
  Mr. DREIER. The point I am making is, I am talking about a photo 
identification. In this bill it begins by simply photo identification. 
Then in 2010 it gets to this notion of citizenship, and the fact of the 
matter, it begins the implementation in 2008, simply requires photo 
identification. I am happy to have yielded to my dear friend.
  I will say, as we look at this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker, 
it is very important for us to realize the potential for fraud is 
there. We invite fraud and we know that there are potential problems on 
the horizon, and I know that my friend from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) yesterday said this is a solution looking for a problem. I 
think that as we look at past elections, there have been instances of 
fraud.
  Common sense is what we are trying to apply here, and I believe that 
having photo identification when it comes to that extraordinarily 
important franchise is essential.
  The chairman of the Administration Committee, Mr. Ehlers, pointed out 
in the Rules Committee yesterday that in the case of Arizona, when they 
put it into place, we hear this argument we are going to suppress the 
vote, we are going to discourage people from being able to vote. They 
actually had a 15 percent increase in the number of registered voters 
in the State of Arizona, as was testified by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good measure. It deserves our support, and I 
hope Republicans and Democrats will join us in doing it. I thank my 
friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), 
my good friend and classmate.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we have to remove any type of voter 
fraud that might exist in our electoral system, and we need to 
prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who does violate 
that, and we have to make sure that we base our laws on the evidence 
and documented facts that are out there.
  The reality is that while we know that there are isolated cases of 
voter abuse, it does not amount to what this majority is trying to make 
us believe, that we must now disenfranchise thousands, if not millions, 
of American citizens from the ability to vote, simply to tackle what we 
hear are anecdotal stories about people who may have abused the 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, it may not be an intended consequence, but it certainly 
is an inescapable consequence that this bill will disenfranchise many 
Americans who are citizens and wish to vote. It will also amount to a 
poll tax, as we have heard.
  Nearly 75 percent of Americans do not have a passport. It costs about 
$100 to get one. In many parts of our country, especially in the South, 
we have many elderly African Americans and a number of Native Americans 
throughout our country, who were born at home or under the care of 
midwives, who never received a birth certificate. Approximately 6 to 10 
percent of the American electorate does not have any form of State 
identification. African Americans are four to five times less likely 
than whites to have photo identification. And, finally, in Georgia, 36 
percent of its voters over the age of 75 do not have government-issued 
photo IDs.
  Isolated cases of abuse must be addressed, but this bill does not do 
that. It takes a meat axe to try to deal with the problem, and if you 
do not believe me, then talk to the folks who were victims of the 
Katrina hurricane, who lost everything, including any type of personal 
identification. How do they tackle the problem of trying to go vote and 
only being given 48 hours to show a photo ID that they no longer have?
  We can resolve this in a bipartisan fashion, but this is not the 
direction to go. I urge Members to vote against this rule and against 
this bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill which 
will restore integrity to our election system.
  It is outrageous and inexcusable that voters do not have to show 
proof of citizenship in order to vote in an election. Illegal 
immigrants are populating this country in an unprecedented number, and 
it is unjust and unfair to citizens of this country that noncitizens 
have had a hand in electing Federal officials.
  The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. It baffles me 
that there are no laws in place to protect this sacred practice from 
noncitizens.
  H.R. 4844 has proper timelines and implementation guidelines in place 
for the proof of citizenship requirements, and if there are added costs 
to local governments, there certainly are a few appropriation years 
between now and 2008 for funding to be provided.
  So listen up, America. Those who are in this country illegally want 
the same rights as United States citizens, without obeying the laws of 
our land. We should not let these criminals defraud our election system 
by allowing them to vote.
  We have heard some pretty specious arguments here from the other side 
of the aisle on the impact of this bill. The Federal Election Integrity 
Act accomplishes a commonsense, much needed component in our election 
system. American citizens will proudly provide proof of citizenship, 
and illegals will realize the gig is up.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and also for the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4844.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from 
Florida and colleague in the House of Representatives that the people 
that stole the election in 2000, in mine and your State, were not 
illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), my good friend.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership in the preservation of democracy and also in the 
promotion of justice.
  Talk about a cynical and discriminatory election-year ploy. This is 
unbelievable. This bill, as well as this closed rule, should be 
defeated.
  As the country with one of the lowest percentages of voter 
participation in the world, we should be doing everything we can to 
remove the barriers to voting. For example, we should have been 
debating legislation to fix the real problems with the 2002 and 2004 
elections: long voting lines, voter intimidation, faulty machines, poor 
training for poll workers, discriminatory voter registration laws; or 
making, for example, election day a Federal holiday so everyone can 
exercise their right to vote.
  But, instead, we are debating a bill that effectively suppresses 
voter turnout by imposing this new, unconstitutional poll tax on all 
Americans. Have we already forgotten why we just reauthorized the 
Voting Rights Act a few months ago? Now the Republican leadership is 
already working overtime to try and undermine it.
  Yes, we must eliminate voter fraud, but that is certainly not what 
this bill does. There are real solutions that will enforce our 
constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, that will ensure that every 
vote is cast and counted. That is what we should be voting on.

