U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–283 2006

MARKUP OF H.R. 4844 

FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT 

OF 2006 

MARKUP 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARKUP HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

VERNON EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

CANDICE MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

Ranking Minority Member 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

WILL PLASTER, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHEVLIN, Minority Staff Director 

(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 4844, FEDERAL ELECTION 

INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:11 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Vernon Ehlers, 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ehlers, Mica, Doolittle, Miller, 

Millender-McDonald, Brady and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Peter Sloan, Professional Staff Member; Paul 

Vinovich, Staff Director; Gineen Beech, Counsel; George Shevlin, 

Minority Staff Director; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; 

Tom Hicks, Minority Professional Staff; Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff; and Janelle Hu, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on House Administration will come to order. I apologize 

again for the delay. We will proceed with our opening statements, 

both my part and that of the ranking member. We presume that 

we will have a sufficient number here at the end of that time. If 

not, we will call a brief recess until we have them. I am sorry that 

the disruption took place today, but we will proceed as best we can. 

First, I would like to advise members of our audience here today 

that all cellular phones, pagers and other electronic equipment 

must be silenced to prevent interruption of our business. Thank 

you very much. I will not have any problem complying with that 

myself, since I lost my cell phone on the way to this meeting. 

Today the committee meets to mark up H.R. 4844, the Federal 

Election Integrity Act of 2006. Over the past few months, this committee has received testimony from election experts, local officials 

and concerned citizens about the issues raised by this bill. We had 

hearings here in Washington, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and in 

Phoenix, Arizona on ID requirements and voting by noncitizens. All 

views were represented at these hearings, and they gave us valuable insights into the arguments for and against the proposals to 

require voters to show an ID at the polls. 

They also revealed some strong disagreements about the wisdom 

of imposing such a requirement. To some, this proposal is a simple, 

commonsense proposal and a necessary safeguard against voter 

fraud. To others it represents a dangerous threat to some citizens’ 

abilities to access the polls. 

While that debate may be heated and ongoing in Washington, 

D.C., it seems the American people have made up their mind. A reVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:53 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 030283 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A283A.XXX A283A
2 

cent NBC Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81 percent of those 

surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting. Likewise, the bipartisan Carter Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the report they 

issued last year. While the division on this issue may be partisan 

here in Congress, elsewhere it seems a large bipartisan majority 

has concluded that requiring ID is a necessary reform. 

The committee has had H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity 

Act, pending before it since Mr. Hyde introduced the bill in March 

of this year. Today I will offer a substitute amendment that makes 

some changes to the bill but preserves its fundamental features, a 

requirement to prove citizenship and present identification to vote 

in federal elections in the United States. 

I want to thank Mr. Hyde for his leadership and his work on this 

important issue and thank him also for working with us on making 

the changes contained in the substitute. Basically we have sought 

to extend deadlines in our substitute to make it more functional 

and easy to implement. The substitute amendment has been provided to all committee members. I will now describe its provisions. 

The amendment will require presentation of a government-issued 

photo ID to vote in federal elections, effective November 2008. This 

extends the effective date of H.R. 4844, as introduced, by two 

years. Though most of the voting public already has an ID that can 

meet this requirement, there is a percentage of eligible voters who 

do not have an ID, so these extra two years will give them time 

to acquire it. To ensure that eligible citizens are voting, the amendment will require presentation by 2010 of an ID that could not 

have been obtained without providing proof of citizenship. This replaces the requirement of proving citizenship at registration with 

a requirement to prove citizenship when obtaining the ID. Once obtained, this ID can be used to prove both citizenship and identity 

when voting. 

The Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act, which 

will require people to prove their legal status in this country to get 

a real ID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008. Citizens 

will be able to use the IDs they obtain under this process to vote 

in elections starting in 2010 and for all elections thereafter. The ID 

will have to include some indication of citizenship so poll workers 

and other election officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a 

citizen. 

Pursuant to the amendment, those who arrive at the polls without an ID will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. These ballots will be counted if the person returns and presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48 hours. To help those who 

need, but cannot afford, the ID to vote, the amendment requires 

states to provide them free of cost to the indigent, and authorizes 

federal funds to reimburse states for the costs of doing so. 

I think these changes improve the bill and will make it easier to 

implement and easier for citizens to vote. Once implemented, we 

will have an important safeguard in place that will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore confidence in it. By putting 

in place procedures that ensure that voting is limited to eligible 

citizens, we can encourage participation and increase turnout. 

3 

The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all the 

claims that disenfranchisement would ensue after enactment of the 

proof of citizenship and ID requirements, testimony in Phoenix revealed that after they adopted Proposition 200, that registration, 

which required citizenship and ID, went up 15 percent after the requirement to prove citizenship went into effect. 

The fact is, people are encouraged to vote when they believe that 

their vote will count and their vote will not be cancelled out by an 

illegal vote. 

I know there will be some who oppose the action we will take 

today, and there will be some controversy generated by the proposal. I wish it were not so. It seems we should be able to agree 

that voting should be limited to citizens of the United States, because that has been the law for years. If we can agree on that, we 

should be able to agree that our voting systems must have procedures in place to ensure it. We should all be able to agree that 

every eligible citizen should be able to vote, to vote only once, and 

to be assured that their vote will not be diluted by an illegal vote. 

If we agree on that, we should be able to agree that making people 

identify themselves when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard. 

Some members have told me that the ID requirement is too 

much trouble. But every day, millions of Americans show a picture 

ID to pay by check, to board an airplane, to buy alcohol or tobacco. 

Surely the sanctity of the ballot warrants as much protection as 

these other activities. Our voting rights are too important to rely 

on an honor system. We need to make sure we have procedures in 

place that protect the right to vote and make sure only eligible citizens are able to do so. 

I hope all Members will recognize the need for these necessary 

reforms. They will advance the security of our electoral systems, increase confidence in their integrity and reduce the opportunities for 

fraud. 

