Recognizing the centennial anniversary on August 5, 2006, of the Iranian constitution of 1906.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue. And I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his support for this resolution and for his leadership on many of these foreign relation issues that we have.

I am very pleased to be here on the floor today, Madam Speaker, to address this issue; and I rise in support of H. Res. 942 to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Iranian constitutional revolution.

The current totalitarian regime of the ayatollahs presents a threat to world peace. It is important to recognize that Iranian history contains within itself the evidence of internal representative constitutional aspirations which would free the Iranian people of oppressive tyranny.

In 1906, the people of Iran brought about a peaceful constitutional revolution to limit the autocratic power of a corrupt regime. As such, it was among the most significant turning points in Iranian history; it and resulted in the establishment of an elected parliament, the Majles, and the creation of a representative system of government, including checks and balances and the separation of powers.

While the constitution that was ultimately drafted as a result of the revolution was never fully implemented in Iran, it presents the Iranian people with an important starting point in their present-day struggle to overcome the tyranny of the ayatollahs.

Much like the situation that we currently see in Iran, before the revolution in 1906 Iran was ruled harshly by leaders who did not have to respond to the will of the people. As the people of Iran watched their leaders squander away their nation's land and resources, they were emboldened by the democratic revolutions that were at that time sweeping through Europe and Latin American. The people of Iran saw what was happening in other countries and demanded similar reforms. Just as today's Iranians see their needs overlooked in their leaders' attempts to hasten the coming of a worldwide radical Islamic state, the destruction of the assets of Iran before the 1906 revolution resulted in widespread poverty, food shortages and plague, though the rulers demonstrated no obligation to relieve the needs of the people.

After years of agitation and a number of failed attempts to bring about representative constitutional reforms in cooperation with Iran's rulers, the reformists chose nonviolent means to establish their demands. Early in 1906, some 16,000 Iranians gathered in the mosques and the public places of Tehran, organized camps, commissaries, and sanitation facilities and established order; and they simply stayed there. In modern terms, it was a giant sit-in that lasted for weeks. And on August 5, 1906, Mozafareddin Shah signed a decree authorizing the creation of a freely elected Majles which was the first task of writing a permanent constitution. The constitution that was created was a modern representative document created upon the model of the Belgian Constitution that met all the requirements of the four demands of the revolutionary democratic movement.

The establishment of an independent judiciary was one. The second was establishment of an independent legislature, with members directly elected by the people. The third was a socio-political progress, including the separation of religion from the affairs of government. I will repeat, the separation of religion. The fourth was a commitment of the government to the territorial integrity of Iran. And in 1907, in one of the most unfortunate events of the Iranian history, Mozafareddin Shah died, and with him died the full implementation of the representative constitution.

Nevertheless, the 1906 constitution has always served as a beacon of liberty for those striving for freedom in Iran. All people on the face of the Earth ought to have the right to live under a constitutionally prescribed government that is representative and responsive to the will of the people. The 1906 Constitution of Iran provides the people of Iran with a blueprint for constitutional government that is a product of their culture and their needs. It has demonstrated that Iranians could come together, using their own resources and their own traditions, to create a liberal representative constitutional state. And even though a corrupt dictatorial reactionary regime has ruled in Iran since 1979, the 1906 Iranian Constitution inspires hope for a free Iran today.

Madam Speaker, I hope the recognition contained in this bill can help inspire Iranians to rise up and expel their country's dictators. Given the current threat the Iranian regime poses to global security today, the whole world should join in supporting and encouraging the Iranian people's fight for freedom and constitutional representation.

I ask my colleagues for support of this important legislation and pray for the day that all of God's children live in freedom and liberty.

Draft 1906 Iran Constitution

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Forgiving.

WHEREAS in accordance with the Imperial edict dated the

fourteenth of Jumada althani, A.H. 1324 (=August 5, 1906), a

decree was issued for the establishment of a National

Consultative Assembly, to promote the progress and happiness

of our Kingdom and people, strengthen the foundations of our

Government and give effect to the enactments of the Sacred

Law of His Holiness the Prophet,

AND WHEREAS, by virtue of the fundamental principle

(therein laid down), we have conferred on each individual of

the people of our realm, for the amending and superintending

of the affairs of the common-wealth, according to their

degrees, the right to participate in choosing and appointing

the Members of this Assembly by popular election,

THEREFORE the National Consultative Assembly is now opened,

in accordance with our Sacred Command; and we do define as

follows the principles and articles of the Constitutional Law

regulating the aforesaid National Consultative Assembly,

which Law comprises the duties and functions of the above-

mentioned Assembly, its limitations, and its relations with

the various ministries of the country.