[[Page 18723]]

  As we supposedly promote democracy throughout the world, we are 
quickly, and I mean quickly, eroding it right here at home, and this 
bill is an example of another step in that direction.
  Let us practice what we preach. Let us defeat this rule and this sham 
bill and do some things in this body this session to make sure that 
every individual who has the right to vote is allowed that right and 
that voting becomes freer and fairer in our country.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). The gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my very good friend from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). Arizona has 
been utilized an awful lot here. Perhaps we should hear from an 
Arizonan who was at Mr. Ehlers' hearing and could speak to this issue.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, at the hearing that we had in Phoenix, 
Arizona, I asked a question of the panel which included the election 
director from Maricopa County, the largest county; the election 
director from Apache County; the president from the Intertribal Council 
of Arizona; the Secretary of State, Jan Brewer, who was the Republican 
running for the election; the county attorney, Andrew Thomas, who ran 
on an anti-immigrant; and also the president of the League of Women 
Voters.

                              {time}  1230

  When the question was asked whether in the history of Arizona voting 
had there been one instance of voter fraud that was directly linked to 
an undocumented person, the response was zero. The question then was 
asked, since we have had the Proposition 200 which requires an ID when 
you register and now when you go to the polls where, as correctly has 
been stated, that thousands of people have now registered, the question 
was asked, what have you done to show that there has been voter fraud, 
attempted or perpetuated by an undocumented? And the answer again was 
zero. And possibly, the county attorney said that he might have a case 
where he may indict 10 people.
  So if you look at the situation, you would find that the response of 
the people on the panel was that Proposition 200 came about because of 
a perceived problem of undocumented people being able to vote. So this 
is built on the conception that you may have fraud in the future.
  The Intertribal Council President Rafael Bear said it would injure 
the voting and suppress voting among Native Americans. The League of 
Women Voters came out against the proposition because of the 
suppression of the vote. The election director of Maricopa County said 
it wasn't needed, that in the past they didn't have the fraud that 
everybody was perceiving. So as Chairman Dreier said, this is a 
solution that is looking for a problem.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to read from the committee record from the 
hearing on Arizona, if I might. And this is from the Honorable Andrew 
Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney. He talks about instances of voter 
fraud, they were charged of filing false documents, a class 6 felony.
  Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell referred these matters to the 
county attorney's office after her office received jury questionnaire 
forms from the county jury commissioner. These forms were filled out by 
potential jurors who claimed they were unable to serve on a jury 
because they were not citizens. The county recorder's Office found that 
they claimed to be citizens when they filled out the voter registration 
form. Four of these five defendants voted in at least one election. In 
addition to the 10 charged defendants, they were reviewing 149 other 
cases. The county recorder had received inquiries from people seeking 
to become U.S. citizens who had been told by Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to obtain a letter from her office confirming they had 