At this time I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Millender-McDonald for her opening statement. 

[The information follows:] 

4 


Insert graphic folio 10 30283A.001
5 


Insert graphic folio 11 30283A.002
6 


Insert graphic folio 12 30283A.003
7 


Insert graphic folio 13 30283A.004
8 


Insert graphic folio 14 30283A.005
9 


Insert graphic folio 15 30283A.006
10 


Insert graphic folio 16 30283A.007
11 


Insert graphic folio 17 30283A.008
12 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 

and good morning to you and to all of our guests here this morning. 

This committee has previously conducted a number of hearings to 

gather input on the question of imposing a Federal proof of citizenship requirement in order to vote. Those hearings documented, 

among other things, that the imposition of such a proof of citizenship requirement would adversely impact millions of American citizens. Those impacted include the least among us, the elderly, disabled, the poor and ethnic minorities. And it would clearly have a 

disproportionate impact on women and many college students. 

Such a requirement would impose new and costly burdens and, 

in many cases, insurmountable obstacles on American citizens trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote. 

Now, I am not speaking about illegal immigrants here, because 

there are laws prohibiting such persons from voting. I am speaking 

about the burden on American citizens. Many Americans could be 

affected by this provision. Former Election Assistance Commissioner Ray Martinez testified before this committee that his 86- 

year-old World War II veteran father was born on a rural ranch in 

Texas, far away from hospitals, far away from birth certificates and 

far away from documentary proof of citizenship. He could be denied 

the right to vote if this becomes law, even though he has legally 

voted in every election that the commissioner could remember. 

Moreover, in order to comply with his State’s new photo ID, Representative Ike Skelton was not permitted to use his governmentissued congressional ID to obtain a State-issued non-driver ID to 

vote. Instead, Congressman Skelton was told he needs a passport 

or a birth certificate in order to acquire a non-driver ID. I am concerned that the very same card that may be used to vote in the legislature on this floor in Congress does not satisfy identification requirements in Mr. Skelton’s State. 

During the hearings, it became apparent that the need for a 

proof-of-citizenship requirement is not documented by studies or by 

empirical data, but rather by anecdotal information. Even those 

who came before us during the hearing of Mr. Hyde’s bill admitted 

that they had no quantitative data to support their argument. 

The Nation’s electoral process is not perfect. There are millions 

of American citizens who are affected by the misallocation of voting 

machines, the inconsistent treatment of provisional ballots, the 

many types of registration obstacles, the illegal purging of voting 

rolls and so on. These are real, documented problems which should 

be commanding our attention. 

Yet, without validation that voting by noncitizens is a significant 

problem, we are investing our legislative resources on legislation, 

which, in my view, constitutes the classic solution in search of a 

problem. Such legislation as the Voting Rights Act, the Motor Voter 

Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 

HAVA, Help America Vote Act, and other Federal laws are intended to expand and enhance citizens’ constitutional rights to 

vote. But we are starting down a new path, one which erects obstacles to citizen participation, all in the name of addressing a conceived problem, which is the result of an abject failure by this Congress and another attempt to distort the real issues. 

13 

Let me be perfectly clear. Anyone who breaks the law by attempting to register to vote illegally should be prosecuted to the 

full extent of the law. And we have adequate laws in place today 

to address this concern. 

However, partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome proof of citizenship requirements are not the direction our 

committee, this country, or anyone should be heading. This committee should focus on ensuring that all Americans who are eligible 

to vote are able to do so without having to wait for many long 

hours to cast a vote, an unforgivable scene we witnessed in Ohio 

just 2 years ago. 

Further, this committee should be concentrating on ways to ensure all Americans that their ballots will be fully accounted for and 

their votes will be accurately counted. The Congress and this committee should be addressing these real voter issues, electoral fraud 

perpetrated on Americans, voter intimidation, threats, misinformation and other forms of voting suppression that are still 

disenfranchising American citizens today. 

As we heard from witnesses at our June hearing and read in the 

letters submitted by concerned civil rights and other organizations, 

there will be many unfortunate and unavoidable consequences if 

the proposed identification barrier is enacted. The American Association of Retired People, AARP, stated that, and I quote, ‘‘that new 

State laws and implementing rules will significantly limit opportunities to register or to vote. Many persons who are qualified to vote 

but do not have ready access to documents such as birth certificates, driver’s license and passports, that never have been deemed 

necessary in the past, may lose their fundamental right to vote.’’ 

End of quote. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter to 

the Committee on House Administration, dated June 27, 2006, be 

made part of the record of this markup. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

14 


Insert graphic folio 22 30283A.009
15 


Insert graphic folio 23 30283A.010
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you. The question of citizenship was addressed and extends the the Help America Vote Act 

wherein Congress mandated that mail-in registration forms include 

a box that asked the question, Are you a citizen of the United 

States of America? If your answer is no, your form is automatically 

rejected. If your answer is yes, and you are discovered not to be a 

citizen, you are subject to Federal prosecution. Penalties are stiff, 

and have successfully served as a deterrent to misrepresentation. 

Noncitizens would be foolish to risk up to 5 years in prison and deportation to cast an illegal ballot. 

Instead of wasting our citizens’ time and hard-earned money in 

creating unnecessary obstacles to the ballot box, the Congress 

should be about strengthening and enforcing our existing laws before adding new and unnecessary laws to the books. Minorities and 

the elderly are particularly at risk of disenfranchisement because 

they are less likely than other citizens to have the other required 

documentation. For example, many of the elderly do not have birth 

certificates because they were born during a time when children 

were born at home and their births were not recorded by a governmental agency. In numerous studies, a larger percent of African 

American adults reported that they lack a passport or birth certificate, compared to the percentage of all adults surveyed. 

Some have suggested that the populace could use a passport as 

proof of citizenship. However, according to the State Department, 

only 23 percent of Americans possess a passport, and the cost of 

obtaining one is nearly $100. This amount may not sound like 

much to us folks here in Washington, but my constituents, who 

often struggle to pay for housing, medicine, and gas to drive to 

work, would find this additional and unnecessary expense excessive. 