On the Constitution of the Assembly.

Article 1--The national consultative assembly is founded

and established in accordance with the Imperial edict of the

fourteenth of the Jumada al-thani, A.H. 1324 (August 5,

1906).

Article 2--The National Consultative Assembly represents

the whole of the people of Iran, who (thus) participate in

the economic and political affairs of the country.

Article 3--The National Consultative Assembly shall consist

of the members elected in Tehran and the provinces, and shall

be held in Tehran.

Article 4--The number of elected members of the national

consultative assembly has been fixed, in accordance with the

electoral law, separately promulgated, at one hundred and

sixty-two, but in case of necessity the number of the members

may be increased to two hundred.

Article 5--The members of the national consultative

assembly shall be elected for two whole years. This period

shall begin on the day when all the representatives from the

provinces have arrived in Tehran. On the conclusion of this

period or two years, new representatives shall be elected,

but the people shall have the option of re-electing any of

their former representatives whom they wish and with whom

they are satisfied.

Article 6--The members of the national consultative

assembly who have been elected to represent Tehran shall, as

soon as they meet, have the right to convene the national

consultative assembly and to begin their discussions and

deliberations. During the period preceding the arrival of the

provincial delegates, their decisions shall depend for their

validity and due execution on the majority (by which they are

carried).

Article 7--On the opening of the debates, at least two

thirds of the members of the national consultative assembly

shall be present, and, when the vote is taken at least three

quarters. A majority shall be obtained only when more than

half of those present in the Assembly record their votes.

Article 8--The periods of session and recess of the

national consultative assembly shall be determined by the

assembly itself, in accordance with such internal regulations

as itself shall formulate. After the summer recess, the

national consultative assembly must continue open and remain

in session from the fourteenth day of the month of Mehr (Oct.

6th), which corresponds with the anniversary of the opening

day of the first assembly.

Article 9--The national consultative assembly can sit on

occasions of extraordinary public holidays.

Article 10--On the opening day of the national consultative

assembly, an address shall be presented by it to His Imperial

Majesty, and it shall afterwards have the honor of receiving

an answer from that Royal and August quarter.

Article 11--Members of the national consultative assembly,

on taking their seats, shall take and subscribe to the

following form of oath:

(Form of the Oath.)

``We the undersigned take God to witness, and swear on the

Qur'an, that, so long as the rights of the national

consultative assembly

and its members are observed and respected, in conformity

with these regulations, we will, so far as possible,

discharge, with the utmost truth, uprightness, diligence and

endeavor, the duties confided to us; that we will act loyally

and truthfully towards our just and honored sovereign, commit

no treason in respect of either the foundations of the throne

or the rights of the people, and will consider only the

advantage and well-being of the people and the country of

Iran.''

Article 12--No one, on any pretext or excuse, shall have

any right, without the knowledge and approval of the national

consultative assembly, to molest its members. Even in case of

the members committing some crime or misdemeanor, and being

arrested flagrante delicto, any punishment inflicted upon him

must be with the cognizance of the national consultative

assembly.

Article 13--The deliberations of the national consultative

assembly, in order that effect may be given to their results,

must be public. According to the internal regulations of the

assembly, journalists and spectators have the right to be

present and listen, but not to speak. Newspapers may print

and publish all the debates of the assembly, provided they do

not change or pervert their meaning, so that the public may

be informed of the subjects of discussion and the detail of

what takes place. Everyone, subject to his playing due regard

to the public good, may discuss them in the public press, so

that no matter may be veiled or hidden from any person.

Therefore all newspapers, provided that their contents are

not injurious to any one of the fundamental principles of the

government or the nation, are authorized and allowed to print

and publish all matters advantageous to the public interest,

such as the debates of the assembly, and the opinions of the

people on these debates. But if anyone, actuated by

interested motives, shall print in the newspapers or in other

publications anything contrary to what has been mentioned, or

inspired by slander or calumny, he will render himself liable

to cross-examination, judgment and punishment, according to

law.