neither registered to vote nor voted. And today, a review of these 
matters has turned up 37 noncitizens who have registered to vote.
  So I think this is a good reason to get out of Washington, D.C., to 
have real-life testimony across the country, which I know we do quite 
often. And this comes from the State of Arizona.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am prepared to close at this time, and I 
yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the Carter-Baker Commission 
on Federal Election Reform Report that appeared in the American 
University. In addition thereto, I will submit for the Record an 
Atlanta Journal article referring to the Georgia Supreme Court's denial 
of this same measure.
  Mr. Speaker, you know where some fraud is occurring, as much as this 
seems to be ringing alarm bells in the majority? There is a lot of 
fraud in Medicare in the United States of America, there is a lot of 
fraud in Medicaid. We could drive right across 14th Street Bridge and 
go over there and find all that fraud at the Pentagon if we wanted to 
hunt up some real fraud. And we could really go to Iraq and trace the 
money that has been wasted in Iraq's reconstruction if we want to find 
some fraud. I mean, those are some urgent things.
  To buy beer, you don't need to be a citizen if you have photo ID. To 
cash a check, you don't have to be a citizen. To get on a plane, you 
don't have to be a citizen. To buy cigarettes, you don't have to be a 
citizen. And now you come up with the precursor to a national ID card. 
And that is really what this is, after we get past all the mumbling, 
fumbling, and words that we are saying.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider the 
Millender-McDonald amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee 
late last night, but was rejected.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the leadership is insistent 
on the moving forward with this divisive bill, which I might add ain't 
going to pass the Senate, let's at least allow the ranking member of 
the committee of jurisdiction to offer her amendment to try and address 
some of the more egregious provisions in the bill.
  The Millender-McDonald amendment would establish uniform standards 
for the treatment of provisional balance and clarify criminal penalties 
for voter fraud under the Help America Vote Act. It would codify a 
Federal court decision that HAVA matching requirements are intended as 
an administrative safeguard, not as a restriction on voter eligibility. 
And it would recommend to the States additional fraud-prevention 
methods. Finally, it would exempt senior citizens, the disabled, and 
the military and their families from onerous photo ID requirements in 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, nonparticipation in the election process is more of a 
problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote. This bill will 
do more to keep eligible American citizens away from the polls than it 
will do to fix the nonexistent problems of ineligible immigrants 
sneaking in to vote in our Federal elections.
  If we must take up this problem in search of a solution, let's at 
least allow the Millender-McDonald amendment to be included. I ask that 
we vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this 
important amendment.

                     [From AU News, Sept. 19, 2005]

Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform Stresses Urgency of 
                                 Reform

       Washington, DC.--Former President Jimmy Carter and former 
     Secretary of State James A. Baker, III will conduct meetings 
     with President Bush and Congressional leaders today to 
     discuss recommendations in the final report of the Commission 
     on Federal Election Reform, which they co-chaired.
       The 21-member Commission, which conducted public hearings 
     in Washington and

[[Page 18724]]

