{"id":6265,"date":"2007-06-27T12:00:41","date_gmt":"2007-06-27T12:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/multiracial.com\/?p=6265"},"modified":"2017-02-14T10:39:17","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T10:39:17","slug":"congressional-record-federal-election-integrity-act-of-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/2007\/06\/27\/congressional-record-federal-election-integrity-act-of-2006\/","title":{"rendered":"Congressional Record &#8211; Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><span class=\"quiet\">Congressional Record<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>House &#8211; June 27, 2007<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<pre>[Pages H6765-H6785]\r\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office \r\n[<a href=\"http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/\">www.gpo.gov<\/a>]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                 FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006\r\n\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1015, I call up \r\nthe bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of \r\n1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register \r\nto vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate \r\nState election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of \r\nthe United States to prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other \r\npurposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.\r\n  The Clerk read the title of the bill.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1015, the \r\namendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted \r\nand the bill, as amended, is considered read.\r\n  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:\r\n\r\n                               H.R. 4844\r\n\r\n       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of \r\n     the United States of America in Congress assembled,\r\n\r\n     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\r\n\r\n       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity \r\n     Act of 2006''.\r\n\r\n     SEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.\r\n\r\n       (a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as \r\n     Condition of Receiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help \r\n     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--\r\n       (1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register \r\n     by Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo \r\n     Identification''; and\r\n       (2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting \r\n     the following:\r\n       ``(1) Individuals voting in person.--\r\n       ``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--\r\n     Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as \r\n     provided in subparagraph (B), the appropriate State or local \r\n     election official may not provide a ballot for an election \r\n     for Federal office to an individual who desires to vote in \r\n     person unless the individual presents to the official--\r\n       ``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid photo \r\n     identification; or\r\n       ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general \r\n     election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each \r\n     subsequent election for Federal office, a government-issued, \r\n     current, and valid photo identification for which the \r\n     individual was required to provide proof of United States \r\n     citizenship as a condition for the issuance of the \r\n     identification.\r\n       ``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an individual \r\n     does not present the identification required under \r\n     subparagraph (A), the individual shall be permitted to cast a \r\n     provisional ballot with respect to the election under section \r\n     302(a), except that the appropriate State or local election \r\n     official may not make a determination under section 302(a)(4) \r\n     that the individual is eligible under State law to vote in \r\n     the election unless the individual presents the \r\n     identification required under subparagraph (A) to the \r\n     official not later than 48 hours after casting the \r\n     provisional ballot.\r\n       ``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--\r\n       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of \r\n     law and except as provided in subparagraph (B), the \r\n     appropriate State or local election official may not accept \r\n     any ballot for an election for Federal office provided by an \r\n     individual who votes other than in person unless the \r\n     individual submits with the ballot--\r\n       ``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current, and valid \r\n     photo identification; or\r\n       ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general \r\n     election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each \r\n     subsequent election for Federal office, a copy of a \r\n     government-issued, current, and valid photo identification \r\n     for which the individual was required to provide proof of \r\n     United States citizenship as a condition for the issuance of \r\n     the identification.\r\n       ``(B) Exception for overseas military voters.--Subparagraph \r\n     (A) does not apply with respect to a ballot provided by an \r\n     absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty \r\n     or service, is absent from the United States on the date of \r\n     the election involved. In this subparagraph, the term `absent \r\n     uniformed services voter' has the meaning given such term in \r\n     section 107(1) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens \r\n     Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)), other than an \r\n     individual described in section 107(1)(C) of such Act.\r\n       ``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For \r\n     purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--\r\n       ``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it is \r\n     issued by the Federal Government or by the government of a \r\n     State; and\r\n       ``(B) an identification is one for which an individual was \r\n     required to provide proof of United States citizenship as a \r\n     condition for issuance if the identification displays an \r\n     official marking or other indication that the individual is a \r\n     United States citizen.''.\r\n       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42 \r\n     U.S.C. 15483) is amended--\r\n       (1) in the heading, by striking ``FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER \r\n     BY MAIL'' and inserting ``FOR PROVIDING PHOTO \r\n     IDENTIFICATION''; and\r\n       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections \r\n     (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting \r\n     ``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.\r\n       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act \r\n     is amended by amending the item relating to section 303 to \r\n     read as follows:\r\n\r\n``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements \r\n              and requirements for providing photo identification.''.\r\n\r\n       (d) Effective Date.--\r\n       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by \r\n     this section shall apply with respect to the regularly \r\n     scheduled general election for Federal office held in \r\n     November 2008 and each subsequent election for Federal \r\n     office.\r\n       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act \r\n     (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:\r\n       ``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--\r\n     Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with \r\n     respect to the regularly scheduled general election for \r\n     Federal office held in November 2008 and each subsequent \r\n     election for Federal office.''.\r\n\r\n     SEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.\r\n\r\n       (a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--\r\n     Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 \r\n     U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--\r\n       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs \r\n     (5) and (6); and\r\n       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new \r\n     paragraph:\r\n       ``(4) Making photo identifications available.--\r\n       ``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each \r\n     succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a program \r\n     to provide photo identifications which may be used to meet \r\n     the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by individuals who \r\n     desire to vote in elections held in the State but who do not \r\n     otherwise possess a government-issued photo identification.\r\n       ``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent \r\n     individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee for \r\n     providing a photo identification under the program \r\n     established under subparagraph (A)--\r\n       ``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to \r\n     the State of providing the identification to the individual; \r\n     and\r\n       ``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any individual who \r\n     provides an attestation that the individual is unable to \r\n     afford the fee.\r\n       ``(C) Identifications not to be used for other purposes.--\r\n     Any photo identification provided under the program \r\n     established under subparagraph (A) may not serve as a \r\n     government-issued photo identification for purposes of any \r\n     program or function of a State or local government other than \r\n     the administration of elections.''.\r\n       (b) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title \r\n     II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding \r\n     at the end the following new part:\r\n\r\n``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO \r\n                          INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS\r\n\r\n     ``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING \r\n                   PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT \r\n                   INDIVIDUALS.\r\n\r\n       ``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make \r\n     payments to States to cover the costs incurred in providing \r\n     photo identifications under the program established under \r\n     section 303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the \r\n     fee that would otherwise be charged under the program.\r\n       ``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to \r\n     a State under this part for any year shall be equal to the \r\n     amount of fees which would have been collected by the State \r\n     during the year under the program established under section \r\n     303(b)(4) but for the application of section \r\n     303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information \r\n     furnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in \r\n     such form as the Commission may require.\r\n\r\n     ``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.\r\n\r\n       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments \r\n     under this part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year \r\n     2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.\r\n       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act \r\n     is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to \r\n     subtitle D of title II the following:\r\n\r\n``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to \r\n                          Indigent Individuals\r\n\r\n``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo \r\n              identifications for voting to indigent individuals.\r\n``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.\r\n\r\n       (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made \r\n     by this section shall take effect October 1, 2007.\r\n\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and \r\nthe gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) each will \r\ncontrol 30 minutes.\r\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4484, the Federal Election \r\nIntegrity Act of 2006, and ask all my colleagues to support this \r\nimportant bill.\r\n  This bill will require presentation of a government-issued photo ID \r\nto vote\r\n\r\n[[Page H6766]]\r\n\r\nin Federal elections, effective November 2008. Though most of the \r\nvoting public already has an ID that can meet this requirement, there \r\nis a percentage of eligible voters who do not have an ID, so these \r\nextra 2 years will give them time to acquire it.\r\n  To ensure that only citizens are voting, the amendment will require \r\npresentation by 2010 of an ID that could not have been obtained without \r\nproviding proof of citizenship. Once obtained, this ID can be used to \r\nprove both citizenship and identity when voting.\r\n  This Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act which will \r\nrequire people to prove their legal status in the country to get a REAL \r\nID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008. Citizens will be able \r\nto use the IDs they obtain under this process to vote in elections \r\nstarting in 2010 and for all elections thereafter. H.R. 4844 will \r\nrequire the ID to include some indicia of citizenship, so poll workers \r\nand other election officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a \r\ncitizen.\r\n  Those who arrive at the polls without an ID will be permitted to cast \r\na provisional ballot. These ballots will be counted if the person \r\nreturns and presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48 \r\nhours. To help those who need but cannot afford the ID to vote, the \r\namendment requires States to provide them free of cost to the indigent \r\nand authorizes funds to reimburse States for the cost of doing so.\r\n  To most people this proposal is a simple, commonsense proposal and a \r\nnecessary safeguard against vote fraud. To others it represents a \r\ndangerous threat to some citizens' ability to access the polls. While \r\nthis debate may be heated in Washington, D.C., it seems the American \r\npeople have made up their mind. A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll \r\nshowed that 81 percent of those surveyed favored an ID requirement for \r\nvoting. A Rasmussen poll during that same time period showed a similar \r\nresult. Seventy-seven percent surveyed favored an ID requirement for \r\nvoting.\r\n  Likewise, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election \r\nReform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the report they \r\nissued last year. While the division on this issue may be partisan here \r\nin Congress, it certainly was not on this bipartisan commission. It \r\nseems a large bipartisan majority there concluded by an 18-3 vote that \r\nrequiring ID is a necessary reform.\r\n  Once implemented, H.R. 4844 will put an important safeguard in place \r\nthat will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore \r\nconfidence in it. By putting in place procedures that ensure voting is \r\nlimited to eligible citizens, we can encourage participation and \r\nincrease turnout.\r\n  The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all the claims \r\nthat disenfranchisement would ensue after the enactment of the proof of \r\ncitizenship and ID requirements in Proposition 200, testimony in \r\nPhoenix revealed that registration went up 15 percent after the \r\nrequirement to prove citizenship went into effect. The fact is, people \r\nare encouraged to vote when they believe their vote will count and know \r\nthat their vote will not be canceled out by an illegal vote.\r\n  I know there will be some who oppose the action we will take today, \r\nand there will be some controversy generated by the proposal. I wish it \r\nwere not so. It seems we should all be able to agree that voting should \r\nbe limited to citizens of the United States, because that has been the \r\nlaw for years. If we can agree on that, we should be able to agree that \r\nour voting systems must have procedures in place to ensure that.\r\n  We should all be able to agree that every eligible citizen should be \r\nable to vote, should be encouraged to vote, to vote only once, and to \r\nbe assured that their vote will not be diluted by an illegal vote. If \r\nwe agree on that, we should be able to agree that making people \r\nidentify themselves when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard.\r\n  It was not always so. I grew up in a small town, Edgerton, Minnesota, \r\nwith 800 people. They did not need photo IDs. They knew everyone in \r\ntown. If a stranger had showed up to vote, he would have been ushered \r\nout of the hall. But today we live in urban cities, by and large. We do \r\nnot know each other well, and we need some means of foolproof \r\nidentification.\r\n  I am sure that we will hear from the other side of the aisle today \r\nthat an ID requirement is not necessary and is too much trouble. But \r\nevery day millions of Americans show a photo ID to pay by check, board \r\na plane or buy alcohol or tobacco. Surely the sanctity of the ballot \r\nwarrants as much protection as these other activities.\r\n  In too many States, lax identification requirements mean people can \r\ncast votes without ever having to prove their eligibility. Our voting \r\nrights are too important to rely on an honor system. We need to make \r\nsure we have procedures in place that protect the right to vote and \r\nmake sure only eligible citizens are able to do so.\r\n  I hope all Members will recognize the need for these necessary \r\nreforms. They will advance the security of our electoral systems, \r\nincrease confidence in their integrity and reduce the opportunities for \r\nfraud. I ask all Members to support this important bill.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I \r\nmay consume.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I never thought as a girl growing up in Birmingham, \r\nAlabama, that I would meet, again, a present-day poll tax. My goodness. \r\nMy father would be really amazed.\r\n  Therefore, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the so-\r\ncalled Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which requires all \r\nStates to demand that voters provide government-issued identification \r\nin order to vote in the 2008 election and proof of citizenship in order \r\nto vote in the 2010 election.\r\n  The Republican Party has acted without expressing any concern for the \r\nmillions of American citizens who currently do not have the necessary \r\ndocumentation and consequently will be denied their right to vote. \r\nFurther, the majority has not been moved by the realization that the \r\nburden of this legislation falls disproportionately on the elderly, the \r\ndisabled, and ethnic minorities. Unfortunately, the Republicans made no \r\neffort to determine how many would be affected and be disenfranchised \r\nby this legislation.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, with H.R. 4844, this Republican legislation devises a \r\nmodern-day poll tax in the form of a proof of citizenship requirement \r\nthat will keep some eligible voters from voting and make it harder for \r\nall American citizens to vote. No citizen should have to pay in order \r\nto exercise his or her constitutional right to vote.\r\n  I have heard today on this Floor that President Carter's and \r\nSecretary of State Baker's reference to IDs fit within the intent of \r\nthis bill. Allow me to clarify this assertion. Their ID proposal does \r\nnot have requirements for citizenship, and they wish that everyone, not \r\njust those who can not afford IDs, possess them free of charge. They \r\nhave not endorsed this piece of legislation.\r\n  Proof of citizenship requirements place on the voter the difficult, \r\ntime-consuming and costly burden of obtaining the necessary \r\ndocumentation to prove citizenship or identity in order to cast a vote. \r\nFor example, our State Department reports that only 23 percent of all \r\nAmericans possess a passport, and the cost of obtaining one exceeds \r\n$100. A majority of Americans do not currently possess the \r\nidentification required by H.R. 4844, and requiring them to obtain one \r\nimposes an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote.\r\n  Additionally, some Americans may be unable to acquire the necessary \r\ndocuments at any cost because they lack a birth certificate. We \r\nrecognize that there are many minorities, especially African Americans, \r\nwho were delivered by midwives, who did not have and do not have a \r\nbirth certificate. There are some rural Americans who do not have birth \r\ncertificates. We recognize that the State of Georgia indicates that 40 \r\npercent of their seniors would be denied their right to vote if this \r\npiece of legislation passes.\r\n  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, strikes \r\nthe appropriate balance between voter-ballot access and system-ballot \r\nintegrity, and it was accomplished with bipartisan effort. The \r\nCommittee on House Administration worked tirelessly to enact HAVA as a \r\nsolution to the problems associated with the November 2000 general \r\nelection. As a result of HAVA, $3.1 billion was appropriated to\r\n\r\n[[Page H6767]]\r\n\r\nthe States to improve the voting process. My alternative calls for the \r\n$800 million in shortfall funding to ensure full funding of HAVA.\r\n  The question of citizenship was directly addressed head on in HAVA \r\nwhereby Congress mandated that the mail-in registration form includes a \r\nbox that asks the question, ``Are you a citizen of the United States of \r\nAmerica?'' If you answer no, your form is rejected automatically. If \r\nyou answer yes, and you are discovered not to be a citizen, you are \r\nsubject to Federal prosecution.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, we have laws on the books that if someone votes \r\nillegally, he or she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the \r\nlaw. The penalties are stiff and have successfully served as a \r\ndeterrent to misrepresentation.\r\n  The voter ID question was asked and answered by HAVA. HAVA provided a \r\nbroad range of ID options for the narrow circumstances of first-time \r\nvoters who register by mail or appear in person at the polls to cast \r\ntheir vote. A photo ID is only one option. All the other options \r\ninclude employment ID, student ID, a current utility bill, bank \r\nstatement, paychecks, or a government document showing the name and \r\naddress of the voter.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1400\r\n\r\n  Neither voters nor States are required to comply with a one-size-fit-\r\nall Federal mandate. The unavoidable consequence of enacting H.R. 4844 \r\nwill be the decrease in the number of American citizens who are able to \r\nvote. H.R. 4844 will do far more to suppress turnout and intimidate \r\nvoters than to prevent voter fraud, the purported objective of the \r\nmajority.\r\n  Now, we say to all of us here in Congress, if we know of fraud and of \r\npersons voting illegally, we should tell our district attorneys. We \r\nshould not tarry on this type of thing, and I suggest to the majority, \r\nif they know of any fraud, please call their district attorneys. We do \r\nnot need this type of bill to accomplish this task.\r\n  We should be, as Members of Congress, representing the people and \r\nthis people's House to do just that. For all the concern that the \r\nmajority expresses about protecting the right to vote, this bill does \r\nnothing to stop voter suppression or correct the numerous \r\nadministrative problems that are plaguing our elections and robbing our \r\ncitizens of their right to vote.\r\n  I also previously heard that Andrew Young is in support of this bill. \r\nIn fact, we understand that Andrew Young is not in support of this bill \r\nand that his remarks have been taken out of context. He is opposed to \r\nthis bill.\r\n  H.R. 4844, as amended, will do nothing to stop the intentional forms \r\nof voter suppression such as the instances in 2004 when unsuspecting \r\nvoters were misinformed about the time or place of the election or \r\nabout the qualifications for voting. This bill will not remedy the long \r\nlines, misallocation of voting equipment, voting registration rules, or \r\nother election procedures that deny citizens their very critical \r\nopportunity to vote.\r\n  These are the real issues that this Congress should be addressing. To \r\nthat end, I have offered a substitute piece of legislation that \r\naddresses some of the problems of voter suppression and voter fraud \r\nthat are not addressed in H.R. 4844. Our Congress should be improving \r\nvoter access to the polls, preventing election fraud, paying for and \r\nsupporting election integrity, but it was not made in order. In fact, \r\nthis is a closed rule, which is what happens when the majority does not \r\nwant us to bring real legislation to the floor.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, because of the critical adverse impact of this bill and \r\nthe affect it will have on our citizens' constitutional right to vote, \r\nI urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4844. Instead of \r\nmaking it difficult to vote, our job should be, in the people's House, \r\nto promote civic participation more broadly.\r\n  There are 40 percent of registered voters who are not voting in our \r\nelections. This issue is what we should be addressing. Instead of \r\nerecting new barriers to voting participation, we should be devoting \r\nour resources to prosecuting the illegal intimidation tactics and \r\nsolving the election irregularities which continue to surface with each \r\nelection cycle.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the \r\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) one of the most honorable persons in \r\nthe Chamber, one who has served well for so many years, the sponsor of \r\nthis bill, who has worked tirelessly for this Congress and for the \r\npeople of the United States, including on this bill.\r\n  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate your warm, \r\ngracious words.\r\n  There is a story that goes around in my hometown, Chicago. It says, \r\nBury me when I die in Chicago because I want to stay active in politics \r\nafter I am gone. This is not the problem we face here, but I thought I \r\nwould mention that anyway.