Requiring a government-issued photo ID to register and vote is 

not the answer either. As for U.S. citizens born overseas, obtaining 

the necessary citizenship documents costs hundreds of dollars, all 

to address an unsubstantiated fear that noncitizens are affecting 

the outcome of Federal elections. 

Instead of erecting additional barriers which suppress citizen 

participation, we must strengthen voting rights and work to get the 

40 percent of already registered voters who did not participate in 

the last election to become active participants. Our efforts should 

be spent on enfranchising voters and revitalizing our democracy, 

not erecting new barriers by requiring citizenship documentation. 

Our time, energy and resources should go to addressing the rampant intimidation tactics that continue to surface with each new 

election cycle. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that voter fraud is wrong. But we should 

not punish every American, especially the elderly, the disabled or 

the poor, from expensive or overly burdensome requirements that 

address a so-called noncitizen voting strawman, which do nothing 

to increase civic participation. 

As I have done in the past, I will continue to fight to make our 

voting system as good as it can possibly be, free of flaws and defects. But in doing so, I will also fight against the imposition of unnecessary burdens and obstacles to registration and to voting, as 

17 

well as policy, which will result in the suppression of our citizens’ 

right to vote. 

We are missing the boat today with this misguided legislation instead of working to promote the rights of American citizens to vote. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members to achieve this goal. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statement. 

I am willing to consider other statements if you wish, but in view 

of the time I would hope you would keep them brief if anyone wishes to offer any. I see none, so we will proceed with the discussion. 

The Chair asks unanimous consent that H.R. 4844 be considered 

as read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

18 


Insert graphic folio 27 30283A.011
19 


Insert graphic folio 28 30283A.012
20 


Insert graphic folio 29 30283A.013
21 


Insert graphic folio 30 30283A.014
22 


Insert graphic folio 31 30283A.015
23 


Insert graphic folio 32 30283A.016
24 


Insert graphic folio 33 30283A.017
25 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now offers an amendment in the nature of a substitute and asks unanimous consent that it be considered as read. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

26 


Insert graphic folio 35 30283A.018
27 


Insert graphic folio 36 30283A.019
28 


Insert graphic folio 37 30283A.020
29 


Insert graphic folio 38 30283A.021
30 


Insert graphic folio 39 30283A.022
31 


Insert graphic folio 40 30283A.023
32 


Insert graphic folio 41 30283A.024
33 


Insert graphic folio 42 30283A.025
34 


Insert graphic folio 43 30283A.026
35 


Insert graphic folio 44 30283A.027
36 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any discussion on the Chairman’s 

amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Just a few questions on your 

amendment to—your substitute amendment to the bill. There were 

some questions that I wanted to raise. I have noticed that you are 

asking that each State establish a program to provide photo identifications. Are we suggesting that we impose an unfunded mandate 

here? 

The CHAIRMAN. I would have to ask you to clarify that. We do 

provide that the federal government will reimburse any states that 

incur any expense in the process of providing a proof of citizenship 

and preparing a photo ID. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So are we reimbursing the States 

with the funding that is imposed through your authorization in the 

appropriation here on—it is line 23, part 7, you are asking for the 

authorization of appropriations. 

Now, is this, again, Mr. Chairman, different from the appropria- tion that is already in place where there is an $800 million shortage of funding already for the EAC? Or is this an additional appropriation request? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not aware of an $800 million shortfall funding for the EAC. But in any event, this follows the same pattern 

as I mentioned earlier. States require photo identification for a 

number of functions, even buying cigarettes, and this continues in 

that same pattern, saying if you vote, you must provide a photo ID. 

Certainly the right to vote is far more important than the right to 

buy cigarettes. And I am not sure what unfunded mandate you 

could be referring to, other than one we have paid for in this bill, 

which is to aid citizens in establishing their citizenship and getting 

proof of citizenship. 

I might also mention that the REAL ID Act, which has already 

passed into law, does provide many of the same—carries many of 

the same provisions. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I suppose what I was referring to in 

terms of the appropriation that was found in your section 297(a) 

was—I referred to the Title II funding grants, to States under 

HAVA, and that is the shortage that is still pending before the 

Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Under HAVA, yes. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But this appropriation is in addition 

to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from 

Michigan, Ms. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate 

your leadership on this issue. I think it is really an important 

issue. And, you know, so many places around our Nation have had 

experiences with fraudulent voting practices, and the Help America 

Vote Act, I think, went a long way to negating many of them. 

37 

But as you know, Mr. Chairman, we had a recent example in 

Michigan, actually in our last mayoral race in the city of Detroit, 

where the incumbent, Kwame Kilpatrick, and the challenger was 

Freeman Hendricks—and Freeman Hendricks called for, after the 

election, he called for a photo identification in very strong terms, 

and a number of people in the city of Detroit were calling for photo 

identification there. 

It was interesting because, actually at that time the city of Detroit had 637,000 registered voters, but the unfortunate thing was 

the U.S. Census actually said that Detroit only had 630,000 people 

that were eligible to register to vote. So the new city clerk has done 

a number of things in the city of Detroit. But I point that out. I 

thought that was a very interesting experience that our State had 

gone through. 

And also, in light of the fact that several years ago, actually John 

Engler was still the Governor at that time, I forget exactly what 

year, the State legislation passed a piece of legislation requiring 

photo identification in Michigan. It has been held up because of a 

previous Attorney General’s opinion that said it was unconstitutional. But it is currently before our Michigan Supreme Court 

where all the expectations are a favorable ruling that the legislation is constitutional. 

