Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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).

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), my good friend and classmate.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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, I demand a recorded vote.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1015 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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.

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. 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).

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. 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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

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. 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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.