\r\n  I rise in support of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of \r\n2006, because the election system is the bedrock that our Republic is \r\nbuilt on and its security and oversight is of paramount concern. The \r\nConstitution places the responsibility within this House to certify \r\nFederal elections, and we ``may at any time by law make or alter such \r\nregulations.''\r\n  It is the law that only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in \r\nFederal elections, but our current system does not give State election \r\nofficials the tools they need to ensure that this requirement is being \r\nmet, which is why I have introduced this bill.\r\n  This bill will help election officials ensure accuracy at the polls \r\non election day. It amends Public Law 103-31, popularly known as the \r\n``motor-voter bill,'' to require voters to show a current official \r\nphoto ID obtained with proof of their U.S. citizenship before voting. \r\nThis bill's requirements will extend nationwide for all Federal \r\nelections.\r\n  H.R. 4844's provisions take effect gradually, allowing voters time to \r\nadjust. In 2008, voters will have to show a current official photo ID, \r\nand in 2010, they will have to display a photo ID that was obtained by \r\nproviding proof of their U.S. citizenship. A voter who forgets his ID \r\non election day will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and will \r\nhave 48 hours to present an ID to an election official to validate the \r\nballot. Furthermore, and this is so important, voters who cannot afford \r\nan ID will be issued a free ID at no cost. That is some kind of poll \r\ntax when somebody else pays for it. That is my kind of tax. Funds will \r\nbe appropriated, they are contemplated by this legislation, to assist \r\nStates in implementing the providing of a free ID.\r\n  Opponents argue requiring a photo ID backed by proof of citizenship \r\nerects obstacles to citizen participation. That is certainly not true. \r\nThis bill is designed to increase participation by ensuring that each \r\nlegitimate vote will be counted and not be diluted by fraud.\r\n  There are many elections in this country every cycle that are decided \r\nby just a handful of votes. How can we be certain that these elections, \r\nwithout measures to certify the identity of voters, are not being \r\ndecided by fraudulent votes?\r\n  Opponents often claim that requiring a photo ID is a solution in \r\nsearch of a problem. This argument is erroneous because election \r\nofficials cannot determine if a problem exists because they do not have \r\nthe tools to verify voters' identities on election day, nor when they \r\nregister.\r\n  Our laws operate largely on trust, trust that voters are truthful in \r\nchecking a box certifying that they are U.S. citizens. No documentation \r\nis required. Under the current law, all you need to establish your \r\nidentity when registering to vote by mail is a utility bill or bank \r\nstatement, documents easily forged and which do not give any indication \r\nof citizenship.\r\n  Our election system is too important to be safeguarded by mere \r\nhonesty alone. We must have verification.\r\n  Opponents claim that there are strict punishments already in place to \r\ndeter voter fraud. I agree there are sanctions in place, but they are \r\ntoothless measures when election officials do not have the tools they \r\nneed to concretely establish a voter's identity on election day.\r\n  Broad popular support exists for this bill. Photo IDs were called for \r\nin the 2005 report issued by the bipartisan Commission on Federal \r\nElection Reform.\r\n  Many States have recognized voter fraud is a problem and passed photo \r\nID laws as protective measures. Arizona\r\n\r\n[[Page H6768]]\r\n\r\nvoters recently passed a law requiring valid photo IDs for elections, \r\nand 22 States have implemented laws that require all voters to show \r\nidentification when casting a ballot.\r\n  Let me summarize by saying our voting rights were won by Americans \r\nwho were willing to lay down their lives for the freedom to elect our \r\nrepresentatives, and it is our duty to safeguard that freedom. If we do \r\nnot, our elections become meaningless.\r\n  This bill upholds the integrity of this election system for \r\neverybody.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the \r\ngentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished and \r\noutstanding member of the Committee on House Administration.\r\n  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there is something we can \r\nall agree on in this Chamber and that is that only Americans get to \r\nvote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in \r\nthis bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a \r\nfelony for a non-American to vote.\r\n  Now, when this bill was introduced, the committee made it part of \r\nImmigration August. We had hearings around the country, and what we \r\nfound out was that the issue of so-called illegal aliens voting \r\nbasically does not occur.\r\n  As the League of Women Voters has said, the voter fraud addressed by \r\nthis bill is a rare problem, and the witness in New Mexico said she had \r\nnever seen it in her entire professional career. And if you think about \r\nit, it makes sense. Illegal aliens are sneaking across the border for a \r\njob, not to vote.\r\n  We also got testimony that the impact of this will disproportionately \r\naffect poor people and African Americans. In fact, in a Milwaukee \r\nstudy, they found that 78 percent of the African American men aged 18 \r\nto 24 had no driver's license. Why? Because they are too poor to have a \r\ncar and they do not have a license.\r\n  In New Mexico, we heard from Mr. Yahzee, a Navajo, who told us that \r\nthe Navajos basically do not have this ID and they cannot get it either \r\nbecause they do not have birth certificates, they do not have \r\nelectricity, they do not have phones. They do not have the document, \r\nbut they are the original Americans. They were the code talkers. They \r\nare entitled to vote, but under this bill they would not be able to \r\nvote. I do not know about this poll, but I think if you ask 81 percent \r\nof Americans whether the Navajo should not be allowed to vote, they \r\nwould say, well, of course not.\r\n  Now, recently there was a measure put into place to have Medicaid \r\nrecipients have a photo ID, and we had to repeal that rule. And you \r\nknow why? Because we would have had to see old people evicted from \r\nnursing homes because they could not come up with that photo ID. Well, \r\nI tell you, if you cannot come up with a photo ID to save your life, \r\nyou are not going to be able to come up with a photo ID to vote either. \r\nThat must be why the AARP is against this measure.\r\n  So why is this before us today? We have no evidence there is a \r\nproblem. We have ample evidence in the testimony that this will \r\ndisenfranchise many Americans.\r\n  I must say that the Republican Party is doing this throughout the \r\nUnited States. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans, \r\nNative Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the \r\ndistinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).\r\n  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for the \r\ntime. I appreciate that.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, we deal with an issue today that could likely determine \r\nthe long-term fate of our Republic. As Mr. Hyde just pointed out, \r\nvoting is the bedrock of our Republic, and today we deal with voter \r\nfraud.\r\n  The U.S. Constitution and the constituents of several States clearly \r\ndefine the legal requirements to vote. A voter must be of minimum age. \r\nThey must be a citizen of the United States, and each voter must vote \r\nonly once. I do not think anybody in this body would disagree with \r\nthat.\r\n  What we discuss today or debate is over how do we enforce the voter \r\nlaws we have on the books.\r\n  A tamper-proof photo ID is the only practical way to prevent the mass \r\ninput of fraudulent voters into our system. Some say, oh, we do not \r\nhave any. How the heck do we know we do not have any? We do not check \r\nanybody to see if they are fraudulent or not.\r\n  That was the recommendation of the nonpartisan Federal Election \r\nReform Commission, headed by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter \r\nand former Republican Secretary of State James Baker.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1415\r\n\r\n  It is also the opinion, by the way, if anybody is interested, of 80 \r\nto 90 percent of the American public. It happens in every poll that is \r\ntaken on this issue. My State of Georgia, in fact, has already passed \r\nsuch a requirement. They have even gone back and amended the law to \r\ninclude free State-issued photo IDs for anyone who needs one.\r\n  But that is not good enough for some. Yesterday, the State Superior \r\nCourt Judge T. Jackson Bedford, Jr., legislated on the court and ruled \r\nthat requiring a photo ID, in his opinion, is unconstitutional because \r\nit imposes a duty on the voter not specifically required in our State \r\nconstitution. I feel very certain our Supreme Court will satisfy this \r\nproblem within the next couple of weeks. He did not address, however, \r\nLegislator Judge Jackson Bedford, Jr., the fact that, without the photo \r\nID, the legal votes of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens could \r\nnegate the legal ballots of hundreds of thousands of our citizens \r\naround the country. He did not address the fact that, without a photo \r\nID, tens of thousands of partisans could fraudulently vote in another \r\nperson's name and cast multiple ballots, negating the legal ballots of \r\nour citizens. He did not address the fact that legal voters of Georgia \r\nhave spoken loud and clear over and over through their lawfully elected \r\nrepresentatives that this measure is needed, and it is desired.\r\n  He did not, meaning the legislative judge, address that the \r\nConstitution of the United States guarantees to each State a republican \r\nform of government, and this ruling directly conflicts with the perfect \r\nright of the citizens of Georgia. Our Governor and State legislature \r\nmust fight this tyrant in Georgia.\r\n  But we can speak loud and clear against those who show their contempt \r\nagainst the right of the American voters across our Nation. We can stop \r\nelection fraud today by voting for this magnificent restoration of our \r\nconstitutional rights by my friend and my colleague Chairman Hyde.\r\n  Defend the Republic. Support this bill.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely \r\nright. If we need to go after fraud, we need to get some quantitative \r\ninformation before we bring this bill to the floor.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to our distinguished \r\nminority leader.\r\n  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\r\n  ``This cannot be.'' With those words, State Judge Jackson Bedford \r\nyesterday struck down the infamous Georgia photo ID law. Let me repeat. \r\n``This cannot be.'' Let these words guide us here, because right here \r\nin this House of Representatives we take an oath of office to uphold \r\nthe Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees all \r\nAmerican citizens the right to vote and the right for their vote to be \r\ncounted.\r\n  I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the \r\nranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, for her \r\nleadership on this issue. She has been an important force in protecting \r\nthe integrity of elections. And that is why it is so sad to see this \r\nbill come here to the floor today, especially named the Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act.\r\n  Integrity? It is not about integrity. It is about a tawdry attempt by \r\nRepublicans to suppress the votes of millions of Americans. That is not \r\nintegrity.\r\n  America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must continue to \r\nsend a message to the world that we honor the oath of office that we \r\ntake to protect and defend the Constitution. Every eligible citizen \r\nmust be able to vote, to exercise his or her right to vote, and those \r\nvotes must be counted.\r\n  Only a short month ago, many of us stood here, stood proudly on the \r\nWhite\r\n\r\n[[Page H6769]]\r\n\r\nHouse lawn as the Voting Rights Act reauthorization was signed into \r\nlaw. We overcame many obstacles even for the reauthorization of that \r\nlegislation to affirm the most precious right of our democracy, the \r\nright to vote.\r\n  Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and we are \r\nundermining the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, in doing \r\nso, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the \r\nfoundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today is indeed a \r\ndisenfranchisement of millions of American voters, the elderly, African \r\nAmericans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and, get this, Native \r\nAmericans. Native Americans, people here longer than any of our \r\nfamilies, unless we can proudly boast of being Native American. People \r\nwith disabilities. The list goes on.\r\n  As the NAACP has said, this bill would disenfranchise many of the \r\nvery citizens that the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect. And \r\nthe Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so.\r\n  A few weeks ago President Bush spoke before the NAACP in the first \r\ntime in his Presidency. He quoted President Lyndon Johnson in saying \r\nthat voting rights are the lifeblood of a democracy. And yet, here \r\ntoday, after making that great statement, quoting that great civil \r\nrights and voting rights President, President Bush is here today in a \r\ntransparent, it is obvious to all, attempt to suppress the votes of \r\nmillions of American citizens, cutting off the lifeblood of democracy. \r\nIs that integrity? I don't think so.\r\n  Supporters of this Republican voter suppression bill would claim that \r\nthis bill is about preventing noncitizens from voting. It is just the \r\nopposite; it is a bill designed to prevent citizens from voting. \r\nNoncitizens are strictly prohibited under law from voting and face \r\ntough penalties for breaking these laws. And that is right. No one \r\ncondones fraud. There is little evidence anywhere in the country of a \r\nsignificant problem with noncitizen voters. As our distinguished \r\nranking member pointed out, if you want to make a case, document it, \r\njust don't claim it and then come through with a clear and transparent \r\nattempt to cut off the votes of those who do not share your political \r\npoint of view. You didn't take an oath of office to do that.\r\n  This bill is not about noncitizens as its supporters claim. Rather, \r\nit affects all American citizens by making them prove that they are, in \r\nfact, citizens even if they have voted for years. By forcing voters to \r\nundergo time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive attempts to secure \r\ndocuments, this Republican voter suppression bill is a modern-day poll \r\ntax. It would especially impact our elderly citizens and low-income \r\ncitizens, and disproportionately affect minority individuals and \r\nindividuals with disabilities, many of whom do not drive and cannot \r\nafford passports. This bill suspiciously appears to target and \r\ndisenfranchise American voters who might not be sympathetic to \r\nRepublican policy goals. Again, a modern-day poll tax. And the \r\nRepublicans call this modern-day poll tax integrity. I don't think so.\r\n  We have a responsibility to remove all obstacles to participation to \r\nthe right of all American citizens to participate in the electoral \r\nprocess. And yet, the AARP has said that the obstacles this bill throws \r\nup to voting, that they are particularly concerned about that such \r\nrules will prevent many eligible older voters from exercising their \r\nright to vote. That is why they join the NAACP, the League of Women \r\nVoters, and this long list of over 110 organizations, civil liberties, \r\ncivil rights groups opposing this legislation.\r\n  It even goes into health, United Church of Christ, the United \r\nMethodist Church, United States Steelworkers, United States Student \r\nAssociation. How about this. The list goes on. But it even talks about \r\nsome of the groups that deal with the disabilities community in our \r\ncountry. The Navajo Nation. I will put it in the Record for all to see. \r\nThe League of Women Voters, the NAACP, AARP. The list goes on.\r\n\r\n          Groups Opposed to Voter ID Bill--September 20, 2006\r\n\r\n       African American Ministers in Action\r\n       ACORN\r\n       Advancement Project\r\n       Aguila Youth Leadership Institute\r\n       Alliance for Retired Americans\r\n       American Association of People with Disabilities\r\n       American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)\r\n       American Association of University Women\r\n       American Civil Liberties Union\r\n       American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona\r\n       American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial \r\n     Organizations (AFL-CIO)\r\n       American Federation of State, County and Municipal \r\n     Employees\r\n       American Immigration Lawyers Association\r\n       American Jewish Committee\r\n       American Policy Center\r\n       Americans for Democratic Action\r\n       Anti-Defamation League\r\n       Arizona Advocacy Network\r\n       Arizona Consumers Council\r\n       Arizona Hispanic Community Forum\r\n       Arizona Students' Association\r\n       Asian American Justice Center\r\n       Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund\r\n       Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote)\r\n       Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO\r\n       Brennan Center for Justice\r\n       Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law\r\n       Center for Digital Democracy\r\n       Common Cause\r\n       Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility\r\n       Concerned Foreign Service Officers\r\n       Congressional Hispanic Caucus\r\n       Consumer Action\r\n       Cyber Privacy Project\r\n       Democratic Women's Working Group\r\n       Demos\r\n       Demos: A Network for Ideas &amp; Action\r\n       Electronic Frontier Foundation\r\n       Electronic Privacy Information Center\r\n       Emigrantes Sin Fronteras\r\n       Fairfax County Privacy Council\r\n       FairVote\r\n       Friends Committee on National Legislation\r\n       Hispanic Federation\r\n       Hispanic National Bar Association\r\n       Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona\r\n       Intertribal Council of Arizona\r\n       Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)\r\n       Jewish Council for Public Affairs\r\n       La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE)\r\n       Labor Council for Latin American Advancement\r\n       Laborers International\r\n       Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law\r\n       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights\r\n       League of United Latin American Citizens\r\n       League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson\r\n       League of Women Voters of the United States\r\n       League of Young Voters Education Fund\r\n       Legal Momentum\r\n       Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund\r\n       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People \r\n     (NAACP)\r\n       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed \r\n     Officials Educational Fund\r\n       National Center for Transgender Equality\r\n       National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)\r\n       National Congress of American Indians\r\n       National Council of Jewish Women\r\n       National Council of La Raza\r\n       National Disability Rights Network\r\n       National Education Association\r\n       National Immigration Forum\r\n       National Korean American Service &amp; Education Consortium\r\n       National Urban League\r\n       National Voting Rights Institute\r\n       Navajo Nation\r\n       New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.\/NYPIRG\r\n       Ohio Taxpayers Association &amp; OTA Foundation\r\n       Philip Randolph Institute\r\n       People for the American Way Foundation\r\n       Project for Arizona's Future\r\n       Project Vote\r\n       Protection and Advocacy System\r\n       Rainbow PUSH Coalition\r\n       Republican Liberty Caucus\r\n       Rock the Vote\r\n       SEIU Local 5 Arizona\r\n       Service Employees International Union (SEIU)\r\n       Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)\r\n       Somos America\/We Are America\r\n       Southwest Voter Registration Education Project\r\n       The Arc of the United States\r\n       The Multiracial Activist\r\n       The Rutherford Institute\r\n       Tohono O'odham Nation\r\n       Transgender Law Center\r\n       U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce\r\n       U.S. PIRG\r\n       Union for Reform Judaism\r\n       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations\r\n       United Auto Workers\r\n       United Cerebral Palsy\r\n       United Church of Christ Justice &amp; Witness Ministries\r\n       United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and \r\n     Society\r\n       United States Student Association\r\n       United Steelworkers\r\n       United Workers of America\r\n       UNITE-HERE\r\n       Velvet Revolution\r\n       William C. Velasquez Institute\r\n\r\n[[Page H6770]]\r\n\r\n       YWCA USA\r\n\r\n  Mr. Speaker, the general public should understand what this bill \r\nmeans to them. This doesn't mean that you don't have to prove your \r\nidentity at the polls. Many States permit forms of identification such \r\nas Social Security cards and utility bills when voting. What this bill \r\ndoes do, though, is starting in 2008, voters would have to present a \r\ngovernment-issued photo ID that many do not have. Or, if you are voting \r\nby mail, you have to send in your picture. I mean, what is this? Submit \r\nit before getting a ballot. And, starting in 2010, that ID would also \r\nhave to show proof of U.S. citizenship. This cannot be.\r\n  But just if you are a person out there listening to this debate, and \r\nyou think, my Social Security card is not enough? The fact that I have \r\nvoted in this community over time is not enough? Where is the basis of \r\nour democracy, which is truth and trust? It is completely lacking in \r\nthis bill. And they call it integrity.\r\n  As we know from experience, Republican promises to authorize funds \r\nfor identification are meaningless. They say, oh, we are going to \r\nauthorize. We are supposed to have had $800 million allocated to remove \r\nobstacles of participation and to facilitate voting, but because that \r\nwould expand the universe of people who have access to the right to \r\nvote, the Republicans have rejected it for fear of the result of that \r\nturnout. Republicans have a history of underfunding electoral reform. \r\nAgain, they have underfunded the Help America Vote Act by $800 million. \r\nHow they can explain that, I don't know. I know one thing, it is not \r\nabout integrity.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, problems with voting that were apparent in the elections \r\nof 2000 and 2004 are well-known to the American people, and they are of \r\ngreat concern to the American people. Those elections have \r\nuncomfortable echoes to a past that had been long left behind. In the \r\n2004 elections, voters in predominantly minority districts reported \r\nhigher rates of inactive voter registrations, a greater percentage of \r\ninadequately staffed and equipped polling places, inconsistent \r\ntreatment of provisional ballots, many of which were never counted, and \r\nsometimes even a lack of an adequate number of ballots.\r\n  Even with the best intentions, it is challenging, as we saw in the \r\nState of Maryland last week. But if the design is to thwart voter \r\nparticipation, how much of a disadvantage is the average voter?\r\n  Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, in one of our Nation's finest hours, our \r\ncountry came together as a Nation to overcome bigotry and injustice and \r\nto secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage of the Voting \r\nRights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate the many nefarious \r\nmethods, poll taxes, literacy tax, grandfather clauses, and, as our \r\ncolleague John Lewis can attest, brutal violence that had been used to \r\ndeny African Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote. \r\nToday this legislation seeks to turn back the clock. And they call it \r\nintegrity.\r\n  Those of us who take an oath of office, I go back to that oath over \r\nand over again, promise to uphold the Constitution. We are committing \r\nourselves to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to \r\nvote, and that every vote will be counted. Any diminishment, any \r\ndiminishment of America's citizens voting is a diminishment of our \r\ndemocracy. This cannot be.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1430\r\n\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the \r\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the future Governor of Wisconsin.\r\n  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4844, \r\nthe Federal Election Integrity Act.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, our democracy can withstand many things and that is what \r\nour history shows. But one thing it cannot withstand is doubt over the \r\noutcome of elections. We have to know whoever wins, your guy, my guy, \r\nconservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat, he or she really won. \r\nWon, in fact. It is the only way our leaders have the moral authority \r\nthey need to take on the great challenges of our times.\r\n  As others have noted, we have had far too many elections in recent \r\nyears where serious questions have emerged over irregularities and even \r\nfraud. During the last Federal election in 2004 in my home State, \r\nWisconsin, Wisconsin found itself mired with out-of-date voter lists, \r\nfake names, invalid addresses, double and triple voting, and ballots \r\ncast by convicted felons. Our State's largest newspaper found almost \r\n300 cases of felons voting illegally, at least 100 cases of double \r\nvoting, and 1,200 votes from invalid addresses. And the list goes on \r\nand on and on.