I think it is very, very important that we operate on any kind 

of election reform in the true spirit of bipartisanship. And I do believe that this piece of legislation meets those standards, particularly when you think of the fact that one of the—actually the Baker 

Commission on Federal Election Reform, which was obviously a 

very bipartisan group, did issue a recommendation as part of their 

findings that we should have. The Federal Government should pass 

and all States should have a photo identification, and that it be required in order for them to vote. It would be just a huge deterrent, 

I think, on voter fraud that, unfortunately, we do see in some instances still. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to tell you how 

much we appreciate your perfecting legislation here. I think your 

amendment has some very, very good improvements to the legislation, particularly ensuring, as was just debated here and discussed 

here, that any individual that could not afford an ID, either a driver’s license or a State identification card, a voter registration card, 

what have you, that one be provided for them. I think this certainly negates any argument about the possibility of the concept of 

a poll tax or what have you. 

And I also want to appreciate that you have taken full advantage, I think, in your mark here about the identification requirements that this Congress passed in regards to the REAL ID Act. 

And that, of course, has—is going to go a very long way to making 

sure that the breeder identification document that is utilized to be 

issuing driver’s licenses, State identification cards, what have you, 

that the individual States are going to be able to be certain that 

those persons are who they say they are. And so I very much look 

forward to supporting your amendment and the amended version 

of this bill as well. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your comments. I recognize the 

gentlewoman from California. 

38 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just had a couple of quick questions for clarification. I think I know the answer, but I want to make sure. In your 

substitute, wouldn’t it be true that the requirement for the photo 

ID would be imposed without regard to appropriations, but that reimbursement would be subject to the appropriations process? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not quite sure what you are getting at. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well what I am getting at is that we would be requiring States to implement the ID system. We are authorizing the 

payment, but we are not the Appropriations Committee. If the Appropriations Committee does not appropriate, the mandate would 

go forward without funding. 

The CHAIRMAN. But normally the appropriators do follow up on 

authorizations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That has not been my experience. 

The CHAIRMAN. On a situation like this, where—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, on the affidavit opportunity 

that is present in HAVA, isn’t it correct that in your amendment 

that the affidavit that allows an American citizen who does not 

have—cannot obtain documentation—to swear under penalty of 

perjury that they are a U.S. citizen and then proceed, would be repealed because those underlying documents would have to be provided within 48 hours? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, clearly the amendment, as the original bill, 

requires a proof of citizenship. This is not a new idea. It has been 

around a long time. There are states, especially, most recently, Arizona, which has passed this requirement. It has been implemented. 

It has to be reviewed in the courts, but so far the courts have ruled 

favorably on it. 

What I would envision, if we don’t do a bill like this, is we are 

going to have a huge hodgepodge across the nation, where every 

state will pass its own bill. They will not necessarily all be in 

agreement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may, and I will have an amendment 

later, but—and I will reserve some further comments for then. But 

I would just note that the right to vote is protected in the Constitution. It is serious. We all agree that only American citizens have 

the right to vote. That is not in dispute. 

The question is whether we are going to disenfranchise people. 

The right to buy cigarettes is not in the Constitution. The right to 

drive a car is not in the Constitution. The right to board an airplane is not in the Constitution. The right to vote is sacred and 

needs to be dealt with in a way this is separate. And I thank the 

gentleman for yielding for my question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any further comments? 

I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I just don’t understand some things that happen. We 

are trying to have a voter turnout throughout the country and in 

my State of Pennsylvania, and I just can’t help telling you that this 

has to hurt and add to voter apathy by making them go through 

another couple steps. Why I say a couple steps, when you are born 

in a hospital and you get a certificate from a doctor and you have 

your fingerprint and your heel print, that is not a birth certificate. 

You have to take that to an agency, a State agency, and then get 

a birth certificate. So that is another step. 

39 

First, you have to find that you were born, and then a lot of people that weren’t born in hospitals have that problem getting that 

piece of paper. And in the State of Pennsylvania everybody—a lot 

of States are different. That then has to go to another agency and 

then they give you a certificate of birth. That doesn’t have a photo 

ID on it. 

And the problem I have is—there are a lot of problems that I 

have. And number one, if the election were tomorrow, I couldn’t be 

allowed to vote. And I don’t have a birth certificate and I don’t 

have a passport. And I can’t vote. I guess I have, to be able to vote 

for myself in November, well, it won’t take effect. But if this bill 

took effect I have to go do that. Now I have got the wherewithal 

to do that, but I’m afraid that a whole lot of other people don’t. And 

we are putting those people at hardship. And then again we are 

making it harder for people to vote. I like to make it easier for people to vote. 

And the other thing I guess, I guess maybe it is the larceny that 

I have in me from time to time. Just because somebody shows 

proper ID of a person doesn’t mean that that is that person. And 

I think that anybody that wants to vote and will vote and is going 

to vote that may not be a citizen, may not be registered but wants 

to vote for a person because they have the—whatever reason they 

want to vote for —and they are not the person they say they are, 

I don’t think any kind of piece of paper can stop that. I don’t think 

that that automatically says because I have a piece of paper saying 

that I am Joe Jones that I am Joe Jones. I think people do do 

things and can do things and a piece of paper doesn’t necessarily 

stop fraud, stop voter fraud. 

In the State of Pennsylvania we have a law. You have to have 

identification for the first time you vote. But you don’t have to have 

it—we vote every 6 months—you don’t have to have it every time 

you vote after that. You may have to have it again if you are voting 

in another polling place, for whatever reason, in case you move and 

you had to reregister. But you don’t just show it every single time. 

And it does cause problems. It causes lines and it has—and it does 

turn people away. 

