Probation and Parole Officer Safety Task Force Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, let me offer my great appreciation to Juanita Millender-McDonald. I cannot think of a Member of this House who has been so persistent on these issues.

But I do want to say to the American people that we understand that we want to secure the vote, but you might note and might want to understand that out of 197 million people that have voted since 2002, there have only been 52 voter fraud cases.

I want to join you in stamping out voter fraud. I want to make sure that we have one vote/one person. But I do not want to step on the Constitution.

This legislation steps on your rights, one vote/one person. And for every 1 percent of the electorate who does not have the necessary documentation, where you were born with a midwife, you have lost your documents, you were in Hurricane Katrina or a volcano or an earthquake or a mudslide, 2 million voters will be disenfranchised. And, my good friends, this is a 21st century poll tax.

I will include in the Record ``The Long Shadows of Jim Crow'' because this is voter intimidation.

The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in

America Today

Overview

In a nation where children are taught in grade school that

every citizen has the right to vote, it would be comforting

to think that the last vestiges of voter intimidation,

oppression and suppression were swept away by the passage and

subsequent enforcement of the historic Voting Rights Act of

1965. It would be good to know that voters are no longer

turned away from the polls based on their race, never

knowingly misdirected, misinformed, deceived or threatened.

Unfortunately, it would be a grave mistake to believe it.

In every national American election since Reconstruction,

every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965,

voters--particularly African American voters and other

minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at

intimidation and suppression. The bloody days of violence and

retribution following the Civil War and Reconstruction are

gone. The poll taxes, literacy tests and physical violence of

the Jim Crow era have disappeared. Today, more subtle,

cynical and creative tactics have taken their place.

Race-Based Targeting

Here are a few examples of recent incidents in which groups

of voters have been singled out on the basis of race:

Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the

Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly

black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a

state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's

March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the

tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which

could suppress their turnout in this year's elections. Six

members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John

Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in

the matter.

This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation

of a ``potential felon'' purge list to remove voters from the

rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which

removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-

Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after

news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also

included thousands of people who were eligible to vote,

and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually

ignoring Hispanic voters.

This summer, Michigan State Representative John Pappageorge

(R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ``If

we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a

tough time in this election.'' African Americans comprise 83

percent of Detroit's population.

In South Dakota's June 2004 primary, Native American voters

were prevented from voting after they were challenged to

provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present

under State or Federal law.

In Kentucky in July 2004, Black Republican officials joined

to ask their State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to

place ``vote challengers'' in African-American precincts

during the coming elections.

Earlier this year in Texas, a local district attorney

claimed that students at a majority Black college were not

eligible to vote in the county where the school is located.

It happened in Waller County--the same county where 26 years

earlier, a Federal court order was required to prevent

discrimination against the students.

In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African-American areas

were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards,

driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs

designed to look like law enforcement insignia.

In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African-

American communities telling voters they could go to the

polls on Tuesday, December 10--three days after a Senate

runoff election was actually held.

In 1998 in South Carolina, a State representative mailed

3,000 brochures to African-American neighborhoods, claiming

that law enforcement agents would be ``working'' the

election, and warning voters that ``this election is not

worth going to jail.''

Recent Strategies

As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression

is not a problem limited to the southern United States. It

takes place from California to New York, Texas to Illinois.

It is not the province of a single political party, although

patterns of intimidation have changed as the party

allegiances of minority communities have changed over the

years.

In recent years, many minority communities have tended to

align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades,

the Republican Party has launched a series of ``ballot

security'' and ``voter integrity'' initiatives which have

targeted minority communities. At least three times, these

initiatives were successfully challenged in Federal courts as

illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on

race.

The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the

use of armed guards to

challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a

scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated

voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree

prohibiting efforts to target voters by race.

Six years later, similar ``ballot security'' efforts were

launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia,

Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican

National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone

would ``eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls,''

again drawing a court settlement.

And just three years later in North Carolina, the State

Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others

sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were

African-American, giving them false information about voter

eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter

fraud--again resulting in a decree against the use of race to

target voters.

Historical Perspective

This report includes detailed accounts of the recent

incidents listed above, and additional incidents from the

past few decades. The report also lays out a historical

review of more than 100 years of efforts to suppress and

intimidate minority voters following emancipation, through

Reconstruction and the ``Second Reconstruction,'' the years

immediately following the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was among the crowning

achievements of the civil rights era, and a defining moment

for social justice and equality. The stories of the men and

women who were willing to lay down their lives for the full

rights of citizenship, including first and foremost the right

to vote, are the stuff of history.