\r\n  Every one of those illegal votes cancels out a vote legally cast, \r\ncancels out a vote from a citizen for whom that right is so precious \r\nand so fundamental to our Nation's future.\r\n  A photo ID will not solve all of these problem, not by a long shot. \r\nBut it is definitely a step in the right direction, a step that I \r\nbelieve most Americans support, a step that I know most Wisconsinites \r\nsupport. That is why last year I introduced comprehensive election \r\nreform legislation that would have required a valid photo ID to vote in \r\nany Federal election.\r\n  It is also why I am proud to support this legislation from Chairman \r\nHyde. It is legislation whose time has come. It is a way of ensuring \r\nintegrity in elections.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great \r\ncivil rights leader and icon from the great State of Georgia (Mr. \r\nLewis).\r\n  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my \r\ncolleague, the gentlewoman from California for yielding and for all of \r\nher great work.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, just 3 months ago this body passed the reauthorization \r\nof the Voting Rights Act of 1965, admitting the sad fact that voter \r\ndiscrimination is still a reality in this great Nation. This Congress \r\ndecided we could do better, that history required us to protect the \r\nright of all Americans to vote.\r\n  Today this bill moves us in a different direction, the wrong \r\ndirection. This bill, like the unconstitutional Georgia photo ID bill \r\nand so many other photo ID schemes throughout the country, is an attack \r\non the voting rights of millions of American citizens.\r\n  I am beyond disgusted. I am shocked. I find it hard to believe that \r\nthe Republican leaders in Congress will put election year games ahead \r\nof the voting rights of American citizens. We fought too long, fought \r\ntoo hard, and suffered too long for the right to vote. People died to \r\nparticipate in the democratic process. We must not turn back the clock. \r\nWe must not go back. We must go forward and open up the political \r\nprocess and let all American citizens come in.\r\n  Call it what you may, this bill is a modern-day poll tax; $10 or $15 \r\nfor a birth certificate, $100 for a passport, this is a poll tax. There \r\nis no other way to say it. It costs money to get a birth certificate. \r\nIt costs money to get a passport. Why put an extra burden on American \r\ncitizens to exercise their most precious right, their right to vote? \r\nThere is no reason.\r\n  Citizens will be denied the right to vote. This is no less than voter \r\nsuppression. We should open up the process to each and every American \r\ncitizen. Instead, this bill returns us to our dark past. Vote ``no'' on \r\nthis photo ID bill.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe for a moment \r\nthere will be no expense to any voter. It will be paid by the Federal \r\nGovernment if the voter has to pay money to get a birth certificate or \r\na photo ID.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the \r\nHouse Administration Committee, Mr. John Mica of Florida.\r\n  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ehlers for yielding me this \r\ntime, and I thank him for bringing out a bill that is both a reasonable \r\nbill, a bill that looks out for the interests of the poor and those \r\nthat could be deprived of the right to vote.\r\n  I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. \r\nLewis). He is a hero among heroes, and I am here to tell you if this \r\nbill in any way infringed on anyone's ability to vote or discriminated \r\non any basis of allowing them to have access to the polls, I would not \r\nsupport it.\r\n  But what we have in this legislation which has been so ably crafted \r\nis legislation by a bipartisan commission, 21 members led by two very \r\ndistinguished individuals, the gentleman from Georgia, the former \r\nPresident Carter, and the gentleman from Texas, former Secretary of \r\nState Jim Baker, a 21-member commission, and by a vote of 18-21,\r\n\r\n[[Page H6771]]\r\n\r\nonly three dissenters, they asked for and recommend this for protection \r\nof the ballot.\r\n  Now we have been discussing here, day after day, border security. And \r\nwe want our borders safe. This issue is what Americans want. They want \r\nsafe borders and they want safe ballots.\r\n  I come from the State of Florida where we had the question of who \r\nvoted. This gives us protection because it asks for minimal \r\nidentification. So it is a good recommendation and it is a \r\nrecommendation because we don't want 50 States and some States with \r\ndifferent levels of requirements. We have a national standard, and that \r\nis what was recommended by the commission to ensure that we have a safe \r\nand secure ballot, ensure that we not only are protecting our borders \r\nbut we are protecting our ballots.\r\n  In Florida you can have a requirement for identification to buy a \r\nsix-pack or a pack of cigarettes. The very least we can ask is for \r\nsomeone who is going to cast a ballot that is so precious in our \r\ndemocratic process to show some identification, and I think this is a \r\ngood measure. I urge its passage.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Mica, perhaps you do want to consider not \r\nvoting for the bill because 60 percent of new registrants in Pima \r\nCounty, AZ who are all eligible voters, were initially rejected. And \r\nfor every 1 percent of individuals who do not have the necessary \r\ndocumentation of citizenship, 2 million voters are disenfranchised.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\\1\/2\\ minutes to a \r\nman who does know about all of this, a former Secretary of State, the \r\nHonorable Jim Langevin from Rhode Island.\r\n  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his \r\nremarks.)\r\n  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. \r\n4844 because of the dangerous impact it would have on voter \r\nparticipation in the United States. When I was Secretary of State, I \r\nled an effort to reform our elections. We replaced our outdated voting \r\nequipment, made polling places accessible, and significantly reduced \r\nerror rates.\r\n  My job was to make voting open and accessible to eligible citizens, \r\nand to encourage people to participate in the process. From that \r\nexperience, I know this legislation would practically do nothing to \r\nreduce fraud, while creating new barriers for Americans to vote.\r\n  Should H.R. 4844 become law, fewer eligible citizens will be able to \r\nvote because they lack proper identification or documentation. Maybe it \r\nis an elderly woman who leaves her home of 50 years to enter an \r\nassisted-living facility. It could be a resident of New Orleans whose \r\npublic records were lost in Hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on. \r\nHowever, these people have one thing in common: Once they are turned \r\naway from voting, it is unlikely they will return. They may not return \r\nthat day because of a lack of time or transportation; or they may not \r\nreturn in future elections because of the hassle they experienced. New \r\nobstacles to voting will cause many to drop out of the Nation's \r\nelection system because it failed them.\r\n  Not only would the bill make it harder for every American to vote, \r\nbut it would also add massive new compliance requirements for election \r\nofficials. It also unnecessarily duplicates current law, which requires \r\nthat voters in Federal elections be U.S. citizens.\r\n  Fraudulent voter registration is a felony punishable by 5 years in \r\nprison. Furthermore, the bill does not address other, more prevalent \r\nforms of voter fraud and additional problems that we have witnessed in \r\nrecent elections.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, Congress has a proud record of removing barriers and \r\nincreasing the opportunity of all Americans to vote. It guaranteed the \r\nright to vote to citizens whose only disqualification was the color of \r\ntheir skin. It opened polling places to the disabled. It extended the \r\nfranchise to Americans living overseas. It did all of this on a \r\nbipartisan basis and while maintaining the integrity of our elections.\r\n  H.R. 4844 is a step away from that proud tradition because it would \r\nerect new barriers for eligible citizens and disenfranchise many \r\nAmericans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4844 so that we \r\nmay preserve the most precious right, the right to vote.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New \r\nMexico (Mr. Pearce) who was kind enough to host us when we held a \r\nhearing in his State.\r\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I heartily support H.R. 4844. On election \r\nday in 2000, President Bush was ahead by 31,000 votes. Before the \r\nSecretary of State of New Mexico certified the election 23 days later, \r\nthe last State to certify, that gap had been closed to just 5,000 \r\nvotes, and the voting was about 80-20 the reverse direction. The \r\nestimate of fraud in that particular election was 7 percent in \r\nstatewide fraud.\r\n  One of the greatest frauds that is perpetrated in New Mexico is that \r\nvoting workers, campaign workers, come in and read over the shoulder of \r\nthe poll workers and find out names that have not been signed in. And \r\nmagically, that is the next name that appears. That is the next person \r\nin line that comes up and signs his name, and it works over and over \r\nagain through the day.\r\n  It was against the law, and when candidates began to enforce the law, \r\nin 2004 the New Mexico legislature went in and cured the problem. They \r\nwent in and said it is okay, it is okay for that worker to come in, \r\nlook over the shoulder and find a blank line and sign in. In fact, in \r\nNew Mexico it is against the law, it is against the law to check for \r\nphoto ID or any kind of registration even if you know that the person \r\nis not the right person that is signing.\r\n  So that is the reason that I think a bipartisan commission supported \r\nthis bill. At the end of the day, the integrity of the election process \r\nis the confidence in the process.\r\n  This is not about who gets elected. This is about making sure that \r\neach person gets one vote and one vote only. For those who would say \r\ncall the district attorney, I would tell you when the college students \r\nsigned in and called us at 8, saying someone had already voted in their \r\nplace, I am here with my picture ID and they say I am already signed in \r\nand it was someone else, the district attorney says if you can't find a \r\nwarm body signing the line at the time, then you have no case.\r\n  The county clerk in the county where these problems occurred was \r\nconvicted of four counts of felony fraud on election day; yet the \r\nSecretary of State would not pursue the case. I support this bill \r\nbecause it begins to restore some integrity to the election process. We \r\non this side will not allow disenfranchisement. We will not allow votes \r\nto be suppressed, but we do need to clean up the mess that exists in \r\nmany States. I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1\/2\\ minutes to the \r\ngentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Scott).\r\n  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from \r\nCalifornia (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding me this time.\r\n  We have had eloquent testimony and speeches dealing with the \r\npracticality of why this bill is unconstitutional. But more than that, \r\nlet it be clear, let's pull the covers off of this, this is nothing but \r\na bold attempt, a shameless attempt by the Republican Party to target \r\nthose types of voters that they believe will not vote for them but \r\nwould vote for Democrats. That is exactly what it is.\r\n  I am here to tell you the truth about this because I am from Georgia \r\nwhere this very same bill has been ruled not unconstitutional once, not \r\nunconstitutional twice, three times it has been ruled unconstitutional \r\nby a Federal judge, and just yesterday by the Superior Court of Fulton \r\nCounty, the largest county in my State.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1445\r\n\r\n  It has been ruled unconstitutional. And the reason is this: The \r\nConstitution and the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear. \r\nThey said that the right to vote shall not be abridged, shall not be \r\ninfringed upon. That is the anchor. That is the basic thrust.\r\n  You come here and talk about needing a picture ID to get on a plane, \r\nto get on a bus. Well, the right to get on a plane must not be \r\ninfringed was not written into the Constitution, but the right to vote \r\nwas. And if Alexander Hamilton was right, if Thomas Jefferson was \r\nright, ought not we be right? If Madison was right, shouldn't we be \r\nright? If Abraham Lincoln was right, shouldn't we be right? If Martin \r\nLuther King, Jr., was right, shouldn't we be\r\n\r\n[[Page H6772]]\r\n\r\nright? When Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he said \r\nthe same thing. All throughout our history, and why?\r\n  Here are you, the Republicans, doing this dastardly un-American act. \r\nAnd if John Lewis, who got his head bloodied on Edmund Pettus Bridge, \r\nsays it is right, then it should be right. And the right thing to do is \r\nto vote down this dastardly un-American bill.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may \r\nconsume to Mr. Walden for purpose of a colloquy.\r\n  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.\r\n  As the chairman knows, I support the fact that citizens should have \r\nthe right to vote and that the citizens' vote should be counted, and \r\nthe way to do that is to prove your citizenship. That is what American \r\nelections are all about, so we do not have people here illegally who \r\nare voting.\r\n  My concern with this legislation applies specifically to my State of \r\nOregon, which is entirely vote by mail, and the provisions contained in \r\nthis bill before us today give me some pause. And I would like to know \r\nthat I have the chairman's support in working with us in a conference \r\nto address these issues.\r\n  In my district, 70,000 square miles, if every voter every time has to \r\nphotocopy their ID and put it with a ballot that they send in, it \r\nraises some issues. I think there are other ways to guarantee that only \r\ncitizens get ballots to vote, and I would appreciate your support in \r\ntrying to address that issue in conference.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I recognize the \r\nconcern of the gentleman from Oregon, and we will certainly try to work \r\nwith him. We will solicit ideas not only from his State, but also from \r\nthe State of Washington, which has a considerable amount of mail-in \r\nvoting. And I would certainly like also to hear from the secretary of \r\nstate of both States and several county clerks from each State for ways \r\nthat we can accomplish the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that \r\nevery citizen has the right to vote, and only those who have the right \r\nto vote will be allowed to vote. There may be more than one way to \r\naccomplish that.\r\n  We will be happy to work with you when the bill reaches conference \r\nwith the Senate.\r\n  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate that commitment, Mr. Chairman.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from \r\nPennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for another colloquy.\r\n  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from \r\nMichigan how this bill will impact those whose religious convictions \r\nprevent them from having their photo taken for government ID. I \r\nrepresent some 25,000 members of the Amish community. Many of them do \r\nvote, but, because of their religious beliefs, will not allow their \r\nphoto to be taken. They wouldn't object to a fingerprint or biometrics. \r\nBut I would respectfully ask the gentleman to explain how the bill \r\ndeals with this issue, given our Nation's long tradition of protecting \r\nfreedom of religion, and if this matter could be addressed as the bill \r\nmoves along.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the \r\ngentleman for raising the question. This is not the first time it has \r\ncome up. There are other groups. Many of the American Indians have \r\nraised a similar objection, and I am quite sure that once we get in \r\nconference with the Senate, we will be able to hear from that group and \r\nall the other groups, the Amish, the Native Americans, and find another \r\nmethod to ensure identity.\r\n  Clearly biometrics would be equally acceptable as a photo ID. \r\nThumbprints are generally not reproducible for other fraud; so I \r\nbelieve this will help deal with the issue.\r\n  Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this just shows you how flawed \r\nthis bill is. This bill should have remained in committee so we could \r\nreally crank out and clear up some of these problems. We have heard two \r\ncolloquies from the majority on issues that are not a part of this \r\nbill, for heaven's sake.\r\n  At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman whose \r\nState has thrown out a similar type of law, the gentleman from \r\nMissouri, the Honorable William Clay.\r\n  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\r\n  With little to no evidence of past fraud, it is outrageous that my \r\nRepublican colleagues are going to extraordinary lengths to suppress \r\nDemocratic votes.\r\n  H.R. 4844 would impose undue hardship on seniors, women, minorities, \r\nthe disabled, and lower-income voters, who are all less likely to have \r\nproof of citizenship. This bill qualifies as nothing more than a 21st \r\ncentury poll tax, which is unconstitutional.\r\n  The malicious intent of this law was recently acknowledged in \r\nMissouri when a State judge ruled it an impermissible additional \r\nqualification to vote and in violation of the State constitution. It \r\nwould have disenfranchised over 170,000 voters.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill is nothing more than a sham \r\nand fraudulent. In Missouri, for instance, we were not able to find any \r\ncases of vote fraud over the last 50 years. So would the proponents \r\ntell me where the fraud comes in?\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the \r\ngentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).\r\n  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for \r\nyielding.\r\n  I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the \r\naisle, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they oppose making \r\nsure that the people who vote in this country are American citizens.\r\n  We have 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and we all know \r\nthat there have been phony Social Security cards purchased and other \r\ndocuments purchased, and, as a result, these people have been getting \r\nbenefits from this country, and many of them, we believe, have been \r\nvoting illegally.\r\n  The Constitution, as the minority leader said a while ago, guarantees \r\nthe rights of American citizens to be able to vote, and the \r\nConstitution is supposed to protect the rights of American citizens. \r\nShe talked about the oath of office that we took to protect the rights \r\nof the citizens of this country, and one of those rights is the right \r\nto make sure that their vote counts. And if you have illegal voting \r\ntaking place, then every illegal vote takes away the right of one \r\nAmerican's vote to count in that election. And you have to guarantee \r\nthat right, that the American's vote is going to count. Now, how do you \r\ndo that?\r\n  We know that there has been fraudulent voting in the past. I know \r\nsome of my colleagues have said that hasn't taken place, but we know it \r\nhas happened. So with all the illegal aliens coming into this country, \r\nall the border security problems that we have had, how do you guarantee \r\nthat only Americans have the right to vote? You have to have some kind \r\nof an identification mechanism.\r\n  Now, one of the arguments that was made a while ago was that, well, \r\nsome people cannot afford it. This bill provides that anybody who \r\ncannot afford this documentation, the government will pay for it. The \r\nState and the Federal Government will pay for it. So the fact of the \r\nmatter is there are guarantees that people's right to vote, even if \r\nthey cannot afford an ID card, will be taken care of.\r\n  Now, I have listened to all the arguments. I have heard of all the \r\nthings that were said by my colleagues on the other side, and I have \r\ngreat respect for them and their opinions. But the fact of the matter \r\nis this boils down to whether or not Americans should have their vote \r\ncounted and not negated by an illegal alien or somebody else who comes \r\ninto this country who has phony documentation. And that is why a photo \r\nID is very, very important, and other documentation, which will be \r\nworked out by my chairman here when it goes to conference.\r\n  This is very important for every American citizen, especially if they \r\nare concerned about the problem of illegal aliens and border security \r\nand their right to vote.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Burton, you are speaking about an \r\nimmigration bill at this point; so perhaps you should get that bill \r\nout.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the great \r\ngentleman who walks in the footsteps of his great father, the Honorable \r\nCharles Gonzalez.\r\n\r\n[[Page H6773]]\r\n\r\n  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me 1 \r\nminute.\r\n  The only thing phony about documentation, it is not the \r\ndocumentation, it is the phony argument that is being advanced today.\r\n  And I am going to ask the authors, the sponsors, and those \r\nindividuals that espouse and support this bill to please stand at this \r\ntime if you were asked at any time in seeking your office that you hold \r\ntoday for documentation such as a passport or a birth certificate to \r\nseek this office.\r\n  The answer is no. All you did was what we all do. We attest that we \r\nare citizens of this great Nation. And guess what? You get your name on \r\nthe ballot. But when it comes to the voters, we are going to say that \r\nis not enough. Give us a passport. Give us a birth certificate. Prove \r\nit to us. We may hold the office. You can vote for us. But lo and \r\nbehold, you cannot vote.\r\n  Think of the pure idiocy of the law that is being proposed today. And \r\nthe reason that it fails on logic, it was never meant to be logical. It \r\nwas meant to be political. And that is what we have here today.\r\n  And I am asking you to give up this charade. Give up November 7, \r\n2006, politics and do the right thing and vote this down.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to \r\nyield 1 minute to a great leader from the great State of California, \r\nthe Honorable Sam Farr.\r\n  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.\r\n  The first thing you learn when you are elected to be a lawmaker is \r\nnot to pass laws that you can't enforce.\r\n  Why is this a bad bill? Because it cannot be enforced. What is in \r\nyour wallet that shows you are a citizen? None of the people sitting \r\nhere watching, listening has anything in their wallet that shows they \r\nare a citizen of the United States.\r\n  This bill requires proof of United States citizenship. How are you \r\ngoing to prove it? Your driver's license? You don't have to be a \r\ncitizen to have a driver's license. Your Social Security card? You \r\ndon't have to be a citizen to have a Social Security card. What is in \r\nyour wallet that shows you are a citizen? You don't have it. You don't \r\nhave it. So what this bill says is we distrust most the people we asked \r\nto create a government.\r\n  Members of Congress couldn't even qualify because they do not have \r\ncards in their wallet that shows they are a citizen. They can say, ``I \r\nhave got my voting card.'' Yes. Well, there are 435 of those. How many \r\npeople in the United States recognize a congressional voting card? You \r\ncan't even show it in the airport and get by.\r\n  So this bill is not enforceable because there is no proof of \r\ncitizenship card in the United States, which this bill requires. You \r\nshouldn't enact a bad bill.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to \r\nyield 1 minute to another great leader out of the State of Texas, the \r\nHonorable Sheila Jackson-Lee.\r\n  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise \r\nand extend her remarks.)\r\n  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me offer my great \r\nappreciation to Juanita Millender-McDonald. I cannot think of a Member \r\nof this House who has been so persistent on these issues.\r\n  But I do want to say to the American people that we understand that \r\nwe want to secure the vote, but you might note and might want to \r\nunderstand that out of 197 million people that have voted since 2002, \r\nthere have only been 52 voter fraud cases.\r\n  I want to join you in stamping out voter fraud. I want to make sure \r\nthat we have one vote\/one person. But I do not want to step on the \r\nConstitution.\r\n  This legislation steps on your rights, one vote\/one person. And for \r\nevery 1 percent of the electorate who does not have the necessary \r\ndocumentation, where you were born with a midwife, you have lost your \r\ndocuments, you were in Hurricane Katrina or a volcano or an earthquake \r\nor a mudslide, 2 million voters will be disenfranchised. And, my good \r\nfriends, this is a 21st century poll tax.\r\n  I will include in the Record ``The Long Shadows of Jim Crow'' because \r\nthis is voter intimidation.\r\n\r\n  The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in \r\n                             America Today\r\n\r\n\r\n                                Overview\r\n\r\n       In a nation where children are taught in grade school that \r\n     every citizen has the right to vote, it would be comforting \r\n     to think that the last vestiges of voter intimidation, \r\n     oppression and suppression were swept away by the passage and \r\n     subsequent enforcement of the historic Voting Rights Act of \r\n     1965. It would be good to know that voters are no longer \r\n     turned away from the polls based on their race, never \r\n     knowingly misdirected, misinformed, deceived or threatened.\r\n       Unfortunately, it would be a grave mistake to believe it.