Article 14--The national consultative assembly shall

organize and arrange, in accordance with separate and

distinct regulations called the Internal Code of Rules, its

own affairs, such as the election of a president, vice-

presidents, secretaries, and other officers, the arrangements

of the debates and formation of committees, etc.

Duties of the Assembly, its Rights and its Limitations.

Article 15--The national consultative assembly has the

right in all matters and issues to propose any bill which it

regards as conducive to the well-being of the government and

the people, after due discussion and deliberation thereof in

all sincerity and truth; and, having due regard to the

majority of votes, to submit such bill, in complete

confidence of safety and security, after it has received the

approval of the senate, by means of the Prime Minister of the

country, so that it may receive the Royal Approval and be

duly carried out.

Article 16--All laws necessary to strengthen the

foundations of the country and throne and to set in order the

affairs of the realm and the establishment of the ministries

must be ratified by the national consultative assembly.

Article 17--The national consultative assembly shall, when

occasion arises, bring forward such bills as shall be

necessary for the creation, modification, completion or

abrogation of any law, and, subject to the ratification by

the senate, shall submit it for the royal sanction, so that

due effect may thereafter be given to it.

Article 18--The regulation of all financial matters, the

construction and regulation of the budget, all changes in

fiscal arrangements, the acceptance or rejection of all

incidental and subordinate expenditure, as also the new

inspectorships (of finance) which will be founded by the

Government, shall be subject to the approval of the national

consultative assembly.

Article 19--The national consultative assembly has the

right, after the senate has given its approval, to demand

from the ministers that effect shall be given to the bills

thus approved for the reform of the finances and the

facilitation of co-operation between the different

departments of the Government by division of the departments

and provinces of Iran and their respective offices.

Article 20--The budget of each ministry shall be concluded

during the latter half of each year for the following year,

and shall be ready fifteen days before the festivities of

Norooz. (March 21, the Iranian new year)

Article 21--Should it at any time be necessary to

introduce, modify or abrogate any bylaws regulating the

(functions of the) ministries, such change shall be made only

with the approval of the national consultative assembly,

irrespective of whether the necessity for such action has

been declared by the assembly or enunciated by the

responsible ministers.

Article 22--Any proposal to transfer or sell any portion of

the national resources, or of the control exercised by the

government or the throne, or to effect any change in the

boundaries and frontiers of the kingdom, shall be subject to

the approval of the national consultative assembly.

Article 23--Without the approval of the national

consultative assembly no concession for the formation of any

public company of any sort shall, under any plea whatsoever

be granted by the government.

Article 24--The conclusion of treaties and covenants, the

granting of commercial, industrial, agricultural and other

concessions, irrespective of whether they are granted to

Iranian or foreign nationals, shall be subject to the

approval of the national consultative assembly, with the

exception of treaties which, for reasons of state and the

public advantage, must be kept secret.

Article 25--All government and national loans, under

whatever title, whether internal or external, must be

contracted only with the cognizance and approval of the

national consultative assembly.

Article 26--The construction of railroads or chausses, at

the expense of the government, or of any company, whether

Iranian or foreign, depends on the approval of the assembly.

Article 27--Wherever the assembly observes any defect in

the laws, or any neglect in giving effect to them, it shall

notify the same to the minister responsible for that

department, who shall furnish all necessary explanations.

Article 28--Should any minister, acting under

misapprehension, issue on the royal authority, whether in

writing or verbal, orders conflicting with one of the laws

which have been enacted and have received the royal sanction,

he shall admit his negligence and lack of attention, and

shall, according to the law, be personally responsible to His

Majesty.

Article 29--Should a minister fail to give a satisfactory

account of any affair conformable to the laws which have

received the royal sanction, and should it appear in his case

that a violation of such law has been committed, or that he

has transgressed the limits imposed (on him), the assembly

shall demand his dismissal from His Majesty, and should his

treason be clearly established in a Court of Law, he shall

not again be employed in the service of the State.

Article 30--The Assembly shall, at any time when it

considers it necessary, have the right to make direct

representations to His Majesty by means of a committee

consisting of the president of the national consultative

assembly and six of its members chosen by the six ranks. This

committee must ask permission, and make an appointment for an

audience with His Majesty through the Chief of Protocol.

(Wazir-i-Darbar).

Article 31--Ministers have the right to be present at the

sessions of the national consultative assembly, to sit in the

places appointed for them, and to listen to the debates of

the assembly. If they consider it necessary, they may ask the

President of the assembly for permission to speak, and may

give such explanations as may be necessary for purposes of

discussion and investigation.