Their accomplishments can never be erased. Yet as this

report details, attempts to erode and undermine those

victories have never ceased. Voter intimidation is not a

relic of the past, but a pervasive strategy used with

disturbing frequency in recent years. Sustaining the bright

promise of the civil rights era, and maintaining the dream of

equal voting rights for every citizen requires constant

vigilance, courageous leadership, and an active, committed

and well-informed citizenry.

The Challenges of the 2004 Election and Beyond

The election problems in Florida and elsewhere that led to

the disenfranchisement of some four million American voters

in the 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our

voting system, problems that involved both illegal actions

and incompetence by public officials, as well as outdated

machines and inadequate voter education. As election

officials nationwide struggle to put new voting technology

into place, redesign confusing ballots and educate voters,

the opportunities for voter intimidation and suppression

have proliferated along with opportunities for

disenfranchisement caused by voter confusion and technical

problems.

With widespread predictions of a close national election,

and an unprecedented wave of new voter registration,

unscrupulous political operatives will look for any

advantage, including suppression and intimidation efforts. As

in the past, minority voters and low-income populations will

be the most likely targets of dirty tricks at the polls.

Voter Intimidation in Recent Years

Voter intimidation and suppression efforts have not been

limited to a single party, but have in fact shifted over time

as voting allegiances have shifted. In recent decades,

African American voters have largely been loyal to the

Democratic Party, resulting in the prevalence of Republican

efforts to suppress minority turnout. Those efforts have also

been extended in recent years to Latino communities.

During the 2003 mayoral election in Philadelphia, fully

seven percent of a poll of 1000 African American voters

described troubling experiences at the polls. Men with

clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at

many precincts in African American neighborhoods.

Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation campaign

for Democratic candidate John Street, said this deployment

included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely

resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as

the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms. Many prospective voters reported being

challenged for identification by such workers. Lindenfeld

told reporters from the American Prospect that ``What

occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and

expensive than anything I'd seen before, and I'd seen a

lot.''

In fact, the scope of such efforts during the past two

decades is startling. Based primarily on reports gleaned from

newspapers across the nation, there have been documented

instances of the following:

Challenges and threats against individual voters at the

polls by armed private guards, off-duty law enforcement

officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors, and poll

workers and managers.

Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for

``voter fraud'' or ``noncitizen'' voting, or illegally urging

support for a candidate.

Poll workers ``helping'' voters fill out their ballots, and

instructing them on how to vote.

Criminal tampering with voter registration rolls and

records.

Flyers and radio ads containing false information about

where, when and how to vote, voter eligibility, and the false

threat of penalties.

Internal memos from party officials in which the explicit

goal of suppressing black voter turnout is outlined.

A Republican effort in New Jersey in 1981 provided a model

that was repeated across the country in the last two decades.

The Republican National Committee and the New Jersey

Republican State Committee engaged in a ``concerted effort to

threaten and harass black and Hispanic voters'' via a

``ballot security'' effort. It involved widespread

challenging of individual voters and an Election Day presence

at African American and Latino precincts featuring armed

guards and dire warnings of criminal penalties for voting

offenses. A legal challenge eventually led to a court order

and an agreement by the GOP groups not to employ such

intimidation tactics.

But such tactics persist.

This is voter intimidation. And this intimidation cannot stand. This is a bad bill. It is not about those who are not documented, it is about you, America. You will be prevented from the right to vote with this bill. We should defeat it.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4844, and express my dismay with this distraction. I fear that actions taken today will sear doubt and weakness into one of our treasured and fundamental rights as a democratic Nation.

Not 3 months ago, we dedicated significant amounts of time land resources to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We celebrated the fact that these rights will be secure for another generation. And yet, with this bit!, we are reminded that these rights are fleeting, and must continually be protected.

This bill undermines the very provisions we have been fighting for-- and clearly have not yet won--for over 40 years. This bill compounds the disproportionate discrimination that persists across this Nation.

This bill attempts to address a problem that does not exist, and this is crucial to understand. There is no voter fraud problem. It is simply not a documented issue. Suggesting that it may be plays into bigotry and xenophobia.

Data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows that while 196,139,871 votes have been cast in Federal elections since October 2002, only 52 individuals have been convicted of Federal voter fraud. Most of these convictions were for vote buying or for voter registration fraud, neither of which would be prevented by restrictive ill requirements at the polls.

If convicted of voter fraud, an individual can be given up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine: The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has an active--and fully funded--prosecution team to enforce Federal and State election laws.

In reality, the bill is a 21st century poll tax. Instead of money collected at the poll door, however, the tax will now be collected at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Congress cannot place itself on the wrong side of this debate--history will see this clearly.

The crux of discriminatory measures in this bill rests with the fact that the right to vote is tied to documents that are not readily available. The burden of obtaining these documents--whether the cost of obtaining supporting documentation, investing the time to navigate bureaucracy or the waiting period to receive the documents in the mail--is prohibitive, and yet familiar. Anyone who has waited in line at the DMV must understand what a mistake this is.

