September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6553 

area, the adjacent Manchester Beach 

State Park, and the historic Point 

Arena Lighthouse. 

It is crucial that steps be taken to 

ensure the permanent preservation of 

this naturally diverse segment of the 

California Coast, which encompasses 

over two miles of coastline with natural bridges, tide pools, waterfalls, 

sinkholes and blowholes, and portions 

of the Garcia River and surrounding estuary. The area is not only recognized 

for its breathtaking coastal formations, but also for outstanding natural 

resources that include extensive wetlands, rumpled sand dunes, and rolling 

meadows. Adding these lands to the 

National Monument will provide additional resources for more effective 

management and conservation program 

opportunities. 

The ‘‘Point Arena-Stornetta Public 

Lands’’ is also home to a diverse ecosystem. The Garcia River is crucial 

habitat for Coho and Chinook salmon 

habitat, as well as a prime birding location for multiple bird species including the Laysan Albatross, Peregrine 

Falcon, Great Blue Heron, and many 

others. These lands are also the targets 

of restoration efforts that would help 

protect local endangered wildlife such 

as the Point Arena Mountain Beaver, 

Behren’s Silverspot Butterfly, and 

other species of concern, like the Black 

Oyster Catcher. 

In Mendocino County, tourism is responsible for supporting almost 5,000 

jobs, with visitors bringing in $19 million annually in state and local taxes. 

Visitors come from all over the world 

to experience the beauty and natural 

wonders of California’s northern coast, 

and local businesses and nearby towns 

will benefit from the increased profile 

of a National Monument designation. A 

National Monument designation will 

bring increased awareness to the recreational opportunities available in the 

area, including hiking, fishing, bird 

watching, nature photography and 

wildlife watching. This designation 

could also attract increased resources 

to support the needs of the area. 

It is no wonder that the ‘‘Point 

Arena-Stornetta Public Lands’’ are 

often referred to as the most significant parts of the Mendocino coastline. 

These magnificent lands have tremendous natural and recreational value, 

and it is imperative for them to be included as part of the California Coastal 

National Monument. I look forward to 

working with my colleagues to pass 

this important legislation. The ‘‘Point 

Arena-Stornetta Public Lands’’ deserves National Monument recognition, 

and I urge my colleagues to join me in 

supporting this effort. 

By Mr. REED: 

S. 3589. A bill to require the Comptroller of the Currency to establish a 

pilot program to facilitate communication between borrowers and servicers; 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am 

introducing the Mortgage Modification 

Outreach Act. 

Despite some promising indicators in 

the housing market, many homeowners 

continue to face the threat of foreclosure. In my home state of Rhode Island, 22.6 percent of mortgages are underwater and 7.65 percent of homeowners are either in the foreclosure 

process or at least 90 days delinquent 

on their payment, a level which is 

higher than the national average. 

I have heard from many of my constituents about the difficulties they experience when applying for loan modifications, and so the bill I am introducing focuses on providing homeowners with a face and a place where 

they can get more help. 

First, the bill establishes a pilot program that would allow homeowners to 

receive information on how to reach 

their single point of contact by simply 

visiting a consumer banking branch affiliated with their mortgage servicer. 

Second, at the same affiliated bank 

branch, the homeowner can receive the 

address of a nearby location at which 

the homeowner can, at no cost in some 

cases, copy, fax, scan, or send all the 

paperwork that is required during the 

loan modification process. Simply put, 

my bill would enable a borrower to 

walk into the local bank branch affiliated with their mortgage servicer and 

get some face to face help. 

This pilot program is designed to 

bridge the gap that has arisen as struggling homeowners have sought—unsuccessfully in too many instances—to get 

easy answers to basic questions from 

their mortgage servicer as they navigate the loan modification process. 

Homeowners looking for assistance 

should neither have to jump through 

countless hoops nor be given the runaround. They should be treated like 

customers. 

There is no single solution that will 

help us gain traction in the housing 

market. However, along with my other 

efforts, such as S. 489, the Preserving 

Homes and Communities Act, S. 2162, 

the Project Rebuild Act, and my efforts 

to convert vacant foreclosed homes 

into rental properties, this legislation 

represents another commonsense approach to helping homeowners stay in 

their homes, reducing foreclosures, and 

healing the housing market. 