\r\n       In every national American election since Reconstruction, \r\n     every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, \r\n     voters--particularly African American voters and other \r\n     minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at \r\n     intimidation and suppression. The bloody days of violence and \r\n     retribution following the Civil War and Reconstruction are \r\n     gone. The poll taxes, literacy tests and physical violence of \r\n     the Jim Crow era have disappeared. Today, more subtle, \r\n     cynical and creative tactics have taken their place.\r\n\r\n\r\n                          Race-Based Targeting\r\n\r\n       Here are a few examples of recent incidents in which groups \r\n     of voters have been singled out on the basis of race:\r\n        Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the \r\n     Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida \r\n     Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly \r\n     black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a \r\n     state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's \r\n     March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the \r\n     tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which \r\n     could suppress their turnout in this year's elections. Six \r\n     members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John \r\n     Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in \r\n     the matter.\r\n       This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation \r\n     of a ``potential felon'' purge list to remove voters from the \r\n     rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which \r\n     removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-\r\n     Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after \r\n     news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also \r\n     included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, \r\n     and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually \r\n     ignoring Hispanic voters.\r\n       This summer, Michigan State Representative John Pappageorge \r\n     (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ``If \r\n     we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a \r\n     tough time in this election.'' African Americans comprise 83 \r\n     percent of Detroit's population.\r\n       In South Dakota's June 2004 primary, Native American voters \r\n     were prevented from voting after they were challenged to \r\n     provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present \r\n     under State or Federal law.\r\n       In Kentucky in July 2004, Black Republican officials joined \r\n     to ask their State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to \r\n     place ``vote challengers'' in African-American precincts \r\n     during the coming elections.\r\n       Earlier this year in Texas, a local district attorney \r\n     claimed that students at a majority Black college were not \r\n     eligible to vote in the county where the school is located. \r\n     It happened in Waller County--the same county where 26 years \r\n     earlier, a Federal court order was required to prevent \r\n     discrimination against the students.\r\n       In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African-American areas \r\n     were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, \r\n     driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs \r\n     designed to look like law enforcement insignia.\r\n       In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African-\r\n     American communities telling voters they could go to the \r\n     polls on Tuesday, December 10--three days after a Senate \r\n     runoff election was actually held.\r\n       In 1998 in South Carolina, a State representative mailed \r\n     3,000 brochures to African-American neighborhoods, claiming \r\n     that law enforcement agents would be ``working'' the \r\n     election, and warning voters that ``this election is not \r\n     worth going to jail.''\r\n\r\n\r\n                           Recent Strategies\r\n\r\n       As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression \r\n     is not a problem limited to the southern United States. It \r\n     takes place from California to New York, Texas to Illinois. \r\n     It is not the province of a single political party, although \r\n     patterns of intimidation have changed as the party \r\n     allegiances of minority communities have changed over the \r\n     years.\r\n       In recent years, many minority communities have tended to \r\n     align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades, \r\n     the Republican Party has launched a series of ``ballot \r\n     security'' and ``voter integrity'' initiatives which have \r\n     targeted minority communities. At least three times, these \r\n     initiatives were successfully challenged in Federal courts as \r\n     illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on \r\n     race.\r\n       The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the \r\n     use of armed guards to\r\n\r\n[[Page H6774]]\r\n\r\n     challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a \r\n     scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated \r\n     voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree \r\n     prohibiting efforts to target voters by race.\r\n       Six years later, similar ``ballot security'' efforts were \r\n     launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia, \r\n     Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican \r\n     National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone \r\n     would ``eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls,'' \r\n     again drawing a court settlement.\r\n       And just three years later in North Carolina, the State \r\n     Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others \r\n     sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were \r\n     African-American, giving them false information about voter \r\n     eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter \r\n     fraud--again resulting in a decree against the use of race to \r\n     target voters.\r\n\r\n\r\n                         Historical Perspective\r\n\r\n       This report includes detailed accounts of the recent \r\n     incidents listed above, and additional incidents from the \r\n     past few decades. The report also lays out a historical \r\n     review of more than 100 years of efforts to suppress and \r\n     intimidate minority voters following emancipation, through \r\n     Reconstruction and the ``Second Reconstruction,'' the years \r\n     immediately following the passage of the Voting Rights Act.\r\n       The 1965 Voting Rights Act was among the crowning \r\n     achievements of the civil rights era, and a defining moment \r\n     for social justice and equality. The stories of the men and \r\n     women who were willing to lay down their lives for the full \r\n     rights of citizenship, including first and foremost the right \r\n     to vote, are the stuff of history.\r\n       Their accomplishments can never be erased. Yet as this \r\n     report details, attempts to erode and undermine those \r\n     victories have never ceased. Voter intimidation is not a \r\n     relic of the past, but a pervasive strategy used with \r\n     disturbing frequency in recent years. Sustaining the bright \r\n     promise of the civil rights era, and maintaining the dream of \r\n     equal voting rights for every citizen requires constant \r\n     vigilance, courageous leadership, and an active, committed \r\n     and well-informed citizenry.\r\n\r\n\r\n             The Challenges of the 2004 Election and Beyond\r\n\r\n       The election problems in Florida and elsewhere that led to \r\n     the disenfranchisement of some four million American voters \r\n     in the 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our \r\n     voting system, problems that involved both illegal actions \r\n     and incompetence by public officials, as well as outdated \r\n     machines and inadequate voter education. As election \r\n     officials nationwide struggle to put new voting technology \r\n     into place, redesign confusing ballots and educate voters, \r\n     the opportunities for voter intimidation and suppression \r\n     have proliferated along with opportunities for \r\n     disenfranchisement caused by voter confusion and technical \r\n     problems.\r\n       With widespread predictions of a close national election, \r\n     and an unprecedented wave of new voter registration, \r\n     unscrupulous political operatives will look for any \r\n     advantage, including suppression and intimidation efforts. As \r\n     in the past, minority voters and low-income populations will \r\n     be the most likely targets of dirty tricks at the polls.\r\n\r\n                   Voter Intimidation in Recent Years\r\n\r\n       Voter intimidation and suppression efforts have not been \r\n     limited to a single party, but have in fact shifted over time \r\n     as voting allegiances have shifted. In recent decades, \r\n     African American voters have largely been loyal to the \r\n     Democratic Party, resulting in the prevalence of Republican \r\n     efforts to suppress minority turnout. Those efforts have also \r\n     been extended in recent years to Latino communities.\r\n       During the 2003 mayoral election in Philadelphia, fully \r\n     seven percent of a poll of 1000 African American voters \r\n     described troubling experiences at the polls. Men with \r\n     clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at \r\n     many precincts in African American neighborhoods.\r\n       Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation campaign \r\n     for Democratic candidate John Street, said this deployment \r\n     included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely \r\n     resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as \r\n     the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol, \r\n     Tobacco and Firearms. Many prospective voters reported being \r\n     challenged for identification by such workers. Lindenfeld \r\n     told reporters from the American Prospect that ``What \r\n     occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and \r\n     expensive than anything I'd seen before, and I'd seen a \r\n     lot.''\r\n       In fact, the scope of such efforts during the past two \r\n     decades is startling. Based primarily on reports gleaned from \r\n     newspapers across the nation, there have been documented \r\n     instances of the following:\r\n       Challenges and threats against individual voters at the \r\n     polls by armed private guards, off-duty law enforcement \r\n     officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors, and poll \r\n     workers and managers.\r\n       Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for \r\n     ``voter fraud'' or ``noncitizen'' voting, or illegally urging \r\n     support for a candidate.\r\n       Poll workers ``helping'' voters fill out their ballots, and \r\n     instructing them on how to vote.\r\n       Criminal tampering with voter registration rolls and \r\n     records.\r\n       Flyers and radio ads containing false information about \r\n     where, when and how to vote, voter eligibility, and the false \r\n     threat of penalties.\r\n       Internal memos from party officials in which the explicit \r\n     goal of suppressing black voter turnout is outlined.\r\n       A Republican effort in New Jersey in 1981 provided a model \r\n     that was repeated across the country in the last two decades. \r\n     The Republican National Committee and the New Jersey \r\n     Republican State Committee engaged in a ``concerted effort to \r\n     threaten and harass black and Hispanic voters'' via a \r\n     ``ballot security'' effort. It involved widespread \r\n     challenging of individual voters and an Election Day presence \r\n     at African American and Latino precincts featuring armed \r\n     guards and dire warnings of criminal penalties for voting \r\n     offenses. A legal challenge eventually led to a court order \r\n     and an agreement by the GOP groups not to employ such \r\n     intimidation tactics.\r\n       But such tactics persist.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1500\r\n\r\n  This is voter intimidation. And this intimidation cannot stand. This \r\nis a bad bill. It is not about those who are not documented, it is \r\nabout you, America. You will be prevented from the right to vote with \r\nthis bill. We should defeat it.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my \r\ntime.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the \r\ngentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).\r\n  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am the person from \r\nFlorida where in the 2000 election, 27,000 votes was thrown out in my \r\nprecincts, 7, 8, 9 and 10, that are 95 percent Democratic. And they say \r\nthat President Bush won by 527 votes. But the unique thing is in the \r\nprimary recently, in every single African American precinct, they sent \r\nthousands of Republican ballots, and only hundreds of Democratic \r\nballots.\r\n  That is unheard of. In every single precinct they sent thousands of \r\nRepublican ballots and not sufficient Democratic ballots. Now, that is \r\nthe stupid, incompetent right trying to disenfranchise those same \r\nvoters. Let me just say that in the supervisor's office, they carried \r\nthe equipment home the night before the election.\r\n  Where our men and women are dying in Iraq for the right for them to \r\nvote, we do not have the right right here in the United States of \r\nAmerica. It is a crying shame. Shame on them. Vote down this terrible \r\nbill.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my \r\ntime.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the \r\ngentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).\r\n  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Millender-McDonald for \r\nyielding me time and her leadership on the issue.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844. It is a shame that \r\nthis Congress, who just months earlier joined together in a bipartisan \r\neffort to renew the Voting Rights Act, would now propose such a \r\ndivisive piece of legislation that has the potential to disenfranchise \r\nmillions of Americans.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I witnessed firsthand in my home State, Ohio, the great \r\nlengths that people have gone to in order to suppress votes. Now \r\nCongress is trying to implement its own brand of voter suppression. I \r\nhave heard them argue that funds will be provided to allow people to \r\nget ID cards. Funds were provided in HAVA to allow the Secretary of \r\nState to educate voters, but instead our Secretary of State took $2.5 \r\nmillion, put his own face on TV in order to lead his own gubernatorial \r\nrace.\r\n  Similar legislation was enacted in Ohio. On September 1, Judge \r\nKathleen O'Malley granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits the \r\nenforcement of parts of that Ohio bill that would have allowed poll \r\nworkers to inquire if a voter is a naturalized citizen and ask for \r\nproof. In her ruling, Judge O'Malley stated it was inconsistent with \r\nand undermined the purpose of the National Voting Rights Act. I ask \r\neach of my colleagues to vote against this legislation.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my \r\ntime.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chairman \r\nhow many more speakers he does have.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, then I will close.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my \r\ntime.\r\n\r\n[[Page H6775]]\r\n\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1\/2\\ minutes to the gentleman from \r\nCalifornia (Mr. Royce).\r\n  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the question is should we put forward \r\na modicum of effort to keep political machines from stealing elections? \r\nDo they? Yes. Yes, they do. Just last year, a judge in the State of \r\nWashington ruled that 1,678 fraudulent votes were cast in that \r\nelection.\r\n  As we look at the work of the FBI, we see that their investigation in \r\nthe city of Milwaukee found 4,500 more votes cast in that election than \r\nthere were people on the rolls. They found evidence of people voting \r\nmultiple times, people voting for the deceased, people voting \r\nillegally. And we have the example in the State of Georgia where an \r\naudit showed that 5,412 votes had been cast by deceased voters. \r\nPersonally I am tired of constituents of mine telling me that someone \r\nelse voted for them at the polls. It seems to me that an ID system or \r\nshowing an identification, a photo ID, will take care of this problem.\r\n  How do the American public, how do they react to this? Well, an NBC-\r\nWall Street Journal poll recently found that 81 percent of the American \r\npeople support requiring a photo ID to vote.\r\n  By requiring voters to provide a valid form of identification, we can \r\nhandicap those trying to undermine the process. We can ensure the \r\nsanctity of one person-one vote. And we should not have to deal with a \r\nsituation where our voters go to the polls and repeatedly tell us, \r\nsomebody else already voted for me.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I \r\nmay consume.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, we have heard many folks on the floor talking about \r\nfraud in our election process. We have heard various speakers talking \r\nabout getting rid of this alleged fraud. There is no Member on this \r\nfloor who does not want to get rid of fraud. But, Mr. Speaker, this \r\nbill does not address real fraud. This is not a good bill.\r\n  We have heard many speakers on the floor today delivering colloquies, \r\ntrying to see whether or not this will fit or that will fit, when, in \r\nessence, this legislation merely does not get to the bottom of the real \r\nfraud, the problem of voter suppression.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting for the Record letters from the \r\nNational Association of Counties and local election administrators who \r\nare objecting to this piece of legislation because they say it imposes \r\na fee on themselves and voters all of whom assert that they cannot \r\nafford to comply with this legislation is mandate.\r\n  We have heard from the chairman and others on the other side who say \r\nthat if one cannot pay for the ID, it will be paid for. But what they \r\nare doing is establishing an unfunded mandate with this piece of \r\nlegislation, which is why NACO is objecting to this bill.\r\n  We also have heard from the election commissioner and county clerk \r\nout of Fairbury, Nebraska and the administrator of elections from \r\nAnderson County, TN. I will submit these letters opposing H.R. 4844 for \r\nthe Record.\r\n  Mr. SPEAKER, the proponents of H.R. 4844 characterize this \r\nlegislation merely as an administrative protection that it is simple to \r\nimplement and necessary to prevent fraud. The truth is, H.R. 4844 is a \r\nmisguided measure that will suppress voter turnout and undermine laws \r\nthat Congress has already passed to assure all citizens will have a \r\nfull and equal right to participate.\r\n  We know, Mr. Speaker, that HAVA is in place now, which is a \r\nbipartisan bill that was passed out of this House with bipartisan \r\nsupport.\r\n  To enact this law would be an affront to that bill, to all Americans \r\nwho take pride in the progress our country has made in extending the \r\nfranchise to all of its citizens, and to all individuals who take \r\noffense to the political manipulation of the majority.\r\n  Partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome proof of \r\ncitizenship requirements are not the direction this Congress or this \r\ncountry should be taking. We know that the States of Georgia and \r\nWashington, have already thrown out legislation similar to this one.\r\n  Democrats, along with well-intended Republicans, have fought for and \r\nwon the extension of the Voting Rights Act for eligible Americans. \r\nDuring the last century, our country has expanded the right to vote to \r\nmillions of Americans with the passage of the 19th amendment, gives \r\nwhich women the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was \r\nreauthorized on this floor just a couple of months ago, and we know \r\nthat the VRA prevented institutional voter suppression. The 26th \r\namendment, which gives 18-years-old the right to vote, is another bill \r\nthat we have passed. Why should we consider a bill like this that does \r\nnothing to address voter suppression? This is an intimidation-type \r\nbill. It is a partisan attempt to allow the Republicans to maintain the \r\nmajority.\r\n  I tell you, this bill violates State constitutions and the U.S. \r\nConstitution because it disenfranchises citizens who are otherwise \r\nqualified to vote. The Democrats will not shirk our responsibility to \r\ndefend the gains put forth by the bills already on the books. We will \r\nnot shirk our responsibility to ensure that every eligible American has \r\nthe right to vote. And we will not let these gains be lost to \r\nundocumented allegations of fraud that have not been quantitatively \r\nproven and have not proven by any empirical data that reveals this so-\r\ncalled type of fraud is widespread.\r\n  The right to vote, Mr. Speaker, is too precious to allow any \r\ncitizen's vote to be sacrificed by those who would treat it carelessly. \r\nI would hope that the other side thinks about this and not vote for \r\nthis bad bill. This is not a good bill. It does nothing but hamper the \r\nAmerican people.\r\n  This bill creates a poll tax. I want the American people to know that \r\nDemocrats are against all types of voter fraud and we are against your \r\npaying a poll tax to be able to vote. So I say to the other side that \r\nif you really want integrity, then let's look at these electronic \r\nvoting machines that voters are worried stiff about because they do not \r\nknow whether their votes will be counted.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that every Member who really has good \r\nintentions of trying protect the laws that are on the books will vote \r\nthis legislation down.\r\n\r\n                             National Association of Counties,\r\n\r\n                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2006.\r\n     Re H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''\r\n\r\n     Hon. Dennis Hastert,\r\n     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, \r\n         DC.\r\n     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,\r\n     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n       Dear Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf \r\n     of county governments across the nation, I am writing to urge \r\n     a ``NO'' vote on H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity \r\n     Act of 2006''.\r\n       This bill would impose a staggering unfunded mandate on \r\n     states and counties. We fear that it could require county \r\n     clerks and registrars across the country to take on the major \r\n     new responsibility and expense of issuing photo voter \r\n     registration cards that would duplicate the Real ID and \r\n     existing state driver licenses. These cards would have to be \r\n     issued to every voter in the nation who does not possess a \r\n     current U.S. passport. Further, we fear that counties would \r\n     likely have to issue these cards entirely at their own or at \r\n     state expense.\r\n       While regulations have not yet been issued by the \r\n     Department of Homeland Security, we are given to understand \r\n     that federal structures will likely not be in place before \r\n     the statutory deadline for states to be prepared to issue the \r\n     Real ID. Even if states do have the capacity by 2010 to issue \r\n     a Real ID to and confirm the citizenship of every voter, H.R. \r\n     4844 creates an incentive for states to separate this \r\n     function from driver licensing and place it within the \r\n     existing apparatus of voter registration. States that \r\n     incorporate the requirements of this law into their Real ID \r\n     for voter identification purposes would be ineligible for \r\n     even the weak commitment of funding in H.R. 4844.\r\n       H.R. 4844 bars counties from imposing a fee on voters who \r\n     assert that they cannot pay it. States and\/or counties may or \r\n     may not receive sufficient federal funds to pay these costs \r\n     depending on annual federal appropriations. Furthermore, we \r\n     fear that any fee imposed on other voters could be \r\n     characterized as a poll tax and be subject to challenge in \r\n     court.\r\n       If you have any questions about our position on this or any \r\n     related issue, please feel free to contact me or Alysoun \r\n     McLaughlin at <a href=\"mailto:amclaughlin@naco.org\">amclaughlin@naco.org<\/a>. Thank you for your \r\n     attention to this urgent matter.\r\n           Sincerely,\r\n                                                   Larry E. Naake,\r\n     Executive Director.\r\n                                  ____\r\n\r\n       Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: I wish to \r\n     express my concern about the voter IDs where we are to \r\n     provide at no cost to indigent voters. We live in a rural \r\n     area that a lot of the voters are under poverty level. I do \r\n     not think the county should have to pay for these. You may be \r\n     going to reimburse the state for the program, but you know it \r\n     will come back down\r\n\r\n[[Page H6776]]\r\n\r\n     to the counties to do the IDs. If you will fund this for the \r\n     counties I probably wouldn't have any problem with this, but \r\n     the way the election is going now it has cost the county more \r\n     over $6,500.00 for the primary election than ever before for \r\n     an election. This is all because of the HAVA regulations. \r\n     This was not to cost the counties anything. I hate to see \r\n     what this general election is going to cost me. I did not \r\n     have any rotations in the primary, but with the general I \r\n     have a bunch. Just got my proofs for the ballots and had 256 \r\n     pages for 10 precincts. This is because of all the splits I \r\n     now need to have because of the consolidations everyone \r\n     wanted also. I'm sure this election will more than cost me \r\n     all of the budget of $26,000.00. You may think this is a drop \r\n     in the bucket, but for our small area it isn't, since I have \r\n     never spent more than $12,800 in any other budget year.