     Houston, offers 87 recommendations to strengthen the 
     country's electoral system and build confidence among voters 
     in the political process. The Commissioners met with 
     political leaders Monday in order to stress the need for 
     change before the 2008 presidential election.
       ``Elections are the heart of our democracy,'' Carter said. 
     ``The Help America Vote Act of 2002 made an historic 
     contribution, but one law is not enough. The American people 
     are losing confidence in the system, and they want electoral 
     reform. We have forged a comprehensive package of reforms 
     that represent the best path toward modernizing our electoral 
     system, and we hope that the President, the Congress, and the 
     states will consider them seriously.''
       ``We hope that this report will help transform the sterile 
     debate between Democrats and Republicans on election reform 
     issues and provide the impetus for our federal and state 
     leaders to take action now, when we still have plenty of time 
     before our next presidential election,'' Baker said.
       The 21-member private commission is organized by American 
     University. Comprised of former Members of Congress, scholars 
     and nonpartisan leaders, the group identified ``five 
     pillars'' of election reform--voter registration, voter 
     identification, voting technology, increased access to voting 
     and nonpartisan election administration--and recommended ways 
     to strengthen them. Highlights include:
       To address the most serious problem of inaccurate 
     registration lists, the Commission recommends that states, 
     not local jurisdictions, organize and update their lists, and 
     that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) take the 
     lead in making the lists interoperable so as to eliminate 
     duplicates when people move between states.
       To enhance ballot integrity, states should require voters 
     to present a REAL ID card at the polls and provide non-
     drivers with a free photo ID card for voting, but during a 
     transition, citizens without a card should be permitted to 
     vote with a provisional ballot.
       States should make voter registration and IDs accessible to 
     all eligible citizens by using mobile offices and other means 
     to register more voters and issue photo ID cards.
       Congress should pass a law to require voter-verifiable 
     paper audit trails on all electronic voting machines, and the 
     EAC needs to take additional steps to ensure those machines 
     are secure and accessible for people with disabilities.
       The U.S. Election Assistance Commission and state election 
     management institutions should be strengthened and 
     reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis.
       The presidential primary schedule should be reorganized 
     into four regional primaries.
       The full report is available on the Commission Web site at 
     http://www.american.edu/Carter-Baker.
       The Commission's Co-Chairs will have a press conference on 
     Capitol Hill at 1:30 pm in the Hall of Columns. President 
     Carter will also be speaking at American University at 4 pm, 
     and that will be open to the media.
       American University's Center for Democracy and Election 
     Management (CDEM) organized the work of the Commission in 
     association with the James A. Baker III Institute for Public 
     Policy at Rice University, The Carter Center and 
     electionline.org, sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts. 
     General sponsors include Carnegie Corporation of New York, 
     the Ford Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight 
     Foundation and Omidyar Network. CDEM Director Robert A. 
     Pastor is executive director of the Commission and serves as 
     a Commission member.
       In addition to Carter, Baker and Pastor, Commission Members 
     include:
       Betty Castor, the 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate 
     in Florida.
       Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senate Minority Leader from South 
     Dakota.
       Rita DiMartino, former vice president of congressional 
     relations for AT&T.
       Lee Hamilton, president and director of the Woodrow Wilson 
     International Center for Scholars and a former Member of 
     Congress from Indiana.
       Kay Coles James, former director of the U.S. Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       Benjamin Ladner, president and professor of philosophy and 
     religion at American University.
       David Leebron, president of Rice University in Houston, TX.
       Nelson Lund, professor of constitutional law at George 
     Mason University in Arlington, VA.
       Shirley Malcom, head of the Directorate for Education and 
     Human Resources Programs of the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science (AAAS).
       Bob Michel, former U.S. House Whip and House Minority 
     Leader from Illinois.
       Susan Molinari, president and CEO of the Washington Group, 
     a government relations and lobbying firm, and former Member 
     of Congress from New York.
       Robert Mosbacher, chairman of Mosbacher Energy Company and 
     past chairman of the Republican National Committee.
       Ralph Munro, former Washington secretary of state and board 
     member for various voting and Internet technology comparues.
       Jack Nelson, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former 
     Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times.
       Spencer Overton, professor specializing in voting rights 
     and campaign finance law at The George Washington University 
     Law School in Washington, DC.
       Tom Phillips, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of 
     Texas.
       Sharon Priest, former Arkansas secretary of state and 
     current chair of the Arkansas State Election Improvement 
     Study Commission and the State Board of Election 
     Commissioners.
       Raul Yzaguirre, presidential professor of practice in 
     community development and civil rights at Arizona State 
     University and former president of the National Council of La 
     Raza.
                                  ____


                     [From ajc.com, Sept. 19, 2006]

                     Judge Voids Voter Photo ID Law

                         (The Associated Press)