This bill is supported by the National 

Consumer Law Center and the National 

Association of Realtors. I look forward 

to working with my colleagues to pass 

this legislation. 

By Mr. INHOFE: 

S. 3602. A bill to repeal the nutrition 

entitlement programs and establish a 

food stamp block grant program; to the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to 

introduce a new bill, the Food Stamp 

Restoration Act. This is a bill that will 

completely revamp the Food Stamp 

program, which is something that is 

desperately needed. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the 

number of Americans on Food Stamps 

has increased by 46 percent. Over 46 

million Americans currently claim 

Food Stamp benefits, and this costs 

taxpayers over $80 billion per year. In 

2008, just four years ago, the program 

cost $40 billion per year—it has more 

than doubled in cost under President 

Obama’s leadership. 

How on earth did we get here? 

Many changes to the program that 

have ballooned its cost have been made 

in recent years. President Obama, in 

his stimulus package, pushed reforms 

that both made it easier to qualify for 

the program and increased the value of 

the program’s benefits. When the stimulus bill passed, the Congressional 

Budget Office estimated that the 

changes made to the Food Stamp program would increase the cost of it by 

to nearly $60 billion over 10 years. 

Worse yet, the President has pursued 

economic, tax, and regulatory policies 

that are anti-business. These policies 

have made the business environment 

uncertain, which makes it nearly impossible for firms to invest in and expand their businesses. Businesses are 

doing well to simply hold on to what 

they already have. This has kept both 

unemployment and food stamp enrollment higher than it should be. 

Since the stimulus package, there 

have been a few efforts to tinker with 

the structure and value of the Food 

Stamp program, but none of them have 

amounted to much. The Senate-passed 

Farm Bill reduced the cost of the program by a paltry $4 billion over 10 

years, which is less than 1 percent of 

its total 10-year cost. That was one of 

the main reasons I voted against the 

Farm Bill. 

But we have moved well beyond tinkering around the edges. If we do not 

do anything to dramatically reform the 

food stamp program, it will cost Federal taxpayers nearly $800 billion over 

the next decade. This program needs to 

change. 

That is why I am introducing the 

Food Stamp Restoration Act. 

Today, the Food Stamp program is a 

mandatory program, meaning that 

Congress does not have to appropriate 

money every year for the Food Stamp 

program to be funded. Rather, it is 

funded automatically. This dramatically reduces Congressional accountability over the program, leaving few 

opportunities to make adjustments and 

improvements to the program. This 

needs to change. 

My bill tackles this problem head on. 

The Food Stamp Restoration Act converts the program from a mandatory 

program into a discretionary one. If 

my bill is enacted, Congress will have 

to decide each year how much money 

to spend on the Food Stamp program. 

My bill also removes the power of designing and running the program from 

the Federal Government and gives it to 

the states. The new Food Stamp program will be a block grant, which 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

means that States will be given nearly 

limitless flexibility to design and implement their food stamp programs in 

the way that best serves their people. 

This makes sense to me. I have never 

thought that bureaucrats in Washington understood Oklahomans. But 

the people in Oklahoma City do. If my 

bill is enacted, each State will receive 

an allotment from the Food Stamp appropriation that will be proportional to 

the number of individuals living in the 

State with an income at or below the 

Federal poverty level. Benefits will be 

given to the people who need them 

most. 

States will only have to meet a few 

requirements to qualify for the block 

grant. First, their program will not be 

allowed to authorize benefit spending 

on things like alcohol and tobacco. The 

program should only allow benefit 

spending on real food. Second, all beneficiaries must submit themselves to 

drug testing. Finally, States must implement work requirements for the 

beneficiaries. This follows the general 

welfare reform efforts that I have been 

championing since first coming to the 

Senate. 

To give States flexibility during 

times of economic weakness, they will 

be able to keep their allotment of funds 

for up to 5 years. This will allow States 

to provide benefits to more people during times of higher unemployment. 

After 5 years, if States have unused 

funds, the money will return to the 

Treasury for deficit reduction or debt 

repayment. 

All told, my bill will save over $300 

billion for Federal taxpayers, and it 

make significant improvements to the 

current program by giving States complete control over the design and implementation of the programs within 

their States. 