\r\n       Our county is up against the levy limit now so don't know \r\n     where this money is going to come from.\r\n       Please provide for all of the funding, not just to the \r\n     state, for these IDs.\r\n           Thank you\r\n\r\n                                              Sandra Stelling,\r\n\r\n                                           Jefferson County Clerk,\r\n     Register of Deeds.\r\n                                  ____\r\n\r\n       Dear Representative Millender-McDonald: I am vehemently \r\n     opposed to H.R. 4844. As an election official in Anderson \r\n     County, TN, I can assure you that the provisions of this \r\n     legislation will have an adverse affect on many of the people \r\n     I serve every day.\r\n       During my tenure as an election administrator, the trend \r\n     has been to remove barriers to voting, this bill throws logs \r\n     in the roadway to exercising the right to vote. The need to \r\n     prove citizenship has never been required and doing so now \r\n     will deny voting rights to many who have voted all their \r\n     adult lives.\r\n       Many individuals in our east Tennessee county do not have \r\n     birth certificates let alone passports--furthermore they do \r\n     not have the money or the wherewithal to secure either.\r\n       You need to know that our voter registration forms require \r\n     that an individual registering to vote attests to their \r\n     citizenship when they register and to answer untruthfully \r\n     subjects that person to prosecution.\r\n       What bothers me as much as anything is that the bill has a \r\n     disproportionate impact on the elderly, the disabled, the \r\n     poor and ethnic minorities in our county.\r\n       Our constitution guarantees the right to vote and this law \r\n     can potentially affect that basic right.\r\n       I urge you to vote against this legislation when it comes \r\n     before your committee.\r\n\r\n                                               Jo Ann Garrett,\r\n\r\n                                       Administrator of Elections,\r\n                                              Anderson County, TN.\r\n\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to respond to all of the \r\nerroneous comments that have been made. Some of them may have been \r\npertinent as relating to the original bill as introduced. But I wish \r\nall those commenting would have read the amended bill that we have \r\nbefore us now.\r\n  There has been much discussion about poll taxes. Absolute nonsense. I \r\nwould never stand for putting a poll tax on any citizen of this \r\ncountry. There is no poll tax. We specifically provided that the State \r\nand the Federal Government will pay for any cost. There is no poll tax \r\nin this bill.\r\n  Furthermore, it is said the burden falls on the poor. Again, \r\nnonsense. We help the poor. There is no burden on the poor. We assist \r\nthem by helping them prove citizenship and paying for it. So when they \r\napply for Social Security, when they apply for Medicare, when they \r\napply for prescription drug coverage, they will have proof of \r\ncitizenship in hand.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1515\r\n\r\n  This benefits the poor. It benefits those who do not have \r\ncitizenship, because we help them to prove citizenship and we pay for \r\nit.\r\n  This bill is designed to cut down fraud. I put the question, Where is \r\nthe fraud? Several have said, there is no fraud. There is fraud.\r\n  In the 2000 election in Philadelphia, they had 103 percent of the \r\nvoter turnout in one precinct. That is fraud. When you have the number \r\nof voters who appeared was greater than the number registered for a \r\ndistrict, that is fraud.\r\n  Then there is the gubernatorial race in the State of Washington. The \r\nfinal result that judges certified, was that the number of illegal \r\nvotes cast was over 1,000 percent greater than the margin of victory \r\nfor the winner of that race. That is fraud. Conclusioin: There is fraud \r\nin voting in this Nation.\r\n  It is time for us to get rid of fraud in voting in this Nation. This \r\nbill will make a big step towards doing it. It will not endanger \r\nanyone's right to vote. It is not a poll tax. It helps citizens to vote \r\nlegally.\r\n  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to explain my \r\nopposion to H.R. 4844, the so-called Federal Election Integrity Act. \r\nProponents of this legislation claim to be ensuring the integrity of \r\nour election system against voter fraud and voting by noncitizens. That \r\nis a goal I share. However, the hastily written legislation threatens \r\nthe privacy of Oregonians due to the unique nature of our full vote-by-\r\nmail system.\r\n  I do strongly support the goal of establishing more secure \r\nidentification for American citizens. That is why I voted in favor of \r\nthe REAL ID Act. The legislation fulfilled a recommendation made by the \r\nbipartisan 9\/11 Commission that the federal government set standards \r\nfor the issuance of driver's licenses. The REAL ID Act established \r\nminimum document standards for issuing drivers licenses and limited the \r\nissuance of licenses only to those who can prove they are American \r\ncitizens or are migrants who are legally in the United States. This \r\nbill, when fully implemented by 2008, will address many of the concerns \r\nabout proving citizenship that H.R. 4844 raises.\r\n  The problem with H.R. 4844 is not its requirement of proof of \r\ncitizenship when registering to vote, but its continual requirement to \r\npresent such proof every time a citizen votes.\r\n  In my state we conduct all elections by vote-by-mail. This bill \r\nrequires citizens voting by mail to submit photocopies of documents \r\nproving their citizenship along with their ballot every single time \r\nthey vote. That means, at least twice a year, the 2.1 million \r\nOregonians registered to vote will have to provide the same photocopied \r\nbirth certificate, passport, driver's license etc. along with their \r\nballot to election officials. This extra paperwork creates a big burden \r\nfor citizens and election officials alike in Oregon. Under the current \r\nsystem in Oregon, election officials match the signature on your ballot \r\nwith our signature that's on file. That should be sufficient to confirm \r\nyour identity. Repeatedly submitting photocopied proof of sensitive \r\ndocuments is not necessary.\r\n  I also have serious privacy concerns about what is done with the \r\nsensitive, personally identifiable information that will be required to \r\nbe submitted by millions of Oregonians. How long must election \r\nofficials keep these sensitive documents on file? How should they be \r\ndisposed of? Who has access to the documents and under what \r\ncircumstances? How can the information in the documents be used? The \r\nbill is silent on these issues.\r\n  Further, this bill requires Oregonians to repeatedly submit this \r\npersonal information despite the lack of evidence of a voting fraud \r\nproblem in Oregon. According to the Oregon Secretary of State, since \r\n1991, over 10 million votes have been cast in Oregon. Of those 10 \r\nmillion votes, only 10 people have met the criteria that would want an \r\ninvestigation into their citizenship. Of those ten, two have been \r\nprosecuted. So the level of fraud in Oregon over the last 15 years has \r\nbeen 1 in 5 million votes, and these two instances were prosecuted. It \r\nis important to keep in mind that the penalties for voting fraud are \r\nalready severe. Immigrants who try to vote are automatically given a \r\none-way ticket home, no criminal conviction is necessary.\r\n  If the majority was truly concerned about guaranteeing the integrity \r\nof federal elections, we should be focusing on widespread concerns \r\nabout new electronic voting technology. Concerns and questions over the \r\nintegrity of these machines have been proven in recent elections. \r\nMachines fail, votes are lost, hard drives are damaged. Secure and \r\nauditable electronic voting machines that provide a paper ballot for \r\nverification should be the focus of Congress, not this hastily written \r\nbill.\r\n  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the \r\nFederal Election Integrity Act.\r\n  This legislation would require individuals voting in federal \r\nelections to provide photo identification that also shows proof of \r\ncitizenship in order to vote.\r\n  I am extremely concerned that this legislation would disenfranchise \r\nmany eligible voters and depress voter turnout. Congress and the states \r\nshould pass measures to increase, not decrease, voter turnout, and to \r\nencourage eligible voters to go to the polls.\r\n  Studies indicate that illegal voting or voter fraud is extremely \r\nrare, and such behavior is already punishable by law. However, we have \r\nnumerous documented instances of actual problems in our electoral \r\nsystems which are not addressed by this legislation, such as improper \r\npurging of voters from the rolls and distributing false information \r\nabout when and where to vote. In my own state of Maryland in last \r\nTuesday's primary election, we experienced numerous problems with \r\nvoters being turned away because of malfunctioning computer voting \r\nmachines, a lack of provisional paper ballots, and poorly trained or \r\nabsent poll workers.\r\n  This legislation would have a disproportionate impact on economically \r\ndisadvantaged persons--such as the homeless, the elderly, persons with \r\ndisabilities, frequent movers, and\r\n\r\n[[Page H6777]]\r\n\r\nother minority groups and persons of color--who are far less likely to \r\nhave current state-issued identification. Requiring voters to bring \r\nidentification to the polls will serve as a poll tax for some eligible \r\nvoters, who can afford neither the cost nor time to obtain a new or \r\nduplicate drivers' license, passport, or birth certificate. The bill \r\ncontains weak provisions to reimburse states that cover the cost of \r\nissuing identifications to indigent individuals. Indeed, Congress has \r\nyet to fully fund implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of \r\n2002, passed after the 2000 presidential election which disenfranchised \r\nmany eligible voters.\r\n  Finally, proof of citizenship requirements will severely hamper the \r\nability of nonpartisan organizations to conduct voter registration \r\ncampaigns within minority communities, by limiting what documents can \r\nbe accepted as valid identification for the purpose of registration.\r\n  I note that several leading voting rights groups have opposed this \r\nlegislation, including the NAACP, League of Women Voters, and the U.S. \r\nPublic Research Interest Group. The AARP has also opposed this \r\nlegislation, which may disenfranchise older Americans.\r\n  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National \r\nAssociation of Counties (NACO) also oppose this legislation. NCSL wrote \r\nthat this ``ill-advised bill . . . places a potentially huge unfunded \r\nmandate on states . . . and would preempt current states' voter \r\nidentification requirements.''\r\n  Just a few months ago I was pleased to co-sponsor and vote for \r\nlegislation to reauthorize the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 for \r\nanother 25 years. Discrimination and prejudice still exist against \r\nminority voters, in addition to disenfranchisement at the polls caused \r\nby faulty equipment or poorly trained poll workers. We must redouble \r\nour efforts to make sure that every eligible vote is counted, and that \r\nthis democracy does not continue to shamefully turn away eligible \r\nvoters at the polls.\r\n  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4844, the \r\nFederal Election Integrity Act.\r\n  Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act, this body--led by the \r\nCommittee on House Administration on which I proudly serve--has paid \r\ncareful attention to our electoral process and has considered several \r\nrecommendations on how we can improve the way we vote.\r\n  One such recommendation came from the bipartisan Commission on \r\nFederal Election Reform which was headed by Former President Jimmy \r\nCarter and Former Secretary of State James Baker and recommended that \r\nin order to deter and detect voter fraud, we should require photo IDs \r\nat the polls.\r\n  In this day and age, it is shocking that we still do not verify U.S. \r\ncitizenship when people vote. Motor-voter laws have allowed driver's \r\nlicense applicants to simply check a box to register to vote regardless \r\nof whether they are a U.S. citizen.\r\n  This loophole has facilitated the many instances of non-citizen \r\nvoting that I we have heard about today.\r\n  While there may be disputes about the nature and extent of voter \r\nfraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. In close elections even \r\na small amount of fraud can affect the outcome. Do we really want \r\nforeigners to cast the deciding votes in our elections?\r\n  When an illegal immigrant casts an illegal vote he does more than \r\nbreak the law. He is canceling out a legal vote and robbing Americans \r\nof our constitutional right to be heard in an election.\r\n  The Federal Election Integrity Act that we are debating today can \r\nhelp restore integrity to our elections.\r\n  Requiring individuals who vote in a Federal election to provide proof \r\nthat they are a United States citizen will help prevent voter fraud--\r\nplain and simple. It is the best way to ensure the utmost accuracy in \r\nrealizing the will of the American people.\r\n  In short, requiring a photo ID is the best way to make sure that only \r\nU.S. citizens are casting ballots.\r\n  Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, this isn't a \r\nradical idea. Showing proof of identification and citizenship is \r\nwarranted and commonplace in today's society.\r\n  Individuals are required to have photo identification to engage in \r\nroutine activities such as boarding an airplane, entering a government \r\nbuilding, purchasing cigarettes and cashing a check. Our voting system \r\ndeserves at least as much protection as these other activities.\r\n  Democrats have argued that this bill will disproportionately affect \r\nracial minorities and have even alleged that this is one of the motives \r\nbehind our Republican Leadership bringing this bill to the floor today. \r\nThese claims are outrageous and unsubstantiated--voter fraud affects us \r\nall.\r\n  In fact, under this bill states must provide the necessary photo ID \r\nfree of charge to individuals who cannot afford to pay. This bill is \r\nsimply about protecting the will of all Americans.\r\n  When an illegal vote is cast, an American citizen with the \r\nconstitutional right to have his vote counted becomes disenfranchised, \r\nregardless of race.\r\n  When voting, our citizens should be able to trust that the system \r\nwill honor their voice and reveal the will of the American people. I \r\nurge all my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of every \r\nAmerican by supporting the Federal Election Integrity Act.\r\n  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to object strongly to the voter \r\ndisenfranchisement proposal before us.\r\n  According to the Election Assistance Commission's comprehensive \r\nSurvey of the 2004 election, there were more than 197 million voting-\r\nage American citizens at that time. According to the Brennan Center for \r\nJustice in its September 2006 voter identification study, as many as \r\n10% of eligible voters do not have, and maybe will not get, the \r\ndocuments required by strict voter ID laws. Thus, the very first thing \r\nthis bill will do is disenfranchise as many as 20 million eligible \r\nvoters.\r\n  Who are these 20 million voters? The poor. The elderly. The disabled. \r\nPersons of color. Native Americans. Students. Why would anyone vote in \r\nfavor of disenfranchising these citizens?\r\n  The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an imperfect bill, but it did \r\nreach a bipartisan compromise on voter identification. HAVA's already-\r\nexisting requirements for voter identification and the integrity of \r\nvoter registration rolls go on for pages. Among the requirements:\r\n  States must make ``a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are \r\nineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters;''\r\n  Voter registration applications may not be ``accepted or processed'' \r\nunless they include an applicants driver's license number or, in the \r\ncase of voters who don't have one, ``the last 4 digits of the \r\napplicants Social Security number;'' or, in the case of voters with \r\nneither, a ``unique identifying number'' assigned by election \r\nofficials;\r\n  First time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must \r\nshow photo ID at the polls when they vote.\r\n  Voters can't get around that requirement by voting absentee--first \r\ntime voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must send a \r\ncopy of a photo ID with their mail-in ballot.\r\n  And HAVA provides for criminal penalties for violations for the \r\nforegoing--``any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly \r\nmakes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, \r\nor alien registry of such citizen . . . shall be fined, imprisoned [for \r\nup to five years], or both.''\r\n  The measure before us is a solution in search of a problem. The \r\nDepartment of Justice (DOJ), in its ``Report to Congress on the \r\nActivities and Operations of the Public Integrity for 2004,'' reported \r\nthat at the end of 2004, the Public Integrity Section had approximately \r\n133 election crime matters pending nationwide. That is an average of \r\njust over two cases per state for the entire year--hardly an avalanche. \r\nIn addition, most of the cases described in the report concerned \r\ncampaign finance violations, not voter fraud. Only one described a \r\nvote-buying scheme, and none referred specifically to non-citizen or \r\ndouble voting. On the other hand, the same Report noted that a total of \r\n1,213 public officials had been charged with corruption in 2004, that \r\n1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases \r\nremained pending. In other words, according to the DOJ's own findings, \r\nthe problem of corruption among public official is at the very least \r\nten times worse than the problem of citizens cheating in elections.\r\n  Meanwhile, other studies have found that instances of double voting \r\nand voting using another's identity are virtually non-existent.\r\n  Washington State--a study of 2.8 million ballots cast in 2004 showed \r\nthat only 0.0009 percent of them reflected double voting or voting in \r\nthe name of deceased individuals.\r\n  Ohio--a statewide survey found a mere four instances out of more than \r\n9 million votes cast where ineligible persons voted or attempting to \r\nvote in 2002 and 2004--a rate of 0.00004%.\r\n  Georgia--(which recently passed one of the strictest voter ID laws, \r\nwhich was subsequently struck down); Secretary of State Cathy Cox \r\nstated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not recall one documented \r\ncase of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter \r\nat the polls.\r\n  I have introduced legislation, the Electoral Fairness Act of 2006 \r\n(H.R. 4989), that would require that all voters, upon being duly \r\nregistered, be issued a durable voter registration card at no cost to \r\nthe voter, ``which shall serve as proof that the individual is duly \r\nregistered to vote'' at the polling place which services the \r\nindividual's address. The bill would preserve HAVA's existing voter ID \r\nrequirements, but add no more, an the voter registration cards would \r\nserve strictly to protect voters who are removed from the voter rolls \r\nwrongfully or erroneously.\r\n  My legislation would protect the 1.2 million voters who were, in \r\nfact, wrongfully denied access to a regular ballot in 2004 when they\r\n\r\n[[Page H6778]]\r\n\r\nshowed up at polling places. The legislation before us, in the absence \r\nof meaningful or documented justification, would leave those 1.2 \r\nmillion voters in jeopardy of wrongful disenfranchisement and add 20 \r\nmillion more to the pile. In the name of solving a problem that is \r\nevidently a tiny problem these legislators--at great expense to \r\nindividuals and to states--would add requirements that will turn away \r\nlegitimate, deserving, honest voters. This is poll tax, pure and \r\nsimple, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down.\r\n\r\n                       Groups Opposing H.R. 4844\r\n\r\n       A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project; \r\n     Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired \r\n     Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities; \r\n     American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American \r\n     Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of \r\n     Arizona; American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial \r\n     Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County \r\n     and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers \r\n     Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic \r\n     Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council; \r\n     Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students' \r\n     Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American \r\n     Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander \r\n     American Vote (APIAVote); and Asian Pacific American Labor \r\n     Alliance, AFL-CIO.\r\n       Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for \r\n     Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for \r\n     Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers; \r\n     Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy \r\n     Project; Democratic Women's Working Group; Demos : A Network \r\n     for Ideas &amp; Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center; \r\n     Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council; \r\n     Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic \r\n     Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith \r\n     Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona; \r\n     Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); La Union Del Pueblo \r\n     Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; \r\n     and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.\r\n       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United \r\n     Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater \r\n     Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal \r\n     Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational \r\n     Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored \r\n     People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and \r\n     Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for \r\n     Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians; \r\n     National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La \r\n     Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education \r\n     Association; National Korean American Service &amp; Education \r\n     Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights \r\n     Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research \r\n     Group, Inc.\/NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association &amp; OTA \r\n     Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; and \r\n     Project for Arizona's Future.\r\n       Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition; \r\n     Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service \r\n     Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal \r\n     Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America\/We Are \r\n     America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The \r\n     Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono \r\n     O'odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian \r\n     Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto \r\n     Workers; United Church of Christ Justice &amp; Witness \r\n     Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church \r\n     and Society; United States Student Association; United \r\n     Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C. \r\n     Velasquez Institute; and YWCA USA.\r\n\r\n  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support ensuring \r\nthat only American citizens vote in our Nation's elections. The right \r\nto vote of all Americans is diminished if ineligible and illegal votes \r\nare cast. That is the goal and intent of this bill, which is why I vote \r\nto move this bill forward today.\r\n  There are provisions of the bill, however, that have me greatly \r\nconcerned about the impact it would have on Washington state voters who \r\nare required to vote by mail. The bill would mandate that voters \r\nphotocopy their driver's license and mail that copy in with their \r\nballot. This places a heavier burden on mail voters than poll voters. \r\nIt creates a higher hurdle for mail voters to get their vote counted. \r\nAnd it raises serious questions about personal privacy and the \r\npotential for identity theft. These requirements are not acceptable and \r\nmust be addressed during any conference committee talks with the \r\nSenate.\r\n  Chairman Ehlers has given his assurance that the mail voting \r\nprovisions will be addressed in a conference, and specifically that the \r\nviews of Washington's Secretary of State will be heard. I appreciate \r\nthis commitment and believe there are certainly far less burdensome \r\nways to ensure only citizens are casting mail-in ballots.\r\n  Clearly, Washington and Oregon stand out among other states when it \r\ncomes to voting by mail and federal law must respect differences among \r\nthe fifty states.\r\n  Action needs to be taken to ensure only citizens are casting ballots \r\nin elections and that is why I vote to move this bill forward today, \r\nbut I will oppose and vote against any final bill or conference report \r\nif my concerns on the mail voting requirements are not addressed.