On the Presentation of Issues to the National Consultative

Assembly.

Article 32--Any individual may submit in writing to the

Petition Department of the Archives of the assembly a

statement of his own case, or of any criticisms or complains.

If the matter concerns the assembly itself, it will give him

a satisfactory answer; but if it concerns one of the

ministries, it will refer it to that ministry, which will

enquire into the matter and return a sufficient answer.

Article 33--New laws which are needed shall be drafted and

revised in the ministries which are respectively responsible,

and shall then be laid before the national consultative

assembly by the responsible ministers, or by the Prime

Minister. After being ratified by the assembly, and signed by

His Majesty, they shall be duly put into force.

Article 34--The President of the national consultative

assembly can, in case of necessity, either personally, or on

the demand often members of the assembly, hold a private

conference, consisting of a selected number of members of the

national consultative assembly, with any minister, from which

private meeting newspaper correspondents and spectators shall

be excluded, and at which other members of the assembly shall

not have the right to be present. The result of the

deliberations of such secret conference shall, however, only

be confirmed when it has been deliberated in the said

conference in presence of three quarter those selected (to

serve on it), and carried by a majority of votes. Should the

proposition (in question) not be accepted in the private

conference, it shall not be brought forward in the national

consultative assembly, but shall be passed over in silence.

Article 35--If such private conference shall have been held

at the demand of the president of the national consultative

assembly, he has the right to inform the public of so much of

the deliberations as he shall deem expedient; but if the

private conference has been held at the demand of a minister,

the disclosure of the deliberations depends on the permission

of that minister.

Article 36--Any minister can withdraw any matter which he

has proposed to the assembly at any point in the discussion,

unless his statement has been made at the instance of the

assembly, in which case statement has been made at the

instance of the assembly, in which case the withdrawal of the

matter depends on the consent of the assembly.

Article 37--If a bill introduced by any minister is not

accepted by the national consultative assembly, it shall be

returned, supplemented by the observations of the assembly;

and the responsible minister, after rejecting or accepting

the criticisms of the assembly, can propose the aforesaid

bill a second time to the assembly.

Article 38--The members of the national consultative

assembly must clearly and plainly signify their rejection

or acceptance of bills, and no one has the right to

persuade or threaten them in recording their votes. The

signification by the members of the assembly of such

rejection or acceptance

must be effected in such manner that newspaper

correspondents and spectators also may perceive it, that

is to say their intention must be signified by some

outward sign such as (the employment of) blue and white

voting-papers, or the like.

On the Introduction of Bills and Other Proposals by the

Assembly.

Article 39--Whenever any bill is proposed by one of the

members of the assembly, it can only be discussed when at

least fifteen members of the assembly shall approve the

discussion on that bill. In such case the proposal in

question shall be forwarded in writing to the President of

the assembly, who has the right to arrange that it shall be

subjected to a preliminary investigation in a Committee of

Enquiry.

Article 40--On the occasion of the discussion and

investigation of such bill as is mentioned in Article 39,

whether in the assembly or in the Committee of Enquiry,

notice shall be given by the assembly to the responsible

minister, if any, concerning that bill, that if possible he

himself, or, if not, his deputy, shall be present in the

assembly, so that the debate may take place in the presence

of one or other of them. The draft of the (proposed) bill,

with its additions, must be sent from ten days to a month

before the time (with the exception of matters added at the

last moment) to the responsible minister; and so likewise the

day of its discussion must be determined beforehand. After

the bill has been discussed in the presence of the

responsible minister, and in case it should, by a majority of

votes, receive the approval of the assembly, it shall be

officially transmitted in writing to the responsible

minister, so that he may take the necessary actions to

implement it.

Article 41--If the responsible minister cannot, for any

reason, agree with the national consultative assembly about

the said bill, he must offer his excuses to it and give it

satisfaction.

Article 42--Should the national consultative assembly

demand explanations on any matter from the responsible

minister, the minister in question must give an answer, which

answer must not be postponed unnecessarily or without

plausible reason, save in the case of secret matters, the

secrecy of which for some definite period is to the advantage

of the country and the people. In such cases, on the lapse of

the definite period the responsible minister is bound to

disclose that matter in the assembly.