I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less likely to risk deportation just to influence an election.

If for no other reason than Hurricane Katrina, we must all understand how vulnerable our system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes last summer suffered loss of property that included lost documents. Compounding this was the devastation of the region, which virtually shut down civil services in the area. New Orleans residents were scattered across 44 States. And had difficulty registering and voting both with absentee ballots and at satellite voting stations for the April 22 city elections this year. Those elections took place fully 8 months after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits, such as the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are constitutionally guaranteed.

In addition, this bill hands State governments yet another unfunded mandate. By 2010, we must all submit photo IDs with proof of citizenship in order to vote. Currently, no more than 4 States have driver's licenses or IDs that match these requirements. The only other document that does satisfy this requirement is a passport. Therefore, every State that does not have this kind of photo ID must restructure and create the ID system to provide adequate voting permits for everyone who does not have an updated passport with a current address. This would involve reissuing driver's licenses or identification cards in almost every State.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 4844 would cost about $1 million in 2007 and $77 million over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. This exceeds the allowed amounts in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In addition, CBO estimates that the cost of providing photo identification for voters who cannot afford them would be about $45 million in 2008.

This is simply ludicrous. We need to address the election fraud that we know is occurring, such as voting machine integrity and poll volunteer training and competence. After every election that occurs in this country, we have documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and errors. In 2004, in New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. One million ballots nationwide were spoiled by faulty voting equipment--roughly one for every 100 cast.

Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor, minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty providing documentation.

In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another 2 weeks (and a full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and finally, 3-4 weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds from voting if they are married within 3 months of election day.

An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible Americans.

The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon which we have established liberty and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I never thought as a girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, that I would meet, again, a present-day poll tax. My goodness. My father would be really amazed.

Therefore, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the so- called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which requires all States to demand that voters provide government-issued identification in order to vote in the 2008 election and proof of citizenship in order to vote in the 2010 election.

The Republican Party has acted without expressing any concern for the millions of American citizens who currently do not have the necessary documentation and consequently will be denied their right to vote. Further, the majority has not been moved by the realization that the burden of this legislation falls disproportionately on the elderly, the disabled, and ethnic minorities. Unfortunately, the Republicans made no effort to determine how many would be affected and be disenfranchised by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with H.R. 4844, this Republican legislation devises a modern-day poll tax in the form of a proof of citizenship requirement that will keep some eligible voters from voting and make it harder for all American citizens to vote. No citizen should have to pay in order to exercise his or her constitutional right to vote.

I have heard today on this Floor that President Carter's and Secretary of State Baker's reference to IDs fit within the intent of this bill. Allow me to clarify this assertion. Their ID proposal does not have requirements for citizenship, and they wish that everyone, not just those who can not afford IDs, possess them free of charge. They have not endorsed this piece of legislation.

Proof of citizenship requirements place on the voter the difficult, time-consuming and costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to prove citizenship or identity in order to cast a vote. For example, our State Department reports that only 23 percent of all Americans possess a passport, and the cost of obtaining one exceeds $100. A majority of Americans do not currently possess the identification required by H.R. 4844, and requiring them to obtain one imposes an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote.

Additionally, some Americans may be unable to acquire the necessary documents at any cost because they lack a birth certificate. We recognize that there are many minorities, especially African Americans, who were delivered by midwives, who did not have and do not have a birth certificate. There are some rural Americans who do not have birth certificates. We recognize that the State of Georgia indicates that 40 percent of their seniors would be denied their right to vote if this piece of legislation passes.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, strikes the appropriate balance between voter-ballot access and system-ballot integrity, and it was accomplished with bipartisan effort. The Committee on House Administration worked tirelessly to enact HAVA as a solution to the problems associated with the November 2000 general election. As a result of HAVA, $3.1 billion was appropriated to

the States to improve the voting process. My alternative calls for the $800 million in shortfall funding to ensure full funding of HAVA.

The question of citizenship was directly addressed head on in HAVA whereby Congress mandated that the mail-in registration form includes a box that asks the question, ``Are you a citizen of the United States of America?'' If you answer no, your form is rejected automatically. If you answer yes, and you are discovered not to be a citizen, you are subject to Federal prosecution.

Mr. Speaker, we have laws on the books that if someone votes illegally, he or she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The penalties are stiff and have successfully served as a deterrent to misrepresentation.

The voter ID question was asked and answered by HAVA. HAVA provided a broad range of ID options for the narrow circumstances of first-time voters who register by mail or appear in person at the polls to cast their vote. A photo ID is only one option. All the other options include employment ID, student ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paychecks, or a government document showing the name and address of the voter.