\r\n  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to \r\nH.R. 4844, the so-called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. \r\nBeginning in 2008, this bill imposes a requirement that eligible voters \r\nmust present a government-issued photo identification and beginning in \r\n2010, eligible voters must present a government-issued photo \r\nidentification that would prove they are a citizen.\r\n  Proponents of this bill claim that requiring a photo identification \r\nand proof of citizenship to vote will combat voter fraud. But, too \r\noften, anecdotal stories are put forth as evidence to prove the claim \r\nthey are using to make the case for this bill. However, there is no \r\nconcrete evidence to back up the need for this proposal. According to \r\nDemos and People for the American Way, to date there have been no major \r\nstudies to document actual election fraud in the United States. \r\nFurthermore, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, \r\nnationally since October 2002, only ``86 individuals have been \r\nconvicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud, while \r\n196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections.'' \r\nThere needs to be more safeguards to protect the integrity of the \r\nelectoral process, but this can only be done by addressing actual \r\nproblems that are currently undermining voting rights, almost all of \r\nwhich have the effect of disenfranchising eligible voters. The bill \r\ndoesn't address voter intimidation and discrimination at the polls and \r\nit doesn't take into account the costs to states to implement the \r\nrequirements of H.R. 4844, making it an unfunded mandate.\r\n  This bill is not just guilty of being a solution in search of \r\nproblem. It actually will create a problem. The real impact of this \r\nbill will undoubtedly be an increase in voter disenfranchisement, \r\nbecause the burden and cost involved in obtaining the identification \r\nrequired would likely discourage many Americans from voting, an \r\nessential Constitutional right. Also, even though H.R. 4844 has a \r\nprovision that requires states to give free photo identification to \r\nthose who cannot afford them, it does not take into account the time \r\nand cost that eligible voters would incur to get the supporting \r\ndocuments needed to obtain this required identification. Essentially \r\nthis forces people to pay for their Constitutionally guaranteed right \r\nto vote.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, the burden that this legislation creates falls squarely \r\non the shoulders of seniors, and the disabled. The AARP is strongly \r\nopposed to this bill because of the disproportionate impact it has on \r\nseniors. Many seniors no longer drive and therefore do not have a \r\ndriver's license, many were born at home by midwives and do not have a \r\nbirth certificate, and have limited mobility, making it extremely \r\ndifficult for them to obtain a government-issued identification to meet \r\nthis bill's requirements. Even those who wish to vote by provisional \r\nballot are required to present the required identification for their \r\nvote to be counted.\r\n  Elections should be open to all eligible voters and as Members of \r\nCongress we should be enacting legislation that encourages more \r\nAmericans to vote, not erecting new barriers to voting. Laws such as \r\nthe groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted to create a \r\nmore inclusive democracy by making voting easier. H.R. 4844 will \r\nseriously undermine that goal and will be a disservice to the memories \r\nof those courageous civil rights heroes who fought for its \r\nimplementation.\r\n  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4844.\r\n  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, three months ago we stood on this floor \r\ndebating the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9) in an \r\neffort to make sure elections are fair, that every vote is counted, and \r\nthat people have equal access to the polls. Yet today we are faced with \r\nthe Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844) which would \r\ndirectly disenfranchise people of color, rural voters, young people, \r\nlow-income people, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.\r\n  At a time of decreased voter participation, it seems unwarranted to \r\nimpose extraneous burdens on eligible citizens who want to participate \r\nin the democratic process. The identification requirements imposed by \r\nthis legislation serve as a strong reminder of the poll taxes imposed \r\nby many Southern states in the 1950s to prevent poor and black \r\nAmericans from voting.\r\n  According to the Department of Transportation, currently 6-12 percent \r\nof eligible voters do not have the proper identification mandated by \r\nthis legislation. Acquiring the required documents places a huge time \r\nand financial burden on those least able to afford. For instance, a \r\nU.S. passport costs approximately $85, while replacing naturalization \r\ndocuments can cost up to $210.\r\n\r\n[[Page H6779]]\r\n\r\n  This legislation creates an outrageous burden on my state of Oregon. \r\nIn 1998, Oregon voters passed an initiative requiring that all \r\nelections be conducted by mail. Should this bill pass, our voters would \r\nbe required to photocopy their identification every time they wanted to \r\nvote which further hampers the accessibility to vote by mail. As for \r\nvoter fraud, during the last 15 years of general elections over 10 \r\nmillion votes have been cast by Oregon voters and yet only 10 people \r\nhave met the criteria to warrant an investigation.\r\n  This legislation discourages voter participation, many who continue \r\nto lose confidence in our electoral system, while enabling voter \r\ndiscrimination in select communities. Overall, this legislation tries \r\nto create a solution to a voter fraud problem regarding voter \r\nidentification that does not exist, while overlooking obvious and real \r\nproblems.\r\n  Just last week during Maryland's primary elections many voters were \r\ndelayed or turned away. In one county computer cards were not delivered \r\nto precinct workers while in another computers incorrectly read party \r\naffiliation and could not be tabulated.\r\n  Anyone who examined what happened in Ohio last election cycle, \r\nincluding voting problems and potential abuse due to the under funded \r\nand ill-thought-out congressional meddling, must wonder what will \r\nhappen in the 2008 election.\r\n  Every American should be alarmed and outraged by Congress indulging \r\nin partisan political shenanigans regarding elections rather than \r\nimplementing long overdue protections for the integrity of the ballot \r\nbox.\r\n  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-\r\ncalled Voter ID Act.\r\n  Sensing electoral defeat in the fall, the Republicans have done what \r\nthey always do--act desperate and deflect attention.\r\n  Mandating voter IDs to prove citizenship will do nothing to protect \r\nour homeland security, make the voting process more secure, insure \r\nevery vote is counted or keep non-citizens from voting.\r\n  News flash to my colleagues, the fear that non-citizens may vote is \r\nnot what is keeping my constituents up at night.\r\n  Completing the war on terror, finding Osama bin Laden, bringing our \r\ntroops home, and figuring out how to pay for their kids college \r\neducation are the issues my constituents care about.\r\n  Not passing a not-needed bill for a total non issue.\r\n  Today, we are mandating citizenship IDs at the polling places, in a \r\nvoter disenfranchisement act that would make Bull Connor smile from \r\nbelow.\r\n  The Republicans continue to place all the blame on immigrants instead \r\nof accepting the blame themselves that they dropped the ball on \r\ncomprehensive immigration reform, they dropped the ball on homeland \r\nsecurity by underfunding our ports and border security and they dropped \r\nthe ball on the war on terror.\r\n  There is a problem at the ballot box, but it isn't illegal immigrants \r\nvoting, The problem is that American citizens aren't voting.\r\n  Instead of promoting voter participation, this bill creates \r\ndisincentives.\r\n  Instead of encouraging voter participation by all Americans, we are \r\nadding roadblocks.\r\n  Instead of building one America, we are creating a divisive America.\r\n  This is a solution in search of a problem.\r\n  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.\r\n  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, while this bill is entitled the Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act, that is highly deceptive. Make no mistake; \r\nthere is no integrity in trying to deny thousands of legal voters their \r\nright to vote.\r\n  Voting is a sacred right. A right that, unfortunately, seems to be \r\nunder attack in this Congress. It was barely two months ago that this \r\nbody voted on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize crucial provisions of \r\nthe Voting Rights Act--the nation's most effective mechanism for \r\nprotecting minority voting rights. But now, as we debate H.R. 4844, \r\nthat vote seems disingenuous. H.R. 4844 is a misguided approach that \r\nwould add unnecessary obstacles to the voting process. Congress should \r\nnot be in the practice of disenfranchising voters under the guise of \r\nprotecting the right to vote. Unfortunately, that's precisely what this \r\nbill would do.\r\n  This legislation is quite likely to be struck down by the Supreme \r\nCourt. As recently as yesterday, state photo ID laws were found to be \r\nunconstitutional. This is because photo ID laws disproportionately \r\naffect racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, people with \r\ndisabilities, rural voters, students, the homeless, low-income people, \r\nand frequent movers.\r\n  Many of our constituents would be at risk of not being able to vote \r\nbecause they do not have the time, money or ability to obtain their \r\nbirth certificates or their passports. And let us not forget the \r\nhundreds of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, now dispersed \r\nacross the country, who lost their birth certificates in the muddy \r\nwaters left by the hurricane.\r\n  Since consideration of this bill began, many of our colleagues have \r\nshared their own personal stories of not being able to obtain their \r\nbirth certificates, or being turned away at the voting booth. The same \r\nis true for one of my constituents in Sacramento who contacted me \r\nbecause he was experiencing difficulty proving he was an American \r\ncitizen. Adopted as a child by a member of the Armed Forces, the crux \r\nof the problem centered around the fact that his adopted father was \r\nborn in the south and did not have a birth certificate. If this \r\nlegislation were in place, my constituent may have been turned away at \r\nthe polls. That is unforgivable and it is unconstitutional. I am sure \r\nthis is just one example of many.\r\n  What's even more alarming is that we are debating a bill that seeks \r\nto rectify a problem that hardly exists. Worse still, there are already \r\nlaws on the books to address this very issue. Instead of just enforcing \r\nthose laws, this bill is an attempt to scare voters by inferring that \r\nillegal immigrants and others in our country are misrepresenting their \r\nidentity when they go to vote. The truth is that there is little proof \r\nof that.\r\n  What we do have proof of are the problems with our voting system. \r\nThat's what Congress should be working on now. We need to be working on \r\nlaws that ensure that our voting machines are not susceptible to \r\ntampering and that those machines have a paper trail--laws that ensure \r\nevery vote is counted.\r\n  That is what my constituents are writing to me in the hundreds about. \r\nThey are distrustful of the voting machines and with good reason. Just \r\nlast week, a professor at Princeton hacked into a Diebold e-voting \r\nmachine. Clearly our voting machines are vulnerable to malicious \r\nattacks and potential voter fraud.\r\n  Rather than address these serious concerns before a major election, \r\nthis Congress has decided to take up a bill that seeks to limit the \r\nrights of legal voters. Congress must work on ways to encourage voter \r\nparticipation, not create undue obstacles to vote. I urge Members to \r\nvote against this denial of voting rights.\r\n  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4844.\r\n  I am a strong supporter of re-establishing the integrity of our \r\nelections. The last 6 years have exposed serious flaws in the way we \r\nconduct elections.\r\n  We use electronic forms of voting that cannot be audited, there is no \r\nverification system in place and we all remember the month that this \r\ncountry stood still while we tried to figure out who won the \r\nPresidential election in 2000.\r\n  In the countless election problems this country has seen recently, \r\nnone of them were because of voting by non-citizens.\r\n  H.R. 4844 would require voters to present government-issued I.D. in \r\norder to vote. Currently, that document is a U.S. Passport. Aside from \r\nthe impact this would have on minority voters, this will also impact \r\nthe elderly.\r\n  Under the bill, mail-in ballots would have to include a photo copy of \r\nan ID proving that you are a citizen. Currently, that document is a \r\nU.S. passport.\r\n  Seventy-five percent of Americans don't have a passport and many of \r\nthe senior citizens in my district don't have the resources to pay $97 \r\ndollars to get a passport.\r\n  Forcing Americans to spend their hard earned money to get a passport \r\nor some other form of identification in order to vote sounds a lot like \r\na poll-tax.\r\n  Finally, it is already illegal to vote if you are not a citizen. \r\nState and local officials are already able to enforce these laws. \r\nSecretaries of State and County Clerks have the authority to remove \r\nineligible voters from the rolls to prevent voter fraud.\r\n  This system works and there is no need for this legislation.\r\n  If we want to address election integrity, let's talk about providing \r\na paper-trail and having audits of election returns so we can ensure \r\nevery vote is counted come election day.\r\n  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 484.\r\n  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that during the 40th \r\nAnniversary of the historic passage of the Voting Rights Act, that \r\nanyone could propose mandating nationwide photo ID requirements. Given \r\nthe cost, difficulty and bureaucracy involved in obtaining photo ID for \r\nmany minorities, elderly, and indigent, the idea of a national voter ID \r\nand proof of citizenship requirement amounts to nothing less than a \r\n21st Century Poll Tax, that could disenfranchise as many as 20 million \r\nAmerican voters.\r\n\r\n\r\n       a national voter id requirement will operate as a poll tax\r\n\r\n  We all know that the States will never fund an unfunded mandate, and \r\neven if they do, for many Americans it will be quite difficult, \r\nextensive, and time consuming to obtain the requisite ID cards. \r\nGeorgia, which just enacted a new voter ID requirement did not even \r\nbother to provide an office in Atlanta.\r\n  Data developed during the debate over the Georgia voter ID bill \r\nindicated that 36 percent of Georgians over the age of 75 do not have a \r\ndriver's license and that African-Americans in Georgia are nearly five \r\ntimes less likely\r\n\r\n[[Page H6780]]\r\n\r\nthan whites to have access to a motor vehicle and thus even to need a \r\ndriver's license.\r\n  Moreover, in Georgia, residents who do not have a driver's license \r\nmust buy a State ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card \r\nor $35 for 10 years. For many living on a fixed or low income, $20 to \r\n$35 is cost-prohibitive. People should not be forced to choose between \r\na bag of groceries, needed medications, or the right to vote.\r\n  In addition, the proof of citizenship requirements that are outlined \r\nin this bill will place on the voter the difficult, time consuming, and \r\ncostly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to prove \r\ncitizenship in order to cast a ballot.\r\n\r\n\r\n a national voter id and proof of citizenship requirement will lead to \r\ndiscriminatory implementation and will disproportionately burden people \r\n                                of color\r\n\r\n  There is strong empirical evidence that photo ID requirements \r\ndisproportionately burden people of color.\r\n  In 1994, the Justice Department found that African-Americans in \r\nLouisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned \r\nphoto ID than white residents. As a result, the DoJ denied pre-\r\nclearance for that State's proposed photo ID requirement because they \r\nfound that ``it would lead to retrogression in the position of racial \r\nminorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral \r\nfranchise.''\r\n  Moreover, in 2001, the Carter-Ford National Commission on Election \r\nReform found that identification provisions at the polls are \r\nselectively enforced. Even in places that do not require voters to show \r\nID, poll workers are known to ask certain voters to prove their \r\nidentity, in many cases demanding ID from minority voters, but not \r\nwhites.\r\n\r\n\r\n  many americans do not and will not have the requisite state-issued \r\n             photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements\r\n\r\n  In 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform \r\nestimated that 10 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a drive's \r\nlicense or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID. That translates into \r\nas many as 20 million eligible voters who will not be allowed to vote \r\non Election Day.\r\n  Moreover, proof of citizenship requirements, such as the one proposed \r\nin this bill, are impossible for members of some communities to acquire \r\nand very hard for others. It is widely known that in certain parts of \r\nthe country, elderly African-Americans and many Native Americans were \r\nborn at home, under the care of midwives, and do not possess birth \r\ncertificates. People of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, \r\nand low-income citizens are among the demographic groups least likely \r\nto have documents in their possession to prove citizenship.\r\n  Further, for victims of natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and \r\nRita, it may be impossible to obtain birth certificates or other \r\ndocuments because they have been destroyed.\r\n\r\n\r\n  an id card system will lead to a slippery slope of surveillance and \r\n                           citizen monitoring\r\n\r\n  A national voter ID card system would significantly diminish freedom \r\nand privacy in the U.S. because once put in place, it is unlikely that \r\nsuch a system would be restricted to its original purpose. A national \r\nvoter ID system would threaten the privacy that Americans have always \r\nenjoyed and will gradually increase the control that government and \r\nbusiness wields over everyday citizens.\r\n\r\n\r\n                               conclusion\r\n\r\n  We all want clean elections. But that is not what legislation like \r\nH.R. 4844 will accomplish. A federally mandated voter ID and proof of \r\ncitizenship requirement will make it harder for people to vote, and not \r\njust people generally, but lawfully registered voters who happen to be \r\nseniors, young people, living in cities, lower-income and minorities. \r\nThat is an effect clearly at odds with our most fundamental values as \r\nAmericans.\r\n  Voting is an invaluable right--the one that guards all of our other \r\nrights and ensures every American an opportunity to participate in our \r\ndemocracy. We must do everything in our power to make voting easier, \r\nnot harder, and to resist the imposition of new requirements to vote \r\nthat do not serve a fair and compelling purpose that actually promotes \r\nour democracy.\r\n  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4844--the so-called \r\n``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''.\r\n  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, it almost seems that each day that goes by, \r\nthis Congress stands idly by while we lose more and more of our \r\nfundamental rights.\r\n  When there is voter fraud--anywhere, anytime election officials must \r\nreact immediately to right the problem.\r\n  And at every turn in this democracy, we must work to increase what is \r\nstill an anemic voter turnout in the world's leading democracy.\r\n  Where's the problem to solve?\r\n  The voting problems in recent mid-Atlantic areas were related to the \r\nnew electronic devices that neither voters--nor poll workers--were \r\nfamiliar with using.\r\n  This bill is not about integrity or reducing voter fraud--it is all \r\nabout depressing the number of voters in U.S. elections by requiring \r\nall citizens to show proof of citizenship in order to vote.\r\n  This Congress would have voters show both a drivers license and a \r\nbirth certificate in order to cast a vote.\r\n  Where's your birth certificate?\r\n  Ask those you know born in this country--do you know how to put your \r\nhands on your birth certificate?\r\n  Imagine the difficulty for the elderly, students, the disabled, \r\nNative Americans and other minorities in finding that document . . . or \r\nperhaps that was imagined when this scheme was conceived.\r\n  Members of this House should not fear great numbers of voters in \r\nelections--we must encourage it.\r\n  Hispanics in South Texas will be profoundly impacted by this \r\nlegislation.\r\n  This bill will suppress turnout and intimidate voters--which is a \r\nslap in the face of democracy and our Constitution.\r\n  Millions of Americans will be denied their right to vote because this \r\nCongress is so determined to address a problem that does not really \r\nexist.\r\n  This bill imposes the 2nd poll tax on voters--through this 2nd \r\nunfunded mandate for voting requirements on the states.\r\n  Let us not move backwards on this matter.\r\n  In my very first election--as Constable in Nueces County, Texas, in \r\n1964--the poll tax was in its final throws . . . but was still the law \r\nin Texas.\r\n  My mother borrowed against her house to help offset my filing fee . . \r\n. and to help my voters pay the poll tax.\r\n  Let's not ever see that day again where citizens are taxed in order \r\nto vote . . . let's stop putting unfunded mandate on our states . . . \r\nand let's seek more ways to increase voting, not suppress it.\r\n  We've come too far on civil rights in this Nation to move backwards.\r\n  Let us act boldly . . . let us find ways to increase voting in the \r\nUnited States, not suppress it, or tax voters to DE-crease voter \r\nturnout.\r\n  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the \r\nwrongly entitled Federal Election Integrity Act. Like so many \r\nRepublican window dressings, this bill might seem like a no-brainer to \r\nsome. Only citizens can vote, so why not have them show their ID and \r\nprove their address and citizenship to reduce fraud? If only the real \r\nworld were as simple as country club Republicans imagine.\r\n  What about students whose driver's licenses show their home address \r\nbut who register to vote on campus? Nursing home residents who have \r\nbeen voting for over 50 years but whose documents are nowhere to be \r\nfound? Low-income Americans who don't drive and have never had a state-\r\nissued identification? It's no coincidence that the people who will be \r\ndisenfranchised by this bill are core Democratic constituencies. \r\nPowerful interests have figured out that there are lots of ways to \r\ninstitute a poll tax by another name.\r\n  What about reducing voter fraud, something we all support? It will \r\ncome as no surprise to anyone who has run for office or worked in \r\ncampaigns that there is little evidence of fraudulent voting. It's hard \r\nenough to convince most registered voters to go to the polls. What is \r\nthe incentive to engage in voter fraud, a felony offense? In \r\nparticular, there is little incentive for immigrants--against whom this \r\nlegislation is targeted--to vote illegally. Voter fraud by immigrants \r\nis subject to immediate deportation without appeal. Do the sponsors of \r\nthis bill really believe that thousands, or even tens, of immigrants \r\nwould risk deportation to cast a single vote?\r\n  If anything shatters confidence in our election system, it is the \r\nthousands of votes that are not counted because of dimpled chads, \r\nelectronic voting breakdowns, provisional ballot mishaps, three-hour \r\nlines at polling places, and the like. The Help America Vote Act, which \r\nwas supposed to address some of these problems, has never been fully \r\nfunded or enforced, and yet the Republican Majority wants to further \r\nrestrict voting and create a new administrative nightmare for our \r\nstates and localities.\r\n  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, so that all Americans \r\nmight have the opportunity to cast their vote in November against this \r\ndesperate cling to power.\r\n  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. \r\n4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, because it will \r\nsacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all American \r\ncitizens by the Constitution--the right to vote. Contrary to its title, \r\nthe bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by \r\nimposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal \r\nelections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo \r\nidentification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in \r\nreality they will create an\r\n\r\n[[Page H6781]]\r\n\r\nunprecedented regime of disenfranchisement aimed at seniors, minority \r\nvoters, low income voters, students and voters with disabilities.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes an undue burden on eligible voters. As \r\nthe United States District Court found last year in Common Cause v. \r\nBillups, 406 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia \r\nlaw requiring ID at the polls, ``photo identification requirements \r\nunconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible \r\nAmerican citizens.'' The district judge issued an immediate injunction \r\nagainst the law, likening it to a segregation-era poll tax because the \r\ndigital picture ID would cost voters $20. The court found that these \r\nprovisions disproportionately affect traditionally disenfranchised \r\nvoters, including senior citizens, minority voters, poor voters, \r\ndisabled voters and young voters.