And in this country, in the State of Pennsylvania, in the great 

city of Philadelphia where I am from, we like to try to allow people, 

make it easier to make them vote. And in my opinion this is making it harder. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. And I would simply observe, many 

states have different practices. And we have had children in California and Michigan. In both cases the birth certificate was sent to 

us without having to go and acquire it. I don’t want to get into a 

lengthy argument about the comments that you have made, because I know we are going to have amendments and we will have 

to debate those as well. Are there any other? The gentlewoman 

from Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly. I appreciated the gentleman from Pennsylvania’s comments. I respectfully have a differing view of what this piece of legislation could actually do, because having been a former secretary of state and done 

everything that we possibly could to encourage voter registration, 

40 

in fact, in Michigan, we actually are the genesis of Motor Voter. It 

actually happened in the State of Michigan. And as a result of that, 

we had always in the 90 percentile, depending. Some years 89 percent, sometimes 93, 94 percent of every person in the State who 

was eligible to vote registered to vote. We were doing voter registration drives at every community college and every university 

and everywhere we could think about to make sure people were 

registered to vote. 

And yet, for whatever reason, we never got any more participation in Michigan than what the national average was usually. So 

there are a number of reasons that people in the elections industry 

don’t understand why people won’t exercise that most important 

franchise, their right to vote. And we all want to encourage people 

to vote. I think one of the reasons that they perhaps won’t vote, 

particularly younger people, is because they read these stories 

about voter fraud or what have you. And then they think that their 

vote won’t count or they are not certain that we are ensuring the 

integrity of the system. And I do believe actually by passing this 

piece of legislation, we could encourage additional voter participation. 

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I recognize the ranking member. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Just kind of piggybacking on what 

the gentlewoman has said out of Michigan. When you have headlines like this, in yesterday’s Washington Post, ‘‘Some Voters Left 

Exercising Only the Right to Vent.’’ When you say why is it, you 

don’t understand why a lot of folks do not vote. They come up 

against those issues, in the case yesterday in Maryland, ere there 

were many voters who went to vote and they were surrounded by 

this inoperable electronic voting machine; in addition to that, a 

dwindling supply of back up paper ballots. 

And in addition to that, they had these cards, Mr. Chairman, 

that were presented to voters to vote, and they were supposed to 

vote with these cards, and yet those cards were not available at the 

time they came to vote. 

So there are many people, many voters, who become very weary 

of those real issues that we are talking about, that are impeding 

voters from going to the polls and actually casting the vote, to vote. 

These are the issues that I am talking about that should be commanding our attention, and not anything that would be subjected 

to further voter disenfranchisement. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute when you are ready for me. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no more discussion? Are there other 

amendments? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on your amendment, if I could just 

briefly make a point that I neglected to make. And that is just on 

the whole overall issue of birth certificates. And I won’t mention 

the name of the staff person, but it recently has come to my attention that a staff person who I know here on the Hill, he is a victim 

of ID theft. The perpetrator of the ID theft went to a southern 

State, obtained this guy’s birth certificate with the stolen ID information, used that birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license, and 

41 

this staffer found out when he started getting, you know, credit 

check information because he was buying things, because he is getting credit cards based on you know, the credit history he had established. 

So having—there has been no evidence in any of the hearings I 

have seen that people are either sneaking into the country to vote 

or stealing ID to vote, but certainly there is no guarantee that a 

birth certificate means the person is who they are. So I just think 

it is important to put that in the context of the world we live in 

here today. And we all are aware of the ID theft problem, and I 

want to make that point in the discussion of the overall bill. And 

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no more discussion, are there any 

amendments to the Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer 

an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman reserves the right to object. You 

may proceed to offer your amendment. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, I offer my perfecting amendment to your amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4844. And what this amendment 

does, the amendment improves voter access to the polls, prevents 

election fraud and supports election integrity. 

My amendment, the purpose of this amendment is, one, to establish uniform standards for the treatment of provisional ballots; 

number two, clarifies criminal penalties for voter fraud under the 

Help America Vote Act; and three, provides to the States additional 

fraud prevention methodology. 

The purpose of section 2 is to ensure that every eligible provisional ballot in a Federal election is counted after election officials 

review the computerized statewide voter registration list to determine that the individual is eligible to vote either at the polling 

place at which the individual casts the vote or at any other polling 

place in the State. 

Section 3. The purpose of this section is to criminalize the practice of falsifying information regarding an individual’s eligibility to 

vote or misleading citizens as to the time, place, or manner of voting in a Federal election. 

The purpose of section 4 of the amendment is to codify a Federal 

court decision that HAVA matching requirements are intended as 

an administrative safeguard, not as a restrictive provision on voter 

eligibility. 

And the purpose of section 5 is to provide States an additional 

option to be used to prevent so-called voter fraud through the use 

of indelible ink or means to ensure voter identification. This method is cost effective simply because it will relieve our elderly disabled and minority voters of the excessively burdensome polling 

place identification requirements. 

And that is my amendment to the amendment in the form of a 

substitute, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for the amendment. Unfortunately, 

it is a lot of material to absorb in a few seconds here. But I would 

42 

say that I would certainly be interested in reviewing those, but I 

at the moment do not wish to have them incorporated into the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute without having an opportunity to study it in detail. 

Are there other comments? And perhaps you would like to 

just—— 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if there are no comments, I wanted the 

committee to have time to review whether the amendment was in 

order, and that can’t be determined at this time. But I will withdraw my objection and call the question on the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is called. All those in favor of the 

amendment will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The yeas and nays are requested. The Clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ney. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Reynolds. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Ms. MILLENDER MCDONALD. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will give the tally. 

The CLERK. Three ayes, four nays. 

The CHAIRMAN. There being three ayes and four nays, the 

amendment fails. Are there any further amendments? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlewoman from California. 

Mr. MICA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves the right to 

object. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do an important thing. It would provide that the Chairman’s measure would 

not take effect until the Election Assistance Commission did two 

things: conducts a study on the anticipated impact of the amendment on voter participation, and that would not be a problem because the Chairman’s implementation date has been extended, and 

clearly the Commission could finish a study in the time frame 

available; and secondly, and probably most importantly, submits a 

report to Congress on the study which concludes that the implementation of the amendment will not disproportionately affect 

43 

voter participation by the elderly, the disabled and members of racial minorities. 