Neither voters nor States are required to comply with a one-size-fit- all Federal mandate. The unavoidable consequence of enacting H.R. 4844 will be the decrease in the number of American citizens who are able to vote. H.R. 4844 will do far more to suppress turnout and intimidate voters than to prevent voter fraud, the purported objective of the majority.

Now, we say to all of us here in Congress, if we know of fraud and of persons voting illegally, we should tell our district attorneys. We should not tarry on this type of thing, and I suggest to the majority, if they know of any fraud, please call their district attorneys. We do not need this type of bill to accomplish this task.

We should be, as Members of Congress, representing the people and this people's House to do just that. For all the concern that the majority expresses about protecting the right to vote, this bill does nothing to stop voter suppression or correct the numerous administrative problems that are plaguing our elections and robbing our citizens of their right to vote.

I also previously heard that Andrew Young is in support of this bill. In fact, we understand that Andrew Young is not in support of this bill and that his remarks have been taken out of context. He is opposed to this bill.

H.R. 4844, as amended, will do nothing to stop the intentional forms of voter suppression such as the instances in 2004 when unsuspecting voters were misinformed about the time or place of the election or about the qualifications for voting. This bill will not remedy the long lines, misallocation of voting equipment, voting registration rules, or other election procedures that deny citizens their very critical opportunity to vote.

These are the real issues that this Congress should be addressing. To that end, I have offered a substitute piece of legislation that addresses some of the problems of voter suppression and voter fraud that are not addressed in H.R. 4844. Our Congress should be improving voter access to the polls, preventing election fraud, paying for and supporting election integrity, but it was not made in order. In fact, this is a closed rule, which is what happens when the majority does not want us to bring real legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, because of the critical adverse impact of this bill and the affect it will have on our citizens' constitutional right to vote, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4844. Instead of making it difficult to vote, our job should be, in the people's House, to promote civic participation more broadly.

There are 40 percent of registered voters who are not voting in our elections. This issue is what we should be addressing. Instead of erecting new barriers to voting participation, we should be devoting our resources to prosecuting the illegal intimidation tactics and solving the election irregularities which continue to surface with each election cycle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished and outstanding member of the Committee on House Administration.

The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely right. If we need to go after fraud, we need to get some quantitative information before we bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to our distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great civil rights leader and icon from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Mica, perhaps you do want to consider not voting for the bill because 60 percent of new registrants in Pima County, AZ who are all eligible voters, were initially rejected. And for every 1 percent of individuals who do not have the necessary documentation of citizenship, 2 million voters are disenfranchised.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a man who does know about all of this, a former Secretary of State, the Honorable Jim Langevin from Rhode Island.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, this just shows you how flawed this bill is. This bill should have remained in committee so we could really crank out and clear up some of these problems. We have heard two colloquies from the majority on issues that are not a part of this bill, for heaven's sake.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman whose State has thrown out a similar type of law, the gentleman from Missouri, the Honorable William Clay.

Mr. Burton, you are speaking about an immigration bill at this point; so perhaps you should get that bill out.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the great gentleman who walks in the footsteps of his great father, the Honorable Charles Gonzalez.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to a great leader from the great State of California, the Honorable Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to another great leader out of the State of Texas, the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chairman how many more speakers he does have.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many folks on the floor talking about fraud in our election process. We have heard various speakers talking about getting rid of this alleged fraud. There is no Member on this floor who does not want to get rid of fraud. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not address real fraud. This is not a good bill.

We have heard many speakers on the floor today delivering colloquies, trying to see whether or not this will fit or that will fit, when, in essence, this legislation merely does not get to the bottom of the real fraud, the problem of voter suppression.

Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting for the Record letters from the National Association of Counties and local election administrators who are objecting to this piece of legislation because they say it imposes a fee on themselves and voters all of whom assert that they cannot afford to comply with this legislation is mandate.

We have heard from the chairman and others on the other side who say that if one cannot pay for the ID, it will be paid for. But what they are doing is establishing an unfunded mandate with this piece of legislation, which is why NACO is objecting to this bill.

We also have heard from the election commissioner and county clerk out of Fairbury, Nebraska and the administrator of elections from Anderson County, TN. I will submit these letters opposing H.R. 4844 for the Record.

Mr. SPEAKER, the proponents of H.R. 4844 characterize this legislation merely as an administrative protection that it is simple to implement and necessary to prevent fraud. The truth is, H.R. 4844 is a misguided measure that will suppress voter turnout and undermine laws that Congress has already passed to assure all citizens will have a full and equal right to participate.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that HAVA is in place now, which is a bipartisan bill that was passed out of this House with bipartisan support.

To enact this law would be an affront to that bill, to all Americans who take pride in the progress our country has made in extending the franchise to all of its citizens, and to all individuals who take offense to the political manipulation of the majority.

Partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome proof of citizenship requirements are not the direction this Congress or this country should be taking. We know that the States of Georgia and Washington, have already thrown out legislation similar to this one.

Democrats, along with well-intended Republicans, have fought for and won the extension of the Voting Rights Act for eligible Americans. During the last century, our country has expanded the right to vote to millions of Americans with the passage of the 19th amendment, gives which women the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was reauthorized on this floor just a couple of months ago, and we know that the VRA prevented institutional voter suppression. The 26th amendment, which gives 18-years-old the right to vote, is another bill that we have passed. Why should we consider a bill like this that does nothing to address voter suppression? This is an intimidation-type bill. It is a partisan attempt to allow the Republicans to maintain the majority.

I tell you, this bill violates State constitutions and the U.S. Constitution because it disenfranchises citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote. The Democrats will not shirk our responsibility to defend the gains put forth by the bills already on the books. We will not shirk our responsibility to ensure that every eligible American has the right to vote. And we will not let these gains be lost to undocumented allegations of fraud that have not been quantitatively proven and have not proven by any empirical data that reveals this so- called type of fraud is widespread.

The right to vote, Mr. Speaker, is too precious to allow any citizen's vote to be sacrificed by those who would treat it carelessly. I would hope that the other side thinks about this and not vote for this bad bill. This is not a good bill. It does nothing but hamper the American people.

This bill creates a poll tax. I want the American people to know that Democrats are against all types of voter fraud and we are against your paying a poll tax to be able to vote. So I say to the other side that if you really want integrity, then let's look at these electronic voting machines that voters are worried stiff about because they do not know whether their votes will be counted.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that every Member who really has good intentions of trying protect the laws that are on the books will vote this legislation down.

National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2006.

Re H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''

Hon. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed at this present time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to vote out a proof-of-citizenship requirement to allow citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote, then we should consider who will be disenfranchised by this new requirement, and we should ensure that the States have both the funds and have determined their needs to implement this mandate.

Of course, we should exempt those who will be greatly burdened and are least likely to fit the straw man profile which the majority has thrown up as its excuse to pass this bill, voting by noncitizens. There is no showing that this straw man is a problem of sufficient proportions to justify a 21st century poll tax.

There is no empirical data on which to justify this unfunded mandate, and the personal financial burden and, in some cases, the sheer impossibility of citizens to obtain the required documentation must be taken into consideration.

I therefore offer a motion to recommit, which does the following things to the Republican proof-of-citizenship photo ID obstacle to voting.

First, the motion to recommit exempts all military voters and their families from the requirement of submitting a copy of their photo ID when mailing in an absentee ballot, not just those uniformed personnel overseas, as the underlying Hyde bill allows.

Second, my motion exempts all elderly and disabled voters from having to provide their photo ID at polls or when mailing in absentee ballots. They have financial and access obstacles which ordinary citizens simply do not have, and we need to recognize and adjust for that.

Third, the motion prevents the bill from taking effect in any State and during any fiscal year in which the Federal Government is acting irresponsibly by not providing sufficient Federal funds to cover the State costs of the unfunded mandate of making photo IDs available.

Fourth, my motion to recommit empowers the States by requiring that this new proof of citizenship photo ID provision will not take effect until the State's chief executive, chief election officer, and attorney general have each certified to Congress that voting by noncitizens in the State is a persistent and significant problem that can't be resolved by existing State and Federal laws.

Fifth, the motion seeks to enlighten the Congress on the impact of this law by having States issue a report to the Election Assistance Commission on the number of individuals who are

disenfranchised because of a photo ID requirement.

Sixth, the motion seeks to temper the likely effects of this harsh new statute by holding its application in abeyance until the Election Assistance Commission reports to Congress that 95 percent of the voting-age population has acquired a photo ID which meets the requirements of this act.

Seventh, my motion prevents the law from taking effect until the Election Assistance Commission studies and reports to Congress that the photo ID law will not disproportionately disenfranchise the elderly, disabled, minority and Native Americans.

Finally, the motion exempts Katrina victims whose records were destroyed and who were unable to obtain the requisite documentation, as long as they certify under penalty of perjury to the appropriate State election officials.

These are major concerns but by no means the only ones.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1015, I call up the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, and ask all my colleagues to support this important bill.

This bill will require presentation of a government-issued photo ID to vote

in Federal elections, effective November 2008. Though most of the voting public already has an ID that can meet this requirement, there is a percentage of eligible voters who do not have an ID, so these extra 2 years will give them time to acquire it.

To ensure that only citizens are voting, the amendment will require presentation by 2010 of an ID that could not have been obtained without providing proof of citizenship. Once obtained, this ID can be used to prove both citizenship and identity when voting.

This Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act which will require people to prove their legal status in the country to get a REAL ID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008. Citizens will be able to use the IDs they obtain under this process to vote in elections starting in 2010 and for all elections thereafter. H.R. 4844 will require the ID to include some indicia of citizenship, so poll workers and other election officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a citizen.

Those who arrive at the polls without an ID will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. These ballots will be counted if the person returns and presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48 hours. To help those who need but cannot afford the ID to vote, the amendment requires States to provide them free of cost to the indigent and authorizes funds to reimburse States for the cost of doing so.

To most people this proposal is a simple, commonsense proposal and a necessary safeguard against vote fraud. To others it represents a dangerous threat to some citizens' ability to access the polls. While this debate may be heated in Washington, D.C., it seems the American people have made up their mind. A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81 percent of those surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting. A Rasmussen poll during that same time period showed a similar result. Seventy-seven percent surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting.

Likewise, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the report they issued last year. While the division on this issue may be partisan here in Congress, it certainly was not on this bipartisan commission. It seems a large bipartisan majority there concluded by an 18-3 vote that requiring ID is a necessary reform.

Once implemented, H.R. 4844 will put an important safeguard in place that will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore confidence in it. By putting in place procedures that ensure voting is limited to eligible citizens, we can encourage participation and increase turnout.

The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all the claims that disenfranchisement would ensue after the enactment of the proof of citizenship and ID requirements in Proposition 200, testimony in Phoenix revealed that registration went up 15 percent after the requirement to prove citizenship went into effect. The fact is, people are encouraged to vote when they believe their vote will count and know that their vote will not be canceled out by an illegal vote.

I know there will be some who oppose the action we will take today, and there will be some controversy generated by the proposal. I wish it were not so. It seems we should all be able to agree that voting should be limited to citizens of the United States, because that has been the law for years. If we can agree on that, we should be able to agree that our voting systems must have procedures in place to ensure that.

We should all be able to agree that every eligible citizen should be able to vote, should be encouraged to vote, to vote only once, and to be assured that their vote will not be diluted by an illegal vote. If we agree on that, we should be able to agree that making people identify themselves when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard.

It was not always so. I grew up in a small town, Edgerton, Minnesota, with 800 people. They did not need photo IDs. They knew everyone in town. If a stranger had showed up to vote, he would have been ushered out of the hall. But today we live in urban cities, by and large. We do not know each other well, and we need some means of foolproof identification.

I am sure that we will hear from the other side of the aisle today that an ID requirement is not necessary and is too much trouble. But every day millions of Americans show a photo ID to pay by check, board a plane or buy alcohol or tobacco. Surely the sanctity of the ballot warrants as much protection as these other activities.

In too many States, lax identification requirements mean people can cast votes without ever having to prove their eligibility. Our voting rights are too important to rely on an honor system. We need to make sure we have procedures in place that protect the right to vote and make sure only eligible citizens are able to do so.

I hope all Members will recognize the need for these necessary reforms. They will advance the security of our electoral systems, increase confidence in their integrity and reduce the opportunities for fraud. I ask all Members to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) one of the most honorable persons in the Chamber, one who has served well for so many years, the sponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly for this Congress and for the people of the United States, including on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the future Governor of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe for a moment there will be no expense to any voter. It will be paid by the Federal Government if the voter has to pay money to get a birth certificate or a photo ID.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. John Mica of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who was kind enough to host us when we held a hearing in his State.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Walden for purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I recognize the concern of the gentleman from Oregon, and we will certainly try to work with him. We will solicit ideas not only from his State, but also from the State of Washington, which has a considerable amount of mail-in voting. And I would certainly like also to hear from the secretary of state of both States and several county clerks from each State for ways that we can accomplish the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that every citizen has the right to vote, and only those who have the right to vote will be allowed to vote. There may be more than one way to accomplish that.

We will be happy to work with you when the bill reaches conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for another colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for raising the question. This is not the first time it has come up. There are other groups. Many of the American Indians have raised a similar objection, and I am quite sure that once we get in conference with the Senate, we will be able to hear from that group and all the other groups, the Amish, the Native Americans, and find another method to ensure identity.

Clearly biometrics would be equally acceptable as a photo ID. Thumbprints are generally not reproducible for other fraud; so I believe this will help deal with the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to respond to all of the erroneous comments that have been made. Some of them may have been pertinent as relating to the original bill as introduced. But I wish all those commenting would have read the amended bill that we have before us now.

There has been much discussion about poll taxes. Absolute nonsense. I would never stand for putting a poll tax on any citizen of this country. There is no poll tax. We specifically provided that the State and the Federal Government will pay for any cost. There is no poll tax in this bill.

Furthermore, it is said the burden falls on the poor. Again, nonsense. We help the poor. There is no burden on the poor. We assist them by helping them prove citizenship and paying for it. So when they apply for Social Security, when they apply for Medicare, when they apply for prescription drug coverage, they will have proof of citizenship in hand.