On the Conditions Regulating the Formation of the Senate.

Article 43--There shall be constituted another assembly,

entitled the Senate, consisting of sixty members, the

sessions of which, after its constitution, shall be

contemporaneous to the sessions of the national consultative

assembly.

Article 44--The regulations of the Senate must be approved

by the national consultative assembly.

Article 45--The members of this assembly shall be chosen

from amongst the well-informed, discerning, pious and

respected persons of the realm. Thirty of them shall be

nominated by His Imperial Majesty (fifteen of the people of

Tehran, and fifteen of the people of the provinces), and

thirty shall be elected by the people (fifteen elected by the

people of Tehran, and fifteen elected by the people of the

provinces).

Article 46--After the convocation of the Senate, all

proposals must be approved by both assemblies. If those

proposals shall have been originated in the Senate, or by the

cabinet of ministers, they must first be amended and

corrected in the Senate and accepted by a majority of votes,

and must then be approved by the national consultative

assembly. But proposals brought forward by the national

consultative assembly must, on the contrary, go from this

assembly to the Senate, except in the case of financial

matters, which belong exclusively to the national

consultative assembly. The decision of the assembly, in

respect to the above-mentioned proposals, shall be made known

to the Senate, so that it in turn may communicate its

observations to the national consultative assembly, but the

latter, after due discussion, is free to accept or reject

these observations of the Senate.

Article 47--So long as the Senate has not been convoked,

proposals shall, after being approved by the national

consultative assembly, receive the Royal assent, shall then

have the force of law.

Article 48--If any proposal, after undergoing debate and

revision in the Senate, be referred by a minister to the

national consultative assembly, and be not accepted, such

disputed proposal shall, in case of its being of importance,

be reconsidered by a third assembly composed of members of

the Senate and members of the national consultative assembly

elected in equal moieties by members of the two assemblies.

The decision of this (third) assembly shall be read out in

the national consultative assembly. If it be then accepted,

well. If not, a full account of the matter shall be submitted

to His Majesty and should the Royal judgment support the view

of the national consultative assembly, it shall become

effective; but if not, orders will be issued for a fresh

discussion and investigation. If again no agreement of

opinion results, and the Senate, by a majority of two thirds,

approves the dissolution of the national consultative

assembly, this approval being separately affirmed by the

cabinet of ministers, then the Imperial decree will be issued

for the dissolution of the national consultative assembly,

and at the same time orders shall be given for the holding of

fresh elections, the people, however, have the right to

re-elect their former representatives.

Article 49--The new representatives of Tehran must present

themselves within the space of one month, and the

representatives of the provinces within the space of three

months. When the representatives of the Capital are present,

the Assembly shall be opened, and shall begin its labors, but

they shall not discuss disputed proposals until the

provincial representatives shall arrive. If, after the

arrival of all its members, the new assembly shall by a clear

majority confirm the first decision, His Most Sacred and

Imperial Majesty shall approve that decision of the national

consultative assembly, and shall order it to be carried into

effect.

Article 50--In each electoral period, which consists of two

years, orders for the renewal of representatives shall not be

given more than once.

Article 51--It is agreed that the kings of our successors

and posterity shall regard as a duty of their sovereign state

and an obligation incumbent upon them the maintenance of

these laws and principles, which we have established and put

into force for the strengthening of the edifice of the

country, the consolidation of the foundations of the Throne,

the superintendence of the machinery of Justice, and the

tranquility of the nation.

14 of the month of Dhu'l-Qa'da, in the year of 1324 A.H.

(=December 30, 1906).

``These constitutional laws of the national consultative

assembly and the senate, containing fifty-one articles, are

correct.

(Dhu al-Qi'dah 14, A.H. 1324''

(=December 30, 1906).

(Underneath the concluding words is the signature of the

Muzaffaru'd-Din Shah, and on the back of the page are the

seals of the then Crown Prince or Wali-'ahd (the deposed

Shah, Muhammad'Ali), and of the late Mushiru'd-Dawla.)

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, 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 section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. Res. 1015.

Section 425 of the same act states that a point of order lies against the legislation which, number one, imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of the annual amount specified in that section against State or local governments; or two, does not publish prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of the amounts specified annually for State and local entities or in excess of the amount specified annually for the private sector.

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive this point of order.

On page 1, line 2, and on page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 1015, all points of order are waived against consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. Therefore, I make a point of order that this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.