\r\n  And the decisions keep coming. A state judge yesterday again rejected \r\nthe Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo \r\nidentification, writing in his decision, ``This cannot be.'' In his \r\nruling, the judge said that the law places too much of a burden on \r\nvoters, and ``Any attempt by the legislature to require more than what \r\nis required by the express language of our Constitution cannot \r\nwithstand judicial scrutiny''. Lake v. Perdue, No. CV 119207 (Ga. \r\nSuper. Ct. Sept. 19, 2006) In Michigan, the photo ID requirement was \r\ndeclared unconstitutional by the State's attorney general and his \r\ndecision is now being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. In \r\nPennsylvania, a similar voter ID bill was vetoed by the governor.\r\n  Proponents of this bill claim that these draconian constraints are \r\nnecessary to guard against identity fraud at the Nation's polling \r\nplaces. The truth, however tells a far different story. According to \r\nthe United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871 votes cast \r\nsince 2002, only about 80 voters were convicted of federal election \r\nfraud. Mr. Speaker, when we compare the number of eligible voters that \r\nwill be disenfranchised because of this bill to the number of \r\ndocumented cases of fraud, it's clear that this bill will do more harm \r\nthan good--the cure is clearly worse than the disease.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe that the same Congress that \r\nreauthorized the Voting Rights Act two months ago could now seriously \r\ncontemplate passage of this bill. There is plenty that needs to be done \r\nto fix our electoral system, but instead of addressing problems that \r\ndon't exist, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have a model \r\nsystem of choosing our elected officials--one that exemplifies the true \r\nprinciple of democracy and serves as an example to other nations around \r\nthe world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.\r\n  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the \r\nRepublicans' National Voter ID act. This bill imposes new Federal ID \r\nrequirements on all voters in Federal elections and would have the \r\neffect of disenfranchising millions of American citizens. H.R. 4844 \r\nrequires all States to demand that voters provide government-issued \r\nidentification in order to vote in the 2008 election, and a copy when \r\nvoting absentee or by mail, and proof of citizenship in order to vote \r\nin the 2010 election.\r\n  Unfortunately, H.R. 4844 undoes the progress of the Voting Rights Act \r\nReauthorization enacted just 2 months ago by imposing a 21st century \r\npoll tax. This bill would disenfranchise the elderly, people with \r\ndisabilities, and minorities. The costs of obtaining the documents \r\nneeded to prove you are citizen are high. A birth certificate usually \r\ncosts $1- $15; and according to the State Department only 27 percent of \r\neligible Americans have passports, which cost $97. Naturalization \r\npapers, if they need to be replaced, cost $210. While supporters of \r\nH.R. 4844 promise to help some citizens who don't have money to pay for \r\nthese documents, we cannot bank on the promise from the Republican \r\nmajority who have refused to honor their commitment to the Help America \r\nVote Act.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, let me state clearly that I oppose voter fraud. \r\nCurrently, there are very strong federal statues on the books to \r\npenalize voter fraud and I support their vigorous enforcement. The Help \r\nAmerican Vote Act, which I supported, gave States resources to both \r\nexpand access and prevent voter fraud. Yet, the Republican majority has \r\nunder-funded the Help American Vote Act by $800 million. I oppose this \r\nlegislation, and urge my colleagues to reject this 21st Century poll \r\ntax.\r\n  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4844, and \r\nexpress my dismay with this distraction. I fear that actions taken \r\ntoday will sear doubt and weakness into one of our treasured and \r\nfundamental rights as a democratic Nation.\r\n  Not 3 months ago, we dedicated significant amounts of time land \r\nresources to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We celebrated the fact \r\nthat these rights will be secure for another generation. And yet, with \r\nthis bit!, we are reminded that these rights are fleeting, and must \r\ncontinually be protected.\r\n  This bill undermines the very provisions we have been fighting for--\r\nand clearly have not yet won--for over 40 years. This bill compounds \r\nthe disproportionate discrimination that persists across this Nation.\r\n  This bill attempts to address a problem that does not exist, and this \r\nis crucial to understand. There is no voter fraud problem. It is simply \r\nnot a documented issue. Suggesting that it may be plays into bigotry \r\nand xenophobia.\r\n  Data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows that while 196,139,871 \r\nvotes have been cast in Federal elections since October 2002, only 52 \r\nindividuals have been convicted of Federal voter fraud. Most of these \r\nconvictions were for vote buying or for voter registration fraud, \r\nneither of which would be prevented by restrictive ill requirements at \r\nthe polls.\r\n  If convicted of voter fraud, an individual can be given up to 5 years \r\nin prison and a $10,000 fine: The Department of Justice and the Federal \r\nBureau of Investigation has an active--and fully funded--prosecution \r\nteam to enforce Federal and State election laws.\r\n  In reality, the bill is a 21st century poll tax. Instead of money \r\ncollected at the poll door, however, the tax will now be collected at \r\nthe Department of Motor Vehicles. Congress cannot place itself on the \r\nwrong side of this debate--history will see this clearly.\r\n  The crux of discriminatory measures in this bill rests with the fact \r\nthat the right to vote is tied to documents that are not readily \r\navailable. The burden of obtaining these documents--whether the cost of \r\nobtaining supporting documentation, investing the time to navigate \r\nbureaucracy or the waiting period to receive the documents in the \r\nmail--is prohibitive, and yet familiar. Anyone who has waited in line \r\nat the DMV must understand what a mistake this is.\r\n  I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from \r\nvoting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill \r\nis that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal \r\nimmigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are \r\nunlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to \r\nregister incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less \r\nlikely to risk deportation just to influence an election.\r\n  If for no other reason than Hurricane Katrina, we must all understand \r\nhow vulnerable our system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes last \r\nsummer suffered loss of property that included lost documents. \r\nCompounding this was the devastation of the region, which virtually \r\nshut down civil services in the area. New Orleans residents were \r\nscattered across 44 States. And had difficulty registering and voting \r\nboth with absentee ballots and at satellite voting stations for the \r\nApril 22 city elections this year. Those elections took place fully 8 \r\nmonths after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits, \r\nsuch as the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are \r\nconstitutionally guaranteed.\r\n  In addition, this bill hands State governments yet another unfunded \r\nmandate. By 2010, we must all submit photo IDs with proof of \r\ncitizenship in order to vote. Currently, no more than 4 States have \r\ndriver's licenses or IDs that match these requirements. The only other \r\ndocument that does satisfy this requirement is a passport. Therefore, \r\nevery State that does not have this kind of photo ID must restructure \r\nand create the ID system to provide adequate voting permits for \r\neveryone who does not have an updated passport with a current address. \r\nThis would involve reissuing driver's licenses or identification cards \r\nin almost every State.\r\n  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 4844 \r\nwould cost about $1 million in 2007 and $77 million over the 2007-2011 \r\nperiod, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. This exceeds \r\nthe allowed amounts in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In addition, \r\nCBO estimates that the cost of providing photo identification for \r\nvoters who cannot afford them would be about $45 million in 2008.\r\n  This is simply ludicrous. We need to address the election fraud that \r\nwe know is occurring, such as voting machine integrity and poll \r\nvolunteer training and competence. After every election that occurs in \r\nthis country, we have documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and \r\nerrors. In 2004, in New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously \r\nfailed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 \r\nballots. One million ballots nationwide were spoiled by faulty voting \r\nequipment--roughly one for every 100 cast.\r\n\r\n[[Page H6782]]\r\n\r\n  Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor, \r\nminorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose \r\naddresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty \r\nproviding documentation.\r\n  In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to \r\ncompleting a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to \r\nreceive the marriage certificate in the mail, another 2 weeks (and a \r\nfull day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and \r\nfinally, 3-4 weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a \r\nsignificant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds \r\nfrom voting if they are married within 3 months of election day.\r\n  An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible \r\nvoter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our \r\nelections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible \r\nAmericans.\r\n  The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected \r\ncivil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge \r\njustice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me \r\nin dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective \r\nsolutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot \r\nlet the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon \r\nwhich we have established liberty and freedom.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). All time for debate has \r\nexpired.\r\n  Pursuant to House Resolution 1015, the previous question is ordered \r\non the bill, as amended.\r\n  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.\r\n  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was \r\nread the third time.\r\n\r\n\r\n          Motion to Recommit Offered By Ms. Millender-McDonald\r\n\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I am opposed at this present time, Mr. \r\nSpeaker.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to \r\nrecommit.\r\n  The Clerk read as follows:\r\n\r\n       Ms. Millender-McDonald moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4844 \r\n     to the Committee on House Administration with instructions to \r\n     report the same back to the House forthwith with the \r\n     following amendment:\r\n       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the \r\n     following:\r\n\r\n     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\r\n\r\n       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity \r\n     Act of 2006''.\r\n\r\n     SEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.\r\n\r\n       (a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as \r\n     Condition of Receiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help \r\n     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--\r\n       (1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register \r\n     by Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo \r\n     Identification''; and\r\n       (2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting \r\n     the following:\r\n       ``(1) Individuals voting in person.--\r\n       ``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--\r\n     Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as \r\n     provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the appropriate \r\n     State or local election official may not provide a ballot for \r\n     an election for Federal office to an individual who desires \r\n     to vote in person unless the individual presents to the \r\n     official--\r\n       ``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid photo \r\n     identification; or\r\n       ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general \r\n     election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each \r\n     subsequent election for Federal office, a government-issued, \r\n     current, and valid photo identification for which the \r\n     individual was required to provide proof of United States \r\n     citizenship as a condition for the issuance of the \r\n     identification.\r\n       ``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an individual \r\n     does not present the identification required under \r\n     subparagraph (A), the individual shall be permitted to cast a \r\n     provisional ballot with respect to the election under section \r\n     302(a), except that the appropriate State or local election \r\n     official may not make a determination under section 302(a)(4) \r\n     that the individual is eligible under State law to vote in \r\n     the election unless the individual presents the \r\n     identification required under subparagraph (A) to the \r\n     official not later than 48 hours after casting the \r\n     provisional ballot.\r\n       ``(C) Exception for elderly and disabled voters.--\r\n     Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any elderly \r\n     or handicapped individual. In this subparagraph, the terms \r\n     `elderly' and `handicapped' have the meanings given such \r\n     terms in section 8 of the Voting Accessibility for the \r\n     Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-6)).\r\n       ``(D) Exception for victims of hurricane katrina.--\r\n     Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any \r\n     individual who certifies to the appropriate election official \r\n     that the documentation which would enable the individual to \r\n     obtain the identification required under such subparagraph \r\n     was lost or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina.\r\n       ``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--\r\n       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of \r\n     law and except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and \r\n     (D), the appropriate State or local election official may not \r\n     accept any ballot for an election for Federal office provided \r\n     by an individual who votes other than in person unless the \r\n     individual submits with the ballot--\r\n       ``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current, and valid \r\n     photo identification; or\r\n       ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled general \r\n     election for Federal office held in November 2010 and each \r\n     subsequent election for Federal office, a copy of a \r\n     government-issued, current, and valid photo identification \r\n     for which the individual was required to provide proof of \r\n     United States citizenship as a condition for the issuance of \r\n     the identification.\r\n       ``(B) Exception for absent military voters and their \r\n     families.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a \r\n     ballot provided by an absent uniformed services voter. In \r\n     this subparagraph, the term `absent uniformed services voter' \r\n     has the meaning given such term in section 107(1) of the \r\n     Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 \r\n     U.S.C. 1973ff-6(1)).\r\n       ``(C) Exception for elderly and disabled voters.--\r\n     Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a ballot \r\n     provided by a elderly or handicapped individual. In this \r\n     subparagraph, the terms `elderly' and `handicapped' have the \r\n     meanings given such terms in section 8 of the Voting \r\n     Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. \r\n     1973ee-6)).\r\n       ``(D) Exception for victims of hurricane katrina.--\r\n     Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to any \r\n     individual who certifies to the appropriate election official \r\n     that the documentation which would enable the individual to \r\n     obtain the identification required under such subparagraph \r\n     was lost or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina.\r\n       ``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For \r\n     purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--\r\n       ``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it is \r\n     issued by the Federal Government or by the government of a \r\n     State; and\r\n       ``(B) an identification is one for which an individual was \r\n     required to provide proof of United States citizenship as a \r\n     condition for issuance if the identification displays an \r\n     official marking or other indication that the individual is a \r\n     United States citizen.''.\r\n       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42 \r\n     U.S.C. 15483) is amended--\r\n       (1) in the heading, by striking ``FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER \r\n     BY MAIL'' and inserting ``FOR PROVIDING PHOTO \r\n     IDENTIFICATION''; and\r\n       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections \r\n     (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting \r\n     ``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.\r\n       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act \r\n     is amended by amending the item relating to section 303 to \r\n     read as follows:\r\n\r\n``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements \r\n              and requirements for providing photo identification''.\r\n       (d) Effective Date.--\r\n       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by \r\n     this section shall apply with respect to the regularly \r\n     scheduled general election for Federal office held in \r\n     November 2008 and each subsequent election for Federal \r\n     office.\r\n       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act \r\n     (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:\r\n       ``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--\r\n     Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with \r\n     respect to the regularly scheduled general election for \r\n     Federal office held in November 2008 and each subsequent \r\n     election for Federal office.''.\r\n       (3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or section \r\n     303(d)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as amended by \r\n     paragraph (2)), this section and the amendments made by this \r\n     section shall not apply with respect to any election which is \r\n     held in a State during a fiscal year for which the amount \r\n     provided to the State pursuant to the authorization under \r\n     section 297A of such Act (as added by section 3(c)) is not \r\n     sufficient to cover the costs incurred by the State in \r\n     carrying out the amendments made by section 3.\r\n\r\n     SEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.\r\n\r\n       (a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--\r\n     Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 \r\n     U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--\r\n       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs \r\n     (5) and (6); and\r\n       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new \r\n     paragraph:\r\n       ``(4) Making photo identifications available.--\r\n       ``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each \r\n     succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a program \r\n     to provide photo identifications which may be used to meet \r\n     the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by individuals who \r\n     desire to vote in elections held in the State but who do not \r\n     otherwise\r\n\r\n[[Page H6783]]\r\n\r\n     possess a government-issued photo identification.\r\n       ``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent \r\n     individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee for \r\n     providing a photo identification under the program \r\n     established under subparagraph (A)--\r\n       ``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to \r\n     the State of providing the identification to the individual; \r\n     and\r\n       ``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any individual who \r\n     provides an attestation that the individual is unable to \r\n     afford the fee.\r\n       ``(C) Identifications not to be used for other purposes.--\r\n     Any photo identification provided under the program \r\n     established under subparagraph (A) may not serve as a \r\n     government-issued photo identification for purposes of any \r\n     program or function of a State or local government other than \r\n     the administration of elections.''.\r\n       (b) Report on Number of Individuals Unable to Cast Ballots \r\n     as a Result of Photo Identification Requirement.--Section \r\n     303(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by \r\n     subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the following \r\n     new paragraph:\r\n       ``(7) Report on number of individuals unable to cast \r\n     ballots as a result of photo identification requirement.--Not \r\n     later than December 31 of each year during which a regularly \r\n     scheduled general election for Federal office is held \r\n     (beginning with 2008), each State shall submit a report to \r\n     the Commission on the number of individuals in the State who \r\n     were registered to vote with respect to the election but who \r\n     were prohibited from casting a ballot in the election, or \r\n     whose provisional ballots were not counted in the election, \r\n     because they failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) \r\n     or (2).''.\r\n       (c) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title \r\n     II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding \r\n     at the end the following new part:\r\n\r\n``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO \r\n                          INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS\r\n\r\n     ``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING \r\n                   PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT \r\n                   INDIVIDUALS.\r\n\r\n       ``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make \r\n     payments to States to cover the costs incurred in providing \r\n     photo identifications under the program established under \r\n     section 303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the \r\n     fee that would otherwise be charged under the program.\r\n       ``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to \r\n     a State under this part for any year shall be equal to the \r\n     amount of fees which would have been collected by the State \r\n     during the year under the program established under section \r\n     303(b)(4) but for the application of section \r\n     303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information \r\n     furnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in \r\n     such form as the Commission may require.\r\n\r\n     ``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.\r\n\r\n       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments \r\n     under this part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year \r\n     2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.\r\n       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act \r\n     is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to \r\n     subtitle D of title II the following:\r\n\r\n``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to \r\n                          Indigent Individuals\r\n\r\n``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo \r\n              identifications for voting to indigent individuals.\r\n``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.\r\n       (e) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made \r\n     by this section shall take effect October 1, 2007.\r\n\r\n     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW VOTER \r\n                   IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.\r\n\r\n       (a) Availability of Funding for States.--The amendments \r\n     made by this Act shall not take effect unless--\r\n       (1) the amount provided to States pursuant to the \r\n     authorization under section 297A of the Help America Vote Act \r\n     of 2002 (as added by section 3(c)) is sufficient to cover the \r\n     costs to the States of meeting the requirements of section \r\n     303(b)(4) of such Act (as added by section 3(a)); and\r\n       (2) the amount provided to States for requirements payments \r\n     under subtitle D of title II of such Act is sufficient to \r\n     cover the costs to the States of meeting the requirements of \r\n     title III of such Act (other than section 303(b)(4)), taking \r\n     into account the additional requirements imposed by the \r\n     amendments made by this Act.\r\n       (b) Requiring Access to Photo Identifications Prior to \r\n     Implementation of New Requirements.--The amendments made by \r\n     this Act shall not take effect unless the Election Assistance \r\n     Commission reports to Congress that not less than 95 percent \r\n     of the voting age population of the United States has \r\n     obtained photo identification which meets the requirements of \r\n     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which are added by the \r\n     amendments made by this Act, and that individuals who were \r\n     not able to afford the fee imposed by a State for the \r\n     identification were provided the identification free of \r\n     charge by the State.\r\n       (c) Requiring Certification by Attorney General, Chief \r\n     State Election Official, and Governor Prior to Implementation \r\n     of New Requirements in State.