       A state judge has thrown out the latest version of 
     Georgia's law requiring voters to show photo ID, ruling that 
     it violates the constitutional rights of the state's voters.
       Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, Jr. 
     issued the ruling Tuesday, nearly three weeks after lawyers 
     argued both sides of the issue, which is likely headed for 
     the Georgia Supreme Court before the Nov. 7 general 
     elections.
       Bedford said the photo ID requirement disenfranchises 
     otherwise qualified voters and adds a new condition to voting 
     that violates the state constitution.
       In his 17-page ruling, Bedford took issue with the burden 
     placed on voters to prove who they are using photo ID. Even 
     if voters are allowed to cast ballots without the required 
     identification, they must return within 48 hours with one of 
     the six necessary photo IDs or their vote is forfeited.
       ``This cannot be,'' Bedford wrote, pointing out that photo 
     ID are not even required to register to vote in Georgia.
       ``Any attempt by the Legislature to require more than what 
     is required by the express language of our Constitution 
     cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,'' Bedford wrote.
       Supporters of the photo ID law say it is needed to protect 
     against voter fraud. Opponents argue it disenfranchises poor, 
     elderly and minority voters who are less likely to have a 
     driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.
       The new law took effect July 1, but was blocked by state 
     and federal judges during the state's July primaries, August 
     runoffs and some local special elections held Tuesday.
       Last October, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down 
     an earlier version of the law, saying it amounted to an 
     unconstitutional poll tax. The Georgia Legislature addressed 
     his complaints in the latest version, but when Murphy issued 
     an injunction before the July 18 primaries, he said the state 
     had not taken enough time to educate voters.
       Because the U.S. Department of Justice didn't approve the 
     photo ID requirement until late June, the state's election 
     board had only three weeks to educate voters before the 
     primaries--a window that was too short, Murphy said then.
       Elections supervisors across the state have trained poll 
     workers on both the old law and the new one.
       Last week, Murphy blocked the law from being enforced in 
     more than 20 special elections Tuesday.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Florida for presenting his viewpoints on this, and we obviously have 
great differences.
  I think the underlying legislation is an important step towards 
improving the integrity of the election system. We have both talked 
about the lack of participation in our elections and how that is 
something that, really, as Americans we are not very proud of. But if 
we don't have a system that has integrity, our participation rates are 
going to go even lower, and that is a concern, I believe, for all of 
us.
  We have made great strides towards extending the right to vote to all 
citizens, but there is still work to be done to improve the integrity 
of our system. This is something the American people have spoken loudly 
on, with 81 percent of the population favoring the measures taken in 
this underlying legislation.
  I am pleased that my colleague inserted the report from former 
President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. They 
wrote in the New York Times in September of 2005 concerning this 
report: ``Our concern was that the differing requirements from State to 
State could be a source of discrimination, and so we recommended a 
standard for the entire country, the REAL ID card, the standardized 
driver's license mandated by Federal law, last May. With that

[[Page 18725]]

law, a driver's license can double as a voting card. All but 3 of our 
21 commission members accepted the proposal in part because the choice 
was no longer whether to have voter ID, but what kind of voter ID the 
voters should have.''
  So I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
                                  ____


    Previous Question for H. Res. 1015 H.R. 4844--Federal Election 
                         Integrity Act of 2006

       In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) the amendment in the printed in Section 3 of this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Millender-McDonald of 
     California or a designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order or demand for division of 
     the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 3. The amendment by Representative Millender-
     McDonald referred to in Section 1 is as follows:

 Amendment to H.R. 4844, as Reported Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald 
                             of California

       Add at the end of section 303(b)(1) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002, as proposed to be amended by section 2(a) 
     of the bill, the following:
       ``(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)).''.
       Amend section 303(b)(2)(B) of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as proposed to be amended by section 2(a) of the bill, 
     to read as follows:
       ``(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)).''.
       Add at the end of section 303(b)(2) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002, as proposed to be amended by section 2(a) 
     of the bill, the following:
       ``(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)).''.
       Add at the end of section 2(d) the following:
       (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.
       Insert after section 3(a) the following new subsection (and 
     redesignate accordingly):
       (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).''.
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. ELECTION INTEGRITY AND VOTER ENFRANCHISEMENT.