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

Republicans want to erect a fence around the right of the American people to vote. They have offered a bill

that will restrict voting rights for Americans. In effect, the Republicans are trying to dilute the fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. It fits right in with the Republican effort to suspend those rights they find inconvenient.

The president of the League of Women Voters, don't take my word, Mary Wilson summed it up this way: ``This is an attempt to politicize the voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible legal voters from participating. Congress should not be playing politics with our right to vote.'' Yet this is exactly what Republicans are doing, creating a nonexistent problem to appeal to their base. This is basically a PR opportunity just before the election.

Just yesterday, millions of Americans across the country voted, including those in my State, and today there is not a single story anywhere in this Nation about noncitizens voting illegally. In fact, last week, the circuit court in Missouri threw out the Harmful ID law, the real name of what Republicans are trying to give us. Republicans have the superrich, so they would like to disenfranchise everyone else, anybody who doesn't have a photo ID, Native Americans, the elderly, the disabled, people who don't have a birth certificate. They fear what happens when every eligible American gets to vote.

Democrats believe that the Constitution is worth protecting. We surely wish that the Republicans would start spreading democracy in all of America, not just those who have a photo ID.

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

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time has been used on both sides?

I have 8 minutes. And my opponent?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Do we have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Michigan, and he is an honorable man, but he is standing out here trying to sell snake oil to the U.S. Congress.

This speech just given by the gentleman from Florida about the Help America Vote Act is living proof of the fact that this place promises all kinds of stuff and then doesn't deliver to the local government. We could spend a long time talking about the Leave No Child Behind Act. Over and over, after all that showboating you did when you took over the Congress about we're not going to have any more of those unfunded mandates, and then you come out here again and again and again, and you stick the States and the local governments with the cost.

Now, if it doesn't make any difference to the Republicans that the State and local government are going to have a problem, it ought to worry them that 7 million people are affected. That is the estimate by the League of Women Voters about the people who will be affected by this bill. You don't worry about people who get on airplanes. All of us are rich. We've got money to fly on an airplane. There are 7 million people that don't go to the airport every week and have to show a photo ID. We get one given to us here in the Congress for free. None of us paid for that thing. And we show it.

Our driver's license. We don't pay for the photo ID. We pay for the right to use the roads of our State. The fact is that there are millions of people in this country who you are going to make a serious problem for, and the States are either going to have to say you can't vote because you don't have a photo ID, or they are going to have to pay for it. And to count on you, the Republican appropriators, when you are wasting $400 billion in Iraq, to come up with even what is really a small amount of money, $77 million or $100 million or whatever the number is, it's not very much, is really betting on the tooth fairy.

Now, I believe that the constitutional right to vote is preeminent. Everybody should have a right to it. Every year in Seattle, we bring in about 500 new immigrants on election day, or on the Fourth of July, and we send them up to register with the League of Women Voters because we tell them the most important thing in this country is to vote, that that is how you exercise your American rights.

And now you want to erect a barrier. Thank God for the courts in Missouri who threw out the Missouri law; but that is not good enough for you guys. You say, oh, no, Missouri didn't write it right. We will write it so we will get them. We will get everybody in the country.

The elections in this country have hung on a very few number of votes, and to eliminate 7 million people from the opportunity to vote because they don't have a photo ID and put it in the loving hands of State governments and county governments to make sure that they have what is necessary is to limit their right to vote.

You show me one bit of evidence that somebody has illegally voted, because you haven't shown that. I believe that in reality you are really only trying to protect your own grip on power in this House by making it harder for ordinary Americans to have a say in who leads this country.

In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated that up to 10 percent of those eligible to vote do not have official State identification like a driver's license. Now these are people without cars, including the disadvantaged. Republicans are willing to leave those people behind. I am sorry if you can't drive a car and don't have a driver's license, your State is not going to have the money to pay for it. Where are they going to get it? They will take it out of the TANF program, or the schools, or somewhere. You can count on them to do that. That is what you are saying.

Instead of finding ways to ensure that every American has a right to vote, the Republicans want to build a fence so it is harder and harder to get to the polls. Republicans would like you to believe that illegal aliens are a danger to the American political process, that they are sneaking in through the borders and then they are sneaking up to the polls and they are casting their ballots and are electing--come on, that is the fear tactic again. It is the fear tactic that you use over and over on the American people, and that is all this bill is about: the fear tactic.