This benefits the poor. It benefits those who do not have citizenship, because we help them to prove citizenship and we pay for it.

This bill is designed to cut down fraud. I put the question, Where is the fraud? Several have said, there is no fraud. There is fraud.

In the 2000 election in Philadelphia, they had 103 percent of the voter turnout in one precinct. That is fraud. When you have the number of voters who appeared was greater than the number registered for a district, that is fraud.

Then there is the gubernatorial race in the State of Washington. The final result that judges certified, was that the number of illegal votes cast was over 1,000 percent greater than the margin of victory for the winner of that race. That is fraud. Conclusioin: There is fraud in voting in this Nation.

It is time for us to get rid of fraud in voting in this Nation. This bill will make a big step towards doing it. It will not endanger anyone's right to vote. It is not a poll tax. It helps citizens to vote legally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond without having seen the text of this beforehand, but it appears clear to me that it has the purpose to provide a number of exceptions. Our bill does not provide exceptions, because we are interested in ensuring that every voter has the right to vote. We also want to ensure that there are no illegal votes cast.

References have been made to unfunded mandate. The House just defeated that suggestion and said there is no unfunded mandate. There are concerns about no money being provided. Our committee, the House Administration Committee, is an authorizing committee, not an appropriations committee.

If this bill is unfunded, it is simply because we are an authorizing committee, and any bill passed by an authorizing committee is unfunded. We have to follow the procedures here. We pass authorizing bills. The appropriators then provide the money to implement authorizing activities.

I strongly urge the Members of the body to recommit this bill and to pass the original version of the bill, as amended, and which was introduced to this body and debated for the last 2 hours. It is a good bill that will provide the safety and security we need to ensure the vote is taken properly. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to object strongly to the voter disenfranchisement proposal before us.

According to the Election Assistance Commission's comprehensive Survey of the 2004 election, there were more than 197 million voting- age American citizens at that time. According to the Brennan Center for Justice in its September 2006 voter identification study, as many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and maybe will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. Thus, the very first thing this bill will do is disenfranchise as many as 20 million eligible voters.

Who are these 20 million voters? The poor. The elderly. The disabled. Persons of color. Native Americans. Students. Why would anyone vote in favor of disenfranchising these citizens?

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an imperfect bill, but it did reach a bipartisan compromise on voter identification. HAVA's already- existing requirements for voter identification and the integrity of voter registration rolls go on for pages. Among the requirements:

States must make ``a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters;''

Voter registration applications may not be ``accepted or processed'' unless they include an applicants driver's license number or, in the case of voters who don't have one, ``the last 4 digits of the applicants Social Security number;'' or, in the case of voters with neither, a ``unique identifying number'' assigned by election officials;

First time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must show photo ID at the polls when they vote.

Voters can't get around that requirement by voting absentee--first time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must send a copy of a photo ID with their mail-in ballot.

And HAVA provides for criminal penalties for violations for the foregoing--``any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or alien registry of such citizen . . . shall be fined, imprisoned [for up to five years], or both.''

The measure before us is a solution in search of a problem. The Department of Justice (DOJ), in its ``Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity for 2004,'' reported that at the end of 2004, the Public Integrity Section had approximately 133 election crime matters pending nationwide. That is an average of just over two cases per state for the entire year--hardly an avalanche. In addition, most of the cases described in the report concerned campaign finance violations, not voter fraud. Only one described a vote-buying scheme, and none referred specifically to non-citizen or double voting. On the other hand, the same Report noted that a total of 1,213 public officials had been charged with corruption in 2004, that 1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases remained pending. In other words, according to the DOJ's own findings, the problem of corruption among public official is at the very least ten times worse than the problem of citizens cheating in elections.

Meanwhile, other studies have found that instances of double voting and voting using another's identity are virtually non-existent.

Washington State--a study of 2.8 million ballots cast in 2004 showed that only 0.0009 percent of them reflected double voting or voting in the name of deceased individuals.

Ohio--a statewide survey found a mere four instances out of more than 9 million votes cast where ineligible persons voted or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004--a rate of 0.00004%.

Georgia--(which recently passed one of the strictest voter ID laws, which was subsequently struck down); Secretary of State Cathy Cox stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.

I have introduced legislation, the Electoral Fairness Act of 2006 (H.R. 4989), that would require that all voters, upon being duly registered, be issued a durable voter registration card at no cost to the voter, ``which shall serve as proof that the individual is duly registered to vote'' at the polling place which services the individual's address. The bill would preserve HAVA's existing voter ID requirements, but add no more, an the voter registration cards would serve strictly to protect voters who are removed from the voter rolls wrongfully or erroneously.