--\r\n       (1) Certification.--The amendments made by this Act shall \r\n     not apply with respect to elections held in a State unless \r\n     the chief executive of the State, the chief State election \r\n     official of the State, and the Attorney General certify to \r\n     Congress that, on the basis of clear and convincing \r\n     evidence--\r\n       (A) voting by noncitizens in the State is a persistent and \r\n     significant problem; and\r\n       (B) the remedies and prohibitions applicable under the laws \r\n     in effect prior to the implementation of the amendments made \r\n     by this Act are insufficient to prevent and deter this \r\n     problem.\r\n       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection--\r\n       (A) the term ``chief State election official'' has the \r\n     meaning given such term in section 253(e) of the Help America \r\n     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15403(e)); and\r\n       (B) the term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in \r\n     section 901 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15541).\r\n       (d) Study and Report on Anticipated Effect of \r\n     Implementation on Participation by Elderly, Disabled, Native \r\n     Americans and Minority Voters.--The amendments made by this \r\n     Act shall not take effect unless the Election Assistance \r\n     Commission--\r\n       (1) conducts a study on the anticipated impact of the \r\n     amendments on voter participation; and\r\n       (2) submits a report to Congress on the study which \r\n     concludes that the implementation of the amendments will not \r\n     disproportionately affect voter participation by the elderly, \r\n     the disabled, Native Americans, and members of racial \r\n     minorities.\r\n\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask \r\nunanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and \r\nprinted in the Record.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the \r\ngentlewoman from California?\r\n  There was no objection.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from \r\nCalifornia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to vote \r\nout a proof-of-citizenship requirement to allow citizens to exercise \r\ntheir constitutional right to vote, then we should consider who will be \r\ndisenfranchised by this new requirement, and we should ensure that the \r\nStates have both the funds and have determined their needs to implement \r\nthis mandate.\r\n  Of course, we should exempt those who will be greatly burdened and \r\nare least likely to fit the straw man profile which the majority has \r\nthrown up as its excuse to pass this bill, voting by noncitizens. There \r\nis no showing that this straw man is a problem of sufficient \r\nproportions to justify a 21st century poll tax.\r\n  There is no empirical data on which to justify this unfunded mandate, \r\nand the personal financial burden and, in some cases, the sheer \r\nimpossibility of citizens to obtain the required documentation must be \r\ntaken into consideration.\r\n  I therefore offer a motion to recommit, which does the following \r\nthings to the Republican proof-of-citizenship photo ID obstacle to \r\nvoting.\r\n  First, the motion to recommit exempts all military voters and their \r\nfamilies from the requirement of submitting a copy of their photo ID \r\nwhen mailing in an absentee ballot, not just those uniformed personnel \r\noverseas, as the underlying Hyde bill allows.\r\n  Second, my motion exempts all elderly and disabled voters from having \r\nto provide their photo ID at polls or when mailing in absentee ballots. \r\nThey have financial and access obstacles which ordinary citizens simply \r\ndo not have, and we need to recognize and adjust for that.\r\n  Third, the motion prevents the bill from taking effect in any State \r\nand during any fiscal year in which the Federal Government is acting \r\nirresponsibly by not providing sufficient Federal funds to cover the \r\nState costs of the unfunded mandate of making photo IDs available.\r\n  Fourth, my motion to recommit empowers the States by requiring that \r\nthis new proof of citizenship photo ID provision will not take effect \r\nuntil the State's chief executive, chief election officer, and attorney \r\ngeneral have each certified to Congress that voting by noncitizens in \r\nthe State is a persistent and significant problem that can't be \r\nresolved by existing State and Federal laws.\r\n  Fifth, the motion seeks to enlighten the Congress on the impact of \r\nthis law by having States issue a report to the Election Assistance \r\nCommission on the number of individuals who are\r\n\r\n[[Page H6784]]\r\n\r\ndisenfranchised because of a photo ID requirement.\r\n  Sixth, the motion seeks to temper the likely effects of this harsh \r\nnew statute by holding its application in abeyance until the Election \r\nAssistance Commission reports to Congress that 95 percent of the \r\nvoting-age population has acquired a photo ID which meets the \r\nrequirements of this act.\r\n  Seventh, my motion prevents the law from taking effect until the \r\nElection Assistance Commission studies and reports to Congress that the \r\nphoto ID law will not disproportionately disenfranchise the elderly, \r\ndisabled, minority and Native Americans.\r\n  Finally, the motion exempts Katrina victims whose records were \r\ndestroyed and who were unable to obtain the requisite documentation, as \r\nlong as they certify under penalty of perjury to the appropriate State \r\nelection officials.\r\n  These are major concerns but by no means the only ones.\r\n  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Would the gentlewoman yield just for one \r\nmoment?\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.\r\n  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is very important on two \r\npoints. The poll tax, which is a very important point of our argument, \r\nit has been said this is not a poll tax. It has been said that this is \r\nnot an unfunded mandate. However, it is important to know that at the \r\nsame time they say that this effort will be paid for, but there is no \r\nfunding in this bill to pay for it, that makes it an unfunded mandate. \r\nThat puts the onus on the individual senior citizens, those without it. \r\nTherefore, this was the consideration for the Georgia ruling that it \r\nwas a poll tax and unconstitutional.\r\n  It is also important to note within the case in Georgia it was \r\npointed out that clearly there were 600,000 Georgians, and not just \r\nGeorgians, but registered voters in Georgia, 600,000, who did not have \r\neither a driver's license or a birth certificate. In order for that to \r\nhappen, they would have had to provide the costs for doing so, which \r\nwas not in the bill.\r\n  Subsequently, the Governor of Georgia said, to solve this we will put \r\na bus to travel, follow it around the State. The bus made it for 2 \r\nhours and broke down. I wanted to make that clear for the Georgia \r\nrecord.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized \r\nfor 5 minutes.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond without having \r\nseen the text of this beforehand, but it appears clear to me that it \r\nhas the purpose to provide a number of exceptions. Our bill does not \r\nprovide exceptions, because we are interested in ensuring that every \r\nvoter has the right to vote. We also want to ensure that there are no \r\nillegal votes cast.\r\n  References have been made to unfunded mandate. The House just \r\ndefeated that suggestion and said there is no unfunded mandate. There \r\nare concerns about no money being provided. Our committee, the House \r\nAdministration Committee, is an authorizing committee, not an \r\nappropriations committee.\r\n  If this bill is unfunded, it is simply because we are an authorizing \r\ncommittee, and any bill passed by an authorizing committee is unfunded. \r\nWe have to follow the procedures here. We pass authorizing bills. The \r\nappropriators then provide the money to implement authorizing \r\nactivities.\r\n  I strongly urge the Members of the body to recommit this bill and to \r\npass the original version of the bill, as amended, and which was \r\nintroduced to this body and debated for the last 2 hours. It is a good \r\nbill that will provide the safety and security we need to ensure the \r\nvote is taken properly. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this \r\nbill.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is \r\nordered on the motion to recommit.\r\n  There was no objection.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.\r\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that \r\nthe noes appeared to have it.\r\n  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the \r\nground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a \r\nquorum is not present.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.\r\n  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.\r\n  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on \r\nthe motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of \r\nH.R. 4844, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. \r\n976.\r\n  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, \r\nnays 225, not voting 11, as follows\r\n\r\n                             [Roll No. 458]\r\n\r\n                               YEAS--196\r\n\r\n     Abercrombie\r\n     Ackerman\r\n     Allen\r\n     Andrews\r\n     Baca\r\n     Baird\r\n     Baldwin\r\n     Barrow\r\n     Bean\r\n     Becerra\r\n     Berkley\r\n     Berman\r\n     Berry\r\n     Bishop (GA)\r\n     Bishop (NY)\r\n     Blumenauer\r\n     Boren\r\n     Boswell\r\n     Boucher\r\n     Boyd\r\n     Brady (PA)\r\n     Brown (OH)\r\n     Brown, Corrine\r\n     Butterfield\r\n     Capps\r\n     Capuano\r\n     Cardin\r\n     Cardoza\r\n     Carnahan\r\n     Carson\r\n     Chandler\r\n     Clay\r\n     Cleaver\r\n     Clyburn\r\n     Conyers\r\n     Cooper\r\n     Costa\r\n     Costello\r\n     Cramer\r\n     Crowley\r\n     Cuellar\r\n     Cummings\r\n     Davis (AL)\r\n     Davis (CA)\r\n     Davis (FL)\r\n     Davis (IL)\r\n     Davis (TN)\r\n     DeFazio\r\n     DeGette\r\n     Delahunt\r\n     DeLauro\r\n     Dicks\r\n     Dingell\r\n     Doggett\r\n     Doyle\r\n     Edwards\r\n     Emanuel\r\n     Engel\r\n     Eshoo\r\n     Etheridge\r\n     Farr\r\n     Fattah\r\n     Filner\r\n     Ford\r\n     Frank (MA)\r\n     Gonzalez\r\n     Gordon\r\n     Green, Al\r\n     Green, Gene\r\n     Grijalva\r\n     Gutierrez\r\n     Harman\r\n     Hastings (FL)\r\n     Herseth\r\n     Higgins\r\n     Hinchey\r\n     Hinojosa\r\n     Holden\r\n     Holt\r\n     Honda\r\n     Hooley\r\n     Hoyer\r\n     Inslee\r\n     Israel\r\n     Jackson (IL)\r\n     Jackson-Lee (TX)\r\n     Jefferson\r\n     Johnson, E. B.\r\n     Jones (OH)\r\n     Kanjorski\r\n     Kaptur\r\n     Kildee\r\n     Kilpatrick (MI)\r\n     Kind\r\n     Kucinich\r\n     Langevin\r\n     Lantos\r\n     Larsen (WA)\r\n     Larson (CT)\r\n     Lee\r\n     Levin\r\n     Lewis (GA)\r\n     Lipinski\r\n     Lofgren, Zoe\r\n     Lowey\r\n     Lynch\r\n     Maloney\r\n     Markey\r\n     Matheson\r\n     Matsui\r\n     McCarthy\r\n     McCollum (MN)\r\n     McDermott\r\n     McGovern\r\n     McIntyre\r\n     McKinney\r\n     McNulty\r\n     Meehan\r\n     Meek (FL)\r\n     Meeks (NY)\r\n     Melancon\r\n     Michaud\r\n     Millender-McDonald\r\n     Miller (NC)\r\n     Miller, George\r\n     Mollohan\r\n     Moore (WI)\r\n     Moran (VA)\r\n     Murtha\r\n     Nadler\r\n     Napolitano\r\n     Neal (MA)\r\n     Oberstar\r\n     Obey\r\n     Olver\r\n     Ortiz\r\n     Owens\r\n     Pallone\r\n     Pascrell\r\n     Pastor\r\n     Payne\r\n     Pelosi\r\n     Peterson (MN)\r\n     Pomeroy\r\n     Price (NC)\r\n     Rahall\r\n     Rangel\r\n     Reyes\r\n     Ross\r\n     Rothman\r\n     Roybal-Allard\r\n     Ruppersberger\r\n     Rush\r\n     Ryan (OH)\r\n     Sabo\r\n     Salazar\r\n     Sanchez, Linda T.\r\n     Sanchez, Loretta\r\n     Sanders\r\n     Schakowsky\r\n     Schiff\r\n     Schwartz (PA)\r\n     Scott (GA)\r\n     Scott (VA)\r\n     Serrano\r\n     Sherman\r\n     Skelton\r\n     Slaughter\r\n     Smith (WA)\r\n     Snyder\r\n     Solis\r\n     Spratt\r\n     Stark\r\n     Stupak\r\n     Tanner\r\n     Tauscher\r\n     Taylor (MS)\r\n     Thompson (CA)\r\n     Thompson (MS)\r\n     Tierney\r\n     Towns\r\n     Udall (CO)\r\n     Udall (NM)\r\n     Van Hollen\r\n     Velazquez\r\n     Visclosky\r\n     Wasserman Schultz\r\n     Waters\r\n     Watson\r\n     Watt\r\n     Waxman\r\n     Weiner\r\n     Wexler\r\n     Woolsey\r\n     Wu\r\n     Wynn\r\n\r\n                               NAYS--225\r\n\r\n     Aderholt\r\n     Akin\r\n     Alexander\r\n     Bachus\r\n     Baker\r\n     Barrett (SC)\r\n     Bartlett (MD)\r\n     Barton (TX)\r\n     Bass\r\n     Beauprez\r\n     Biggert\r\n     Bilbray\r\n     Bilirakis\r\n     Blackburn\r\n     Blunt\r\n     Boehlert\r\n     Boehner\r\n     Bonilla\r\n     Bonner\r\n     Bono\r\n     Boozman\r\n     Boustany\r\n     Bradley (NH)\r\n     Brady (TX)\r\n     Brown (SC)\r\n     Brown-Waite, Ginny\r\n     Burgess\r\n     Burton (IN)\r\n     Buyer\r\n     Camp (MI)\r\n     Campbell (CA)\r\n     Cannon\r\n     Cantor\r\n     Capito\r\n     Carter\r\n     Castle\r\n     Chabot\r\n     Chocola\r\n     Coble\r\n     Cole (OK)\r\n     Conaway\r\n     Crenshaw\r\n     Culberson\r\n     Davis (KY)\r\n     Davis, Jo Ann\r\n     Davis, Tom\r\n     Deal (GA)\r\n     Dent\r\n     Diaz-Balart, L.\r\n     Diaz-Balart, M.\r\n     Doolittle\r\n     Drake\r\n     Dreier\r\n     Duncan\r\n     Ehlers\r\n     Emerson\r\n     English (PA)\r\n     Everett\r\n     Feeney\r\n     Ferguson\r\n     Fitzpatrick (PA)\r\n     Flake\r\n     Foley\r\n     Forbes\r\n     Fortenberry\r\n     Fossella\r\n     Foxx\r\n     Franks (AZ)\r\n     Frelinghuysen\r\n     Gallegly\r\n     Garrett (NJ)\r\n     Gerlach\r\n     Gibbons\r\n     Gilchrest\r\n     Gillmor\r\n     Gingrey\r\n     Gohmert\r\n     Goode\r\n     Goodlatte\r\n     Granger\r\n     Graves\r\n     Green (WI)\r\n     Gutknecht\r\n     Hall\r\n     Harris\r\n     Hart\r\n     Hastings (WA)\r\n     Hayes\r\n     Hayworth\r\n     Hefley\r\n     Hensarling\r\n     Herger\r\n     Hobson\r\n     Hoekstra\r\n     Hostettler\r\n     Hulshof\r\n     Hunter\r\n     Hyde\r\n     Inglis (SC)\r\n     Issa\r\n     Istook\r\n     Jenkins\r\n     Jindal\r\n     Johnson (CT)\r\n     Johnson (IL)\r\n     Johnson, Sam\r\n     Jones (NC)\r\n     Kelly\r\n     Kennedy (MN)\r\n     King (IA)\r\n     King (NY)\r\n     Kingston\r\n     Kirk\r\n     Kline\r\n     Knollenberg\r\n     Kolbe\r\n     Kuhl (NY)\r\n     LaHood\r\n     Latham\r\n     LaTourette\r\n     Leach\r\n     Lewis (CA)\r\n     Lewis (KY)\r\n     Linder\r\n     LoBiondo\r\n     Lucas\r\n     Lungren, Daniel E.\r\n     Mack\r\n     Manzullo\r\n     Marchant\r\n     Marshall\r\n     McCaul (TX)\r\n     McCotter\r\n     McCrery\r\n     McHenry\r\n     McHugh\r\n     McKeon\r\n     McMorris Rodgers\r\n     Mica\r\n     Miller (FL)\r\n     Miller (MI)\r\n     Miller, Gary\r\n     Moran (KS)\r\n     Murphy\r\n     Musgrave\r\n     Myrick\r\n     Neugebauer\r\n     Northup\r\n     Norwood\r\n     Nunes\r\n     Nussle\r\n     Osborne\r\n     Otter\r\n     Oxley\r\n     Paul\r\n     Pearce\r\n     Pence\r\n     Peterson (PA)\r\n     Petri\r\n     Pickering\r\n     Pitts\r\n     Platts\r\n     Poe\r\n     Pombo\r\n     Porter\r\n     Price (GA)\r\n     Pryce (OH)\r\n     Putnam\r\n\r\n[[Page H6785]]\r\n\r\n\r\n     Radanovich\r\n     Ramstad\r\n     Regula\r\n     Rehberg\r\n     Reichert\r\n     Renzi\r\n     Rogers (AL)\r\n     Rogers (KY)\r\n     Rogers (MI)\r\n     Rohrabacher\r\n     Ros-Lehtinen\r\n     Royce\r\n     Ryan (WI)\r\n     Ryun (KS)\r\n     Saxton\r\n     Schmidt\r\n     Schwarz (MI)\r\n     Sensenbrenner\r\n     Sessions\r\n     Shadegg\r\n     Shaw\r\n     Shays\r\n     Sherwood\r\n     Shimkus\r\n     Shuster\r\n     Simmons\r\n     Simpson\r\n     Smith (NJ)\r\n     Smith (TX)\r\n     Sodrel\r\n     Souder\r\n     Stearns\r\n     Sullivan\r\n     Sweeney\r\n     Tancredo\r\n     Taylor (NC)\r\n     Terry\r\n     Thomas\r\n     Thornberry\r\n     Tiahrt\r\n     Tiberi\r\n     Turner\r\n     Upton\r\n     Walden (OR)\r\n     Walsh\r\n     Wamp\r\n     Weldon (FL)\r\n     Weldon (PA)\r\n     Weller\r\n     Westmoreland\r\n     Whitfield\r\n     Wicker\r\n     Wilson (NM)\r\n     Wilson (SC)\r\n     Wolf\r\n     Young (AK)\r\n     Young (FL)\r\n\r\n                             NOT VOTING--11\r\n\r\n     Bishop (UT)\r\n     Calvert\r\n     Case\r\n     Cubin\r\n     Evans\r\n     Keller\r\n     Kennedy (RI)\r\n     Moore (KS)\r\n     Ney\r\n     Reynolds\r\n     Strickland\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1550\r\n\r\n  Messrs. PICKERING, LUCAS, TERRY, NUNES, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of \r\nCalifornia, WALDEN of Oregon, HEFLEY, LaHOOD and GARY G. MILLER of \r\nCalifornia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''\r\n  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. HOLT and Mr. UDALL of \r\nColorado changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''\r\n  So the motion to recommit was rejected.\r\n  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.\r\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that \r\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\r\n  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\r\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.\r\n  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, \r\nnays 196, not voting 8, as follows:\r\n\r\n                             [Roll No. 459]\r\n\r\n                               YEAS--228\r\n\r\n     Aderholt\r\n     Akin\r\n     Alexander\r\n     Bachus\r\n     Baker\r\n     Barrett (SC)\r\n     Bartlett (MD)\r\n     Barton (TX)\r\n     Bean\r\n     Beauprez\r\n     Biggert\r\n     Bilbray\r\n     Bilirakis\r\n     Bishop (UT)\r\n     Blackburn\r\n     Blunt\r\n     Boehlert\r\n     Boehner\r\n     Bonilla\r\n     Bonner\r\n     Bono\r\n     Boozman\r\n     Boustany\r\n     Brady (TX)\r\n     Brown (SC)\r\n     Brown-Waite, Ginny\r\n     Burgess\r\n     Burton (IN)\r\n     Buyer\r\n     Calvert\r\n     Camp (MI)\r\n     Campbell (CA)\r\n     Cannon\r\n     Cantor\r\n     Capito\r\n     Carter\r\n     Castle\r\n     Chabot\r\n     Chocola\r\n     Coble\r\n     Cole (OK)\r\n     Conaway\r\n     Crenshaw\r\n     Culberson\r\n     Davis (KY)\r\n     Davis, Jo Ann\r\n     Davis, Tom\r\n     Deal (GA)\r\n     Dent\r\n     Diaz-Balart, L.\r\n     Diaz-Balart, M.\r\n     Doolittle\r\n     Drake\r\n     Dreier\r\n     Duncan\r\n     Ehlers\r\n     Emerson\r\n     English (PA)\r\n     Everett\r\n     Feeney\r\n     Ferguson\r\n     Fitzpatrick (PA)\r\n     Flake\r\n     Foley\r\n     Forbes\r\n     Fortenberry\r\n     Fossella\r\n     Foxx\r\n     Franks (AZ)\r\n     Frelinghuysen\r\n     Gallegly\r\n     Garrett (NJ)\r\n     Gerlach\r\n     Gibbons\r\n     Gilchrest\r\n     Gillmor\r\n     Gingrey\r\n     Gohmert\r\n     Goode\r\n     Goodlatte\r\n     Granger\r\n     Graves\r\n     Green (WI)\r\n     Gutknecht\r\n     Hall\r\n     Harris\r\n     Hart\r\n     Hastings (WA)\r\n     Hayes\r\n     Hayworth\r\n     Hefley\r\n     Hensarling\r\n     Herger\r\n     Hobson\r\n     Hoekstra\r\n     Hostettler\r\n     Hulshof\r\n     Hunter\r\n     Hyde\r\n     Inglis (SC)\r\n     Issa\r\n     Istook\r\n     Jenkins\r\n     Jindal\r\n     Johnson (CT)\r\n     Johnson (IL)\r\n     Johnson, Sam\r\n     Jones (NC)\r\n     Kelly\r\n     Kennedy (MN)\r\n     King (IA)\r\n     King (NY)\r\n     Kingston\r\n     Kirk\r\n     Kline\r\n     Knollenberg\r\n     Kolbe\r\n     Kuhl (NY)\r\n     LaHood\r\n     Latham\r\n     LaTourette\r\n     Leach\r\n     Lewis (CA)\r\n     Lewis (KY)\r\n     Linder\r\n     LoBiondo\r\n     Lucas\r\n     Lungren, Daniel E.\r\n     Mack\r\n     Manzullo\r\n     Marchant\r\n     Marshall\r\n     McCaul (TX)\r\n     McCotter\r\n     McCrery\r\n     McHenry\r\n     McHugh\r\n     McKeon\r\n     McMorris Rodgers\r\n     Mica\r\n     Miller (FL)\r\n     Miller (MI)\r\n     Miller, Gary\r\n     Moran (KS)\r\n     Murphy\r\n     Musgrave\r\n     Myrick\r\n     Neugebauer\r\n     Northup\r\n     Norwood\r\n     Nunes\r\n     Nussle\r\n     Osborne\r\n     Otter\r\n     Oxley\r\n     Paul\r\n     Pearce\r\n     Pence\r\n     Peterson (MN)\r\n     Peterson (PA)\r\n     Petri\r\n     Pickering\r\n     Pitts\r\n     Platts\r\n     Poe\r\n     Pombo\r\n     Porter\r\n     Price (GA)\r\n     Pryce (OH)\r\n     Putnam\r\n     Radanovich\r\n     Ramstad\r\n     Regula\r\n     Rehberg\r\n     Reichert\r\n     Renzi\r\n     Reynolds\r\n     Rogers (AL)\r\n     Rogers (KY)\r\n     Rogers (MI)\r\n     Rohrabacher\r\n     Ros-Lehtinen\r\n     Royce\r\n     Ryan (WI)\r\n     Ryun (KS)\r\n     Saxton\r\n     Schmidt\r\n     Schwarz (MI)\r\n     Sensenbrenner\r\n     Sessions\r\n     Shadegg\r\n     Shaw\r\n     Shays\r\n     Sherwood\r\n     Shimkus\r\n     Shuster\r\n     Simmons\r\n     Simpson\r\n     Smith (NJ)\r\n     Smith (TX)\r\n     Sodrel\r\n     Souder\r\n     Stearns\r\n     Sullivan\r\n     Sweeney\r\n     Tancredo\r\n     Taylor (MS)\r\n     Taylor (NC)\r\n     Terry\r\n     Thomas\r\n     Thornberry\r\n     Tiahrt\r\n     Tiberi\r\n     Turner\r\n     Upton\r\n     Walden (OR)\r\n     Walsh\r\n     Wamp\r\n     Weldon (FL)\r\n     Weldon (PA)\r\n     Weller\r\n     Westmoreland\r\n     Whitfield\r\n     Wicker\r\n     Wilson (NM)\r\n     Wilson (SC)\r\n     Wolf\r\n     Young (FL)\r\n\r\n                               NAYS--196\r\n\r\n     Abercrombie\r\n     Ackerman\r\n     Allen\r\n     Andrews\r\n     Baca\r\n     Baird\r\n     Baldwin\r\n     Barrow\r\n     Bass\r\n     Becerra\r\n     Berkley\r\n     Berman\r\n     Berry\r\n     Bishop (GA)\r\n     Bishop (NY)\r\n     Blumenauer\r\n     Boren\r\n     Boswell\r\n     Boucher\r\n     Boyd\r\n     Bradley (NH)\r\n     Brady (PA)\r\n     Brown (OH)\r\n     Brown, Corrine\r\n     Butterfield\r\n     Capps\r\n     Capuano\r\n     Cardin\r\n     Cardoza\r\n     Carnahan\r\n     Carson\r\n     Chandler\r\n     Clay\r\n     Cleaver\r\n     Clyburn\r\n     Conyers\r\n     Cooper\r\n     Costa\r\n     Costello\r\n     Cramer\r\n     Crowley\r\n     Cuellar\r\n     Cummings\r\n     Davis (AL)\r\n     Davis (CA)\r\n     Davis (FL)\r\n     Davis (IL)\r\n     Davis (TN)\r\n     DeFazio\r\n     DeGette\r\n     Delahunt\r\n     DeLauro\r\n     Dicks\r\n     Dingell\r\n     Doggett\r\n     Doyle\r\n     Edwards\r\n     Emanuel\r\n     Engel\r\n     Eshoo\r\n     Etheridge\r\n     Farr\r\n     Fattah\r\n     Filner\r\n     Ford\r\n     Frank (MA)\r\n     Gonzalez\r\n     Gordon\r\n     Green, Al\r\n     Green, Gene\r\n     Grijalva\r\n     Gutierrez\r\n     Harman\r\n     Hastings (FL)\r\n     Herseth\r\n     Higgins\r\n     Hinchey\r\n     Hinojosa\r\n     Holden\r\n     Holt\r\n     Honda\r\n     Hooley\r\n     Hoyer\r\n     Inslee\r\n     Israel\r\n     Jackson (IL)\r\n     Jackson-Lee (TX)\r\n     Jefferson\r\n     Johnson, E. B.\r\n     Jones (OH)\r\n     Kanjorski\r\n     Kaptur\r\n     Kildee\r\n     Kilpatrick (MI)\r\n     Kind\r\n     Kucinich\r\n     Langevin\r\n     Lantos\r\n     Larsen (WA)\r\n     Larson (CT)\r\n     Lee\r\n     Levin\r\n     Lewis (GA)\r\n     Lipinski\r\n     Lofgren, Zoe\r\n     Lowey\r\n     Lynch\r\n     Maloney\r\n     Markey\r\n     Matheson\r\n     Matsui\r\n     McCarthy\r\n     McCollum (MN)\r\n     McDermott\r\n     McGovern\r\n     McIntyre\r\n     McKinney\r\n     McNulty\r\n     Meehan\r\n     Meek (FL)\r\n     Meeks (NY)\r\n     Melancon\r\n     Michaud\r\n     Millender-McDonald\r\n     Miller (NC)\r\n     Miller, George\r\n     Mollohan\r\n     Moore (WI)\r\n     Moran (VA)\r\n     Murtha\r\n     Nadler\r\n     Napolitano\r\n     Neal (MA)\r\n     Oberstar\r\n     Obey\r\n     Olver\r\n     Ortiz\r\n     Owens\r\n     Pallone\r\n     Pascrell\r\n     Pastor\r\n     Payne\r\n     Pelosi\r\n     Pomeroy\r\n     Price (NC)\r\n     Rahall\r\n     Rangel\r\n     Reyes\r\n     Ross\r\n     Rothman\r\n     Roybal-Allard\r\n     Ruppersberger\r\n     Rush\r\n     Ryan (OH)\r\n     Sabo\r\n     Salazar\r\n     Sanchez, Linda T.\r\n     Sanchez, Loretta\r\n     Sanders\r\n     Schakowsky\r\n     Schiff\r\n     Schwartz (PA)\r\n     Scott (GA)\r\n     Scott (VA)\r\n     Serrano\r\n     Sherman\r\n     Skelton\r\n     Slaughter\r\n     Smith (WA)\r\n     Snyder\r\n     Solis\r\n     Spratt\r\n     Stark\r\n     Stupak\r\n     Tanner\r\n     Tauscher\r\n     Thompson (CA)\r\n     Thompson (MS)\r\n     Tierney\r\n     Towns\r\n     Udall (CO)\r\n     Udall (NM)\r\n     Van Hollen\r\n     Velazquez\r\n     Visclosky\r\n     Wasserman Schultz\r\n     Waters\r\n     Watson\r\n     Watt\r\n     Waxman\r\n     Weiner\r\n     Wexler\r\n     Woolsey\r\n     Wu\r\n     Wynn\r\n     Young (AK)\r\n\r\n                             NOT VOTING--8\r\n\r\n     Case\r\n     Cubin\r\n     Evans\r\n     Keller\r\n     Kennedy (RI)\r\n     Moore (KS)\r\n     Ney\r\n     Strickland\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1600\r\n\r\n  So the bill was passed.\r\n  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\r\n  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend \r\nthe Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require each individual who \r\ndesires to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the \r\nappropriate election official with a government-issued photo \r\nidentification, and for other purposes.''.\r\n  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table\r\n\r\n                          ____________________<\/pre>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crec\/2006\/09\/20\/CREC-2006-09-20-pt1-PgH6765.pdf\">https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crec\/2006\/09\/20\/CREC-2006-09-20-pt1-PgH6765.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Congressional Record House &#8211; June 27, 2007 &nbsp; [Pages H6765-H6785] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006 Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House&#46;&#46;&#46;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4181,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[57],"tags":[118],"class_list":["post-6265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legislation","tag-legislation"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-1D3","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Government-Congress.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6265"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6266,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6265\/revisions\/6266"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}