       (a) Uniform Standard For Treatment of Provisional Ballots 
     Cast at Incorrect Polling Places.--Section 302(a)(4) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(4)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) An individual's provisional ballot shall be 
     counted as a vote in an election for Federal office if the 
     appropriate State or local election official to whom the 
     ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph 
     (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State 
     law to vote in that election--
       ``(i) at the polling place at which the individual cast the 
     provisional ballot; or
       ``(ii) at any other polling place in the State at which 
     votes are cast in the same election for the same Federal 
     office.
       ``(B) In determining whether an individual is eligible to 
     vote at a polling place for purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     appropriate State or local election official shall review the 
     computerized statewide voter registration list established 
     and maintained under section 303(a).''.
       (b) Criminal Penalties for Voter Suppression.--Section 905 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15544) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Voter Suppression.--
       ``(1) In general.--It is unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to assert to any State election official that an 
     individual is not eligible to vote in an election for Federal 
     office, unless the assertion is made in good faith on the 
     basis of facts known to the person making the assertion; or
       ``(B) to knowingly provide any person with false 
     information regarding an individual's eligibility to vote in 
     an election for Federal office or regarding the time, place, 
     or manner of voting in such an election.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such 
     violation.''.
       (c) Clarification of Use of Information Provided in Voter 
     Registration Applications.--
       (1) Provision of driver's license or last 4 digits of 
     social security number used solely for managing official list 
     of registered voters.--

[[Page 18726]]

       (A) In general.--Section 303(a)(5)(A) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 15483(a)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``an application for voter 
     registration'' and all that follows through ``includes--'' 
     and inserting the following: ``an applicant for voter 
     registration for an election for Federal office shall include 
     in the application--''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Provision of information solely for purposes of 
     managing official voter registration list.--The requirement 
     to provide or to assign information with respect to an 
     applicant for voter registration under this subparagraph is 
     solely for the purpose of establishing an administrative 
     safeguard for storing and managing the computerized statewide 
     voter registration list under paragraph (1), and the failure 
     to provide such information by an applicant or the existence 
     of an error in any of the information provided by an 
     applicant may not serve as grounds for the rejection of an 
     application or as grounds for prohibiting the applicant from 
     voting in any election.''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002.
       (2) Permitting affidavit to serve as attestation of 
     citizenship.--Section 303(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     15483(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Use of affidavit.--
       ``(i) Affidavit included.--In addition to the question 
     required under subparagraph (A)(i), such mail voter 
     registration form shall include an affidavit which may be 
     signed by the registrant attesting to United States 
     citizenship.
       ``(ii) Signed affidavit acceptable declaration of 
     citizenship.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the 
     application of an applicant who does not answer the question 
     included on the registration form pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A)(i) but who signs the affidavit described in clause (i) 
     shall not be treated as incomplete.''.
       (d) Fraud Prevention Methods.--Section 303(b)(2) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Alternative fraud prevention methods.--At the option 
     of the State, an individual who does not meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) may meet the requirements of 
     this paragraph by meeting such other requirements as the 
     State may establish to prevent vote fraud, such as reasonable 
     methods to identify voters who have already voted, including 
     but not limited to the use of indelible ink.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     elections occurring after December 2006.

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW VOTER 
                   IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Availability of Funding for States.--
       (1) Requiring payment of funds for meeting election 
     administration requirements.--The amendments made by this Act 
     (other than section 4) shall not take effect unless--
       (A) 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
       (B) the aggregate amount of funds appropriated for 
     requirements payments to the States pursuant to the 
     authorization under section 257(a) of such Act is equal to 
     the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for such 
     payments.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--
       (A) In general.--Section 257(a) of the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15407(a)) is amended by striking ``the 
     following amounts:'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``an aggregate amount of $2,000,000,000''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002.
       (b) Requiring Access to Photo Identifications Prior to 
     Implementation of New Requirements.--The amendments made by 
     this Act (other than section 4) 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 (other 
     than section 4) 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).

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 (Mr. Price of Georgia). 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 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of House Resolution 1015, if ordered, and suspending the rules 
on H. Res. 942.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     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
     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
     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
     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
     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)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher

[[Page 18727]]


     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
     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
     Marshall
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Beauprez
     Berman
     Case
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Evans
     Harris
     Hinojosa
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Rangel
     Shays
     Strickland
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1302

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. FARR, Ms. McKINNEY, and Ms. HERSETH 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BUYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 455, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 196, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     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
     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
     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
     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 (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)

                               NOES--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
     Marshall
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Beauprez
     Case
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Evans
     Harris
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Slaughter
     Strickland

                              {time}  1311

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 456, I was not recorded. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________