Now, I believe that this is an essential amendment for a couple 

of reasons. I did, along with other members of the committee, have 

a chance to participate in the hearing in this room last June. That 

was very helpful. I also had a chance to go to the hearing in Las 

Cruces, New Mexico. I will say this: that there was very thin or 

no evidence of substantial voter fraud issues. There was very substantial evidence of the disparate adverse impact that a voter ID 

requirement would have on the elderly and on ethnic minorities. I 

believe that to ask the Commission to review this and to report to 

us as a trigger is essential, because if the impact of this legislation 

would be to disenfranchise disproportionately minority voters, not 

only would that be morally wrong, but I believe it was unconstitutional. 

I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that we 

learned in these two hearings. I was not able to go to the Arizona 

hearing. As you will recall in June, we reviewed a study in one of 

our northern States that found out that half of the African American and Latino men did not have a photo ID in Milwaukee; that 

97 percent of the students in Milwaukee had valid IDs, but their 

current addresses didn’t match their IDs because they were students; and that those people would likely be barred from voting, 

even though they are Americans. 

We also heard testimony that I thought was compelling in Las 

Cruces, from the head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that she had never in all of her experience come across a 

situation where illegal aliens had snuck across the border to vote. 

The illegal aliens are sneaking across the border for a job, not to 

vote. And so this is really a remedy for a problem that is minimal, 

if it exists at all. 

I want to talk also about some of the most compelling testimony, 

I thought, I heard in Los Angeles, and that was from Mr. Yazi, representing the Navajo nation. As we know, the Navajos, along with 

other Native Americans, are the original Americans. They are 

brave, patriotic Americans. The Navajos, in particular, were the 

code talkers that we honored here several years ago for helping the 

United States to prevail in World War II. 

What Mr. Yazi told us there in New Mexico was that most of the 

Navajos don’t have a photo ID. And not only that, they can’t get 

a photo ID because they weren’t born in a hospital, they were born 

at home; they don’t have a State record of their birth. He said they 

can’t show proof of residence with an electric bill, because they 

don’t have any electricity; and they can’t show proof of residence 

with a phone bill, because they don’t have any phones. 

He further added, Some of us think that if you take our picture, 

it steals our soul. 

Now, no one doubts that the Navajos are Americans. But if this 

bill were to pass, without the assurance of the Election Commission 

that there was no disparate account, we would disenfranchise a 

couple of—100,000 at least members of the Navajo nation. That 

would be morally wrong, and it would also be unconstitutional. 

I want to note, as I said earlier, there is no disagreement, I 

think, on any member of this committee that only Americans can 

44 

vote. That is not the argument. The argument is, in our efforts to 

make sure that that is the case, whether we are deterring Americans from voting, I will say that there is an, effort underway 

around the United States spearheaded by the Republican Party, to 

institute these voter ID requirements. And it looks to me that it 

is an effort to suppress the votes by African Americans and Native 

Americans in particular. 

The chairman said that 81 percent of voters said they favored a 

voter ID measure. I haven’t seen the poll. I am not going to argue 

about the figures. But if 81 percent of the voters said we are going 

to disenfranchise the Navajos, we are not going to let those Americans vote, we wouldn’t listen to that. That is why we need to have 

the Federal Elections Commission do a review of this and not to 

disenfranchise African American voters and native American voters 

all across this country. 

I noted earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that a 

lot of us have—I have a passport. I have a voter ID. But I am not 

so elitist as to believe that my privileged position is the position 

that every other American has. 

My father didn’t board an airplane until I was—his first airplane 

ride was to come watch me be sworn into Congress. 

Most Americans don’t have a passport. Especially many poor people do not have birth certificates. But they are still Americans, 

whether they are poor or not. And I strongly object to any effort 

that would disenfranchise Americans because they are poor, because they are black, because they are Native Americans. And that 

is why we must insist that if this were to pass, it could only be implemented with an assurance by the Elections Commission it does 

not disadvantage those Americans. And I thank the gentleman for 

yielding for this amendment. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I yield myself five minutes to respond. And I 

would say first of all, one thing that has always delighted me about 

America and Americans is the incredible can do spirit that Americans have. When presented with a problem or a difficulty, the first 

question is, ‘‘how do we resolve this? How do we solve it?’’ And I 

am just dismayed at the attitude that if we pass this bill, suddenly 

there is a huge problem that we can’t solve. I think it is terrible 

if people are not voting now. I would want every possible way to 

assist them to vote. I would not support any bill that would lead 

to disenfranchisement of people. But if there are those who don’t 

have proof of citizenship, I think we should help them get it. 

How are they going to collect Medicare Part D benefits if they 

can’t prove citizenship? How are they going to get some of the other 

benefits that are reserved for citizens if they don’t have proof of 

citizenship? I think it is our responsibility to help everyone get 

proof of citizenship. And this bill provides a means of doing that, 

in addition to assuring the sanctity of the vote. So I think this is 

a fallacious argument. 

Now, in terms of the amendment that the gentlewoman has offered, I would be very willing to commission a study to evaluate, 

after we implement the legislation, whether or not the dire things 

that she has forecast would take place. But asking for the study 

beforehand, first of all, the result would be quite uncertain because 

45 

you would only be asking if this happens, what would you think, 

rather than it has happened, now what do you think? I think it 

would needlessly delay what we are trying to do and certainly 

would not give the valid information you would get after the bill 

has passed and has been implemented. 

I yield back the time. Does anyone seek recognition? The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I do believe this is a serious issue. I think 

we know firsthand from an incident in California that it was serious. In fact, this committee has spent a considerable amount of 

time investigating. The task force of the committee—I think Mr. 

Mica was involved in that, as was Mr. Ehlers—found a clear and 

convincing evidence that 748 invalid votes were cast in that election. 

Now, the election was only decided by a margin of 979 votes. And 

State officials further found that over 300 noncitizens illegally 

voted in that contest. Three hundred, in an election that was decided by less than 1,000 votes. So we know we have close elections 

from time to time. They are not all that rare. And I just can’t be 

silent in the representations that voter fraud is not a problem. 