We are coming up to an election. The real danger is if the Republicans could put a fence around the Constitution, letting in their friends and keeping everybody else out. And it is not about protecting the right to vote, it is about subverting the right to vote for non- Republican Americans perhaps, people who they think won't vote for them.

Why would the poor people vote for the 1 percent party, the party of the rich? We know what this is all about. People just don't want to say it straight out, but it is really going after those people least able to defend themselves in our society casting their vote.

The vision of the Republicans is if you don't vote Republican, they want to make sure you don't vote at all. They don't want you to vote. Democrats will never stop fighting to protect the rights of people to vote, to run their government, even when they choose you.

A democracy requires allowing everybody to have a chance to vote, even when I might say they made a mistake here and there. But nevertheless, they have a right to vote.

This bill is a sham. It is a PR piece and it doesn't belong in a Nation governed by all of the people.

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.

I want to thank the gentleman from California, and I appreciate your commitment to constitutional democracies. My statement here today, while I can certainly agree with the sentiment that was expressed and the spirit of this resolution with respect to hoping for constitutional democracies, I think we need to look at the letter of the resolution and put it in the context of the administration's policies.

First of all, this particular resolution expresses its profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. I would like to read from some research that is available on the Web, Recent Iranian History from Wikipedia. It says that: with the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905 to 1911. In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty.

During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The allies of World War II forced the Shah to abdicate, in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive.

In 1951, a pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, rose to prominence in Iran. Now, Mossadegh was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of an Anglo-Iranian oil company that was later named BP, which controlled all the country's oil reserves.

Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower agreed and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad.

Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing conducted from the U.S. embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence, and as a result protests broke out across the nation, anti- and pro-monarchy. Protesters violently clashed in the streets leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days pro- Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's

residence. Mossadegh surrendered and was arrested on the 19th of August 1953, tried for treason, and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Now, keep in mind that on March 8 of 1951, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian mullahs his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. According to the Cornell University library, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, most of whose stock was owned by the British Government, had been paying Iran much less than the British Government took from the company in taxes. Mossadegh's nationalization bill scared the company into concessions that were made too late. The Premier was committed to nationalization. Much to the surprise of the British, he went through with it right down to the expulsion of British technicians without whom the Iranians could not run the Abadan refinery. Results? The West lost the Iranian oil supply, and the Iranian Government lost the oil payments.

When we are talking about democracy in Iran, Iran had a democratic government which was overthrown because of oil. So let's celebrate democracy and not try to at the same time praise a process that resulted in an overthrow of democracy.

I think when we look at this particular resolution, you have to read these resolutions to the letter to get an idea of what is going on here.

Here we are expressing the profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. They had a democratic government. The U.S. helped overthrow it.

One of the last resolutions, we talked about initiating an active and consistent dialogue with other governments in the European Union in order to persuade the Government of Iran to rectify its human rights practices. We should be talking to the Government of Iran if we object to their human rights practices.

Resolution 415 says human rights will be considered a significant factor in the foreign policy of the United States with regard to Iran, but we are not stating that with the other countries that have violated the human rights of their citizens.

My concern is that while these resolutions in and of themselves may have elements that are salutary, at the same time you have to put them in the context of the administration's policy, which is a buildup to war against Iran. That is why I am raising a note of caution here. You have to see why we have three resolutions on the floor of the House dealing with Iran on the same day our President is before the United Nations making a statement which characterizes Iran in much the same way that Iraq was characterized before the United Nations in another visit by the President. I think we have to be very cautious about the path this country is taking.

We can stand for democracy and human rights in Iran. We can do all of those things without taking steps and letting our efforts, which might be in good faith, by the way, without letting those efforts be used as a buildup towards war. I am saying look at all of this in the context in which it is occurring.

Look at Time magazine this week and look at the stories that have been published in The New Yorker. Watch the development of this administration with respect to covert activities in Iran.

Madam Speaker, you might be interested to know that our House Subcommittee on Government Operations, which has jurisdiction over national security and international relations, we were supposed to have a classified briefing by the State Department and by the Department of Defense on this issue on what is going on in Iran. They refused to appear. They still refuse to appear. They are not accountable to Congress. I am raising this issue so my colleagues know that you have to look at the context in which these resolutions are being offered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the opportunity to present these observations.