My legislation would protect the 1.2 million voters who were, in fact, wrongfully denied access to a regular ballot in 2004 when they

showed up at polling places. The legislation before us, in the absence of meaningful or documented justification, would leave those 1.2 million voters in jeopardy of wrongful disenfranchisement and add 20 million more to the pile. In the name of solving a problem that is evidently a tiny problem these legislators--at great expense to individuals and to states--would add requirements that will turn away legitimate, deserving, honest voters. This is poll tax, pure and simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down.

Groups Opposing H.R. 4844

A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project;

Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired

Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities;

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American

Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of

Arizona; American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial

Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers

Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic

Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council;

Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students'

Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American

Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander

American Vote (APIAVote); and Asian Pacific American Labor

Alliance, AFL-CIO.

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for

Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for

Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers;

Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy

Project; Democratic Women's Working Group; Demos : A Network

for Ideas & Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center;

Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council;

Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic

Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith

Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona;

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); La Union Del Pueblo

Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;

and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United

Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater

Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal

Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational

Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and

Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for

Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La

Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education

Association; National Korean American Service & Education

Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights

Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research

Group, Inc./NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA

Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; and

Project for Arizona's Future.

Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition;

Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service

Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal

Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America/We Are

America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The

Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono

O'odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian

Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto

Workers; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness

Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church

and Society; United States Student Association; United

Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C.

Velasquez Institute; and YWCA USA.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

``This cannot be.'' With those words, State Judge Jackson Bedford yesterday struck down the infamous Georgia photo ID law. Let me repeat. ``This cannot be.'' Let these words guide us here, because right here in this House of Representatives we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees all American citizens the right to vote and the right for their vote to be counted.

I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, for her leadership on this issue. She has been an important force in protecting the integrity of elections. And that is why it is so sad to see this bill come here to the floor today, especially named the Federal Election Integrity Act.

Integrity? It is not about integrity. It is about a tawdry attempt by Republicans to suppress the votes of millions of Americans. That is not integrity.

America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must continue to send a message to the world that we honor the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. Every eligible citizen must be able to vote, to exercise his or her right to vote, and those votes must be counted.

Only a short month ago, many of us stood here, stood proudly on the White

House lawn as the Voting Rights Act reauthorization was signed into law. We overcame many obstacles even for the reauthorization of that legislation to affirm the most precious right of our democracy, the right to vote.

Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and we are undermining the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, in doing so, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today is indeed a disenfranchisement of millions of American voters, the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and, get this, Native Americans. Native Americans, people here longer than any of our families, unless we can proudly boast of being Native American. People with disabilities. The list goes on.

As the NAACP has said, this bill would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect. And the Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so.

A few weeks ago President Bush spoke before the NAACP in the first time in his Presidency. He quoted President Lyndon Johnson in saying that voting rights are the lifeblood of a democracy. And yet, here today, after making that great statement, quoting that great civil rights and voting rights President, President Bush is here today in a transparent, it is obvious to all, attempt to suppress the votes of millions of American citizens, cutting off the lifeblood of democracy. Is that integrity? I don't think so.

Supporters of this Republican voter suppression bill would claim that this bill is about preventing noncitizens from voting. It is just the opposite; it is a bill designed to prevent citizens from voting. Noncitizens are strictly prohibited under law from voting and face tough penalties for breaking these laws. And that is right. No one condones fraud. There is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with noncitizen voters. As our distinguished ranking member pointed out, if you want to make a case, document it, just don't claim it and then come through with a clear and transparent attempt to cut off the votes of those who do not share your political point of view. You didn't take an oath of office to do that.

This bill is not about noncitizens as its supporters claim. Rather, it affects all American citizens by making them prove that they are, in fact, citizens even if they have voted for years. By forcing voters to undergo time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive attempts to secure documents, this Republican voter suppression bill is a modern-day poll tax. It would especially impact our elderly citizens and low-income citizens, and disproportionately affect minority individuals and individuals with disabilities, many of whom do not drive and cannot afford passports. This bill suspiciously appears to target and disenfranchise American voters who might not be sympathetic to Republican policy goals. Again, a modern-day poll tax. And the Republicans call this modern-day poll tax integrity. I don't think so.

We have a responsibility to remove all obstacles to participation to the right of all American citizens to participate in the electoral process. And yet, the AARP has said that the obstacles this bill throws up to voting, that they are particularly concerned about that such rules will prevent many eligible older voters from exercising their right to vote. That is why they join the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and this long list of over 110 organizations, civil liberties, civil rights groups opposing this legislation.

It even goes into health, United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, United States Steelworkers, United States Student Association. How about this. The list goes on. But it even talks about some of the groups that deal with the disabilities community in our country. The Navajo Nation. I will put it in the Record for all to see. The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, AARP. The list goes on.

Groups Opposed to Voter ID Bill--September 20, 2006

African American Ministers in Action