Voter fraud is a problem. Security is a problem. And I just, for the 

life of me, can’t understand in this day and age why it is a problem 

to require photo ID to vote. That, to me, is an essential and is long 

overdue. And if it is an inconvenience for some people, I am sorry. 

We will try and make the burden as easy as possible, but we are 

in the age that we are in and we face the challenges we face. And 

I, for one, think it is completely ridiculous that we aren’t requiring 

the photo ID. And I support it and would like to see the legislation 

move. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Would the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the ranking member. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. The gentleman from California has 

stated that he is, and so am I, adamantly opposed to voter fraud. 

He speaks of 728 invalid ballots at one place of voting, 300 noneligible ballots at another place. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will you yield for a minute? That wasn’t a place 

of voting. That was the total votes cast in the Dornan-Sanchez 

race, congressional race, in 1976. The total margin of victory by 

Sanchez over him was 979 votes. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much for your clarification, but what I am getting at is when you talk about over 280 

million folks in this country, and you speak about 748 or 300, that 

is so minimal when we are talking about suppression of a majority 

of the people. Like in the State of Georgia, my dear friend, an estimated 40 percent of seniors lack identification for voting in the 

State of Georgia. And even our State Department has suggested 

that there are only 23 percent of persons who have passports, if 

passport will be the number one identifying factor of the photo 

identification. 

We must not put laws in place that are going to suppress the 

majority of Americans from voting and having a right to vote, and 

I am afraid this bill does just that. 

46 

And, Mr. Chairman, I support the study that was made by the 

gentlelady of California in her amendment because we need to 

have a study to discern whether or not legislation that we are putting on the books will adversely affect an already apathetic number 

of persons who are not voting. They are not going to the voting box, 

they are not casting their ballots, and we continue to put these 

types of onerous pieces of legislation before them that will continue 

to erode the very democracy that we fight for in this Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I have many, many letters that I would like to 

submit to the record, one that I have just received hot off the press 

from members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus opposing H.R. 

4844, and I would like to read those others, if you will allow me 

time. I have many more, too, and I would like to put on the 

record—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will enter those into the 

record. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But I would like to have some of 

those organizations identified, Mr. Chairman. So if I can yield to 

the gentlelady with your permission. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Read the letters. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, may I? 

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you. We have received letters 

of opposition from the Asian American Justice Center, the Hispanic 

National Bar Association, the League of Latin American Citizens, 

the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza, Southwest Voting 

Registration Education Project, William S. Velasquez Institute, the 

National Urban League, the NAACP Washington Bureau, the People for the American Way, the Protection and Advocacy, Inc., the 

League of Women Voters, the Liberty Coalition, the American Policy Center, the Fairfax County Privacy Council, the Republican 

Liberty Caucus, the Rutherford Institute, the Concerned Foreign 

Service Officers, Common Cause, Velvet Revolution, Cyber Privacy 

Project, SCIU, and the last ones are the Lawyers Committee for 

Civil Rights under the Law. And again, the Democratic Women’s 

Working Group. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All of these will be entered into the record without objection. So ordered. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. I would like to yield my time to the gentlelady from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Brady. 

I just want to make a couple of comments because I think it is 

important to put into context what we are doing here today. There 

are a lot of unsubstantiated comments that are made about fraud 

and the like. Everybody is against fraud. That is not the question. 

Reference was made to the Dornan-Sanchez race, and I would 

just note that an investigation was made, and Ms. Sanchez was 

elected, was—is certified. So, you know, I don’t want to go back to 

that fight because I was a member of the committee, but a thorough job was done, and the election was certified. 

47 

The issue here is that there will be people, U.S. citizens, true 

blue Americans, who are going to be disenfranchised if this amendment were to become law. I will just mention an example. Recently, 

I think it was a mistake, and obviously the administration agreed 

later, a proof of citizenship requirement was put into place for 

Medicaid recipients, and many of us said this is not going to work. 

There are a lot of very old people who don’t have birth certificates. 

They were born at home. They don’t have driver’s licenses because 

they don’t drive. They are in nursing homes, and this is going to 

be a problem. 

Sure enough, all over the United States we came up with State 

health officials saying, we are going to have to throw little old ladies with Alzheimer’s out of their nursing home beds because they 

don’t have a photo ID. We are going to have throw people who are 

on kidney dialysis out of, you know—now, true, the Alzheimer victims are probably not going to vote anyhow because they are not 

compos mentis, but there are plenty of physically disabled people 

who are elderly who can not meet the requirement. 

It was such a problem that the Bush administration had to back 

off and say we are not going to require that anymore because people would die. That same proof is in this bill, and it seems to me 

that if you can’t prove your ID to save your life, you are not going 

to be able to prove your ID to vote either. 

And the Constitution protects your right to vote if you are a U.S. 

citizen. Being a U.S. citizen is not dependent on being born in a 

hospital. It is not dependent on having a piece of paper. It is not 

dependent on being rich enough to have a passport. And so that is 

the reason why the American Association of Retired Persons, hardly a left-wing group, has come out against this whole concept. It 

is why the League of Women Voters, certainly a pristine do-gooder 

group that is completely nonpartisan, has come out against this 

piece of legislation. 

And I just have got to say, and this is not personal about any 

members of the committee, but the Republican Party all over the 

United States is pursuing this effort for one reason only: A lot of 

ethnic minorities have woken up to the fact that the Republican 

Party is not on their side. And that is why African American voters 

are being suppressed in vast areas of the United States, let us face 

it. Although it is not a requirement, you can do the statistical analysis and find out that the Navajo Nation votes Democratic more 

than it votes Republican, and to think that it is an accident that 

this measure would disenfranchise the Navajos, that this measure 

would disproportionately mean that African American voters will 

not be able to cast their votes even though they are U.S. citizens, 

is to be naive, to be foolish. 

It is a felony now to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen. If we wanted to do something to reduce any problem about voting when you 

are not eligible, we should enlist the Ad Council to put on the air 

it is a felony to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen. That was one 

of the suggestions made at the Las Cruces hearing. I would go 

along with that, but I am not going to go along with 

disenfranchising elderly, poor, African American and Native Americans from their privilege, their honor, their basic right to control 

their government through exercising their right to vote. 

48 

And I yield back to the gentleman Mr. Brady and thank you for 

yielding. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Doolittle is recognized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Hasn’t Mr. Doolittle been recognized already? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is there a rule—— 

Mr. MICA. May I be recognized? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mica for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. I yield. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous to hear my colleague sit there and assert the Republican Party is embarking on 

a move to suppress the vote of ethnic minorities throughout the 

country. That is blatantly false, and I am not going to sit here by 

my silence and give any credence to that assertion. That is ridiculous. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Who is presenting the legislation? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me tell you something. When we have fraud, 

it diminishes all of our right to vote, including ethnic minorities, 

if there is fraud in an election. So we have every right to be concerned about fraud, and the instances I am aware of—and 

anecdotally, in urban situations where people have voted multiple 

times which have been documented, it is on the Democrat side, not 

the Republican. But I will admit that sin spreads across both parties in terms of individual actions. 

But I just—when we are considering legislation to require a 

photo ID, and we hear inflammatory statements made that the Republican Party is out to suppress the votes of racial minorities, ethnic minorities, no, that is not true. I will not sit here and accept 

that, and you have no proof of that. 

Mr. MICA. Reclaiming my time as a sinner here, I want to just 

say that this really isn’t a partisan issue or recommendation. The 

bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission, former President Carter, 

Democrat, Secretary of State Baker, both very distinguished, honorable Americans, and I believe there are 21 on the Commission, 

all but three voted for requiring of voter IDs. So I think it is pretty 

unanimous. And the Chairman has also indicated that the American people by a large majority, I don’t—we shouldn’t legislate on 

the basis of polls, but I think all you have to do is go out in public 

today, and they are saying, secure our borders, and they also say, 

secure our ballots, and that is what that is about. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Will the gentleman yield for a second or so? 

Mr. MICA. Possibly exposing myself for minor abuse, I will yield. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I am sorry? 

Mr. MICA. I said possibly exposing myself to minor abuse, because I respect her so much. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Only to say that while you cite the 

task force of the Carter-Baker, there was resounding dissent 

brought to bear on that particular issue. So it was not a unanimous 

vote with that. 

Mr. MICA. As I understand, there were 3 dissenting votes on the 

issue out of 21. I may be incorrect but that is my—the information 

I was given. Not exactly resounding. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

49 

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question before us is 

on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald of California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, really it was—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Millender-McDonald’s. No. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. It was my amendment that she introduced, so the name should be Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. All those in favor of this particular amendment will say aye. Aye. 

Those opposed will say no. No. 

The ayes have it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like a rollcall vote, please. 

The CHAIRMAN. A request for rollcall has been made. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. MR. NEY. [No response.] 

The CLERK. MR. MICA. Mr. MICA. No. 

The CLERK. MR. DOOLITTLE. Mr. DOOLITTLE. No. 

The CLERK. MR. REYNOLDS. [No response.] 

The CLERK. MRS. MILLER. Mrs. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. MS. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Ms. MILLER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

The CLERK. MR. BRADY. Mr. BRADY. Yes. 

The CLERK. MS. LOFGREN. Mr. LOFGREN. Yes. 

The CLERK. MR. EHLERS. The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The clerk will read the tally. 

The CLERK. Three ayes, four noes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment fails. 

Are there any further amendments? 

Hearing none, we will recognize Mr. Mica for the purpose of offering a motion. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R.—— 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Back up just one minute. There is 

one amendment we do have to pass first. The question is on the 

Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in 

favor will say aye. Aye. 

Those opposed will say no. No. 

It is the opinion of the Chair, the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is agreed to. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yeas 

and nays on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a request for the yeas and nays. The 

clerk will read the roll. 

The CLERK. MR. NEY. 

[No response.] 

50 

The CLERK. MR. MICA. Mr. MICA. Aye. 

The CLERK. MR. DOOLITTLE. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. MR. REYNOLDS. [No response.] 

The CLERK. MRS. MILLER. Mrs. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. MS. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No. 

The CLERK. MR. BRADY. Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CLERK. MS. LOFGREN. Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. MR. EHLERS. The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The clerk will read the tally. 

The CLERK. Four ayes, three noes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion carries, and the gentleman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute is accepted. 

At this point we will once again recognize Mr. Mica for a motion. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Okay. Now I will try that. Mr. Chairman, I 

move that H.R. 4844, as amended, be reported favorably to the 

House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. Those in favor 

will say aye. Aye. 

Those opposed will say no. No. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The CHAIRMAN. The yeas and nays will be read. 

The CLERK. MR. NEY. [No response.] 

The CLERK. MR. MICA. Mr. MICA. Aye. 

The CLERK. MR. DOOLITTLE. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. MR. REYNOLDS. [No response.] 

The CLERK. MRS. MILLER. Mrs. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. MS. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. 

Ms. MILLER-MCDONALD. No. 

The CLERK. MR. BRADY. 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CLERK. MS. LOFGREN. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. MR. EHLERS. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The motion is agreed to and H.R. 4844 is recorded favorably to 

the House. The tally was four ayes, three nays. 

Pursuant to House Rule 10, all Members will have two calendar 

days for the purpose of filing views. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members have seven calendar 

days for statements and materials to be entered into the approVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:53 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 030283 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A283A.XXX A283A
51 

priate place in the record. Without objection, the material will be 

so entered. 

I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by the committee at today’s markup. Without objection, so ordered. 

We are pleased to know that we have reported this to the floor, 

and I am sure we will continue to have very interesting and thorough discussion of this issue on the floor of the House of Representatives. 

Having completed our business for today, the committee is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