The Obama administration has dramatically increased the cost of this 

welfare program, making millions 

more Americans reliant on federal assistance than necessary. The cost has 

doubled in just four short years. I urge 

the Senate to consider my bill soon so 

that we can save taxpayers $300 billion 

over 10 years while reducing the dependency of the population on government programs. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3602 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Food Stamp 

Restoration Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FOOD STAMP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years 

2014 through 2021, the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a food stamp block 

grant program under which the Secretary 

shall make annual grants to each participating State that establishes a food stamp 

program in the State and submits to the Secretary annual reports under subsection (d). 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—As a requirement of 

receiving grants under this section, the Governor of each participating State shall certify that the State food stamp program includes— 

(1) work requirements; 

(2) mandatory drug testing; 

(3) verification of citizenship or proof of 

lawful permanent residency of the United 

States; and 

(4) limitations on the eligible uses of benefits that are at least as restrictive as the 

limitations in place for the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2011 et seq.) as of May 31, 2012. 

(c) AMOUNT OF GRANT.—For each fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall make a grant to 

each participating State in an amount equal 

to the product of— 

(1) the amount made available under section 3 for the applicable fiscal year; and 

(2) the proportion that— 

(A) the number of legal residents in the 

State whose income does not exceed 100 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 

673(2) of the Community Services Block 

Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2), including any revision required by such section)) applicable 

to a family of the size involved; bears to 

(B) the number of such individuals in all 

participating States for the applicable fiscal 

year, based on data for the most recent fiscal 

year for which data is available. 

(d) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1 

of each year, each State that receives a 

grant under this section shall submit to the 

Secretary a report that shall include, for the 

year covered by the report— 

(A) a description of the structure and design of the food stamp program of the State, 

including the manner in which residents of 

the State qualify for the program; 

(B) the cost the State incurs to administer 

the program; 

(C) whether the State has established a 

rainy day fund for the food stamp program of 

the State; and 

(D) general statistics about participation 

in the food stamp program. 

(2) AUDIT.—Each year, the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall— 

(A) conduct an audit on the effectiveness of 

the nutritional assistance block grant program and the manner in which each participating State is implementing the program; 

and 

(B) not later than June 30, submit to the 

appropriate committees of Congress a report 

describing— 

(i) the results of the audit; and 

(ii) the manner in which the State will 

carry out the food stamp program in the 

State, including eligibility and fraud prevention requirements. 

(e) USE OF FUNDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A State that receives a 

grant under this section may use the grant 

in any manner determined to be appropriate 

by the State to provide food stamps to the 

legal residents of the State. 

(2) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Grant funds 

made available to a State under this section 

shall— 

(A) remain available to the State for a period of 5 years; and 

(B) after that period, shall— 

(i) revert to the Federal Government to be 

deposited in the Treasury and used for Federal budget deficit reduction; or 

(ii) if there is no Federal budget deficit, be 

used to reduce the Federal debt in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate. 

SEC. 3. FUNDING. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There is authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this Act— 

(1) for fiscal year 2014, $40,000,000,000; 

(2) for fiscal year 2015, $40,700,000,000; 

(3) for fiscal year 2016, $41,600,000,000; 

(4) for fiscal year 2017, $42,400,000,000; 

(5) for fiscal year 2018, $43,200,000,000; 

(6) for fiscal year 2019, $44,100,000,000; 

(7) for fiscal year 2020, $45,000,000,000; and 

(8) for fiscal year 2021, $45,900,000,000. 

(b) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMIT ADJUSTMENT.—Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 

U.S.C. 901(c)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,106,000,000,000’’; 

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,126,700,000,000’’; 

(3) in paragraph (5), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,148,600,000,000’’; 

(4) in paragraph (6), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,173,400,000,000’’; 

(5) in paragraph (7), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,199,200,000,000’’; 

(6) in paragraph (8), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,226,100,000,000’’; 

(7) in paragraph (9), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,253,000,000,000’’; and 

(8) in paragraph (10), by striking the figure 

and inserting ‘‘$1,279,900,000,000’’. 

(c) DISCRETIONARY CAP ADJUSTMENT FOR

NEW PROGRAM SPENDING.—Section 251A(2) of 

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a(2)) is 

amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$550,000,000,000’’; 

(2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$560,700,000,000’’; 

(3) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$571,600,000,000’’; 

(4) in subparagraph (E)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$583,400,000,000’’; 

(5) in subparagraph (F)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$596,200,000,000’’; 

(6) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$610,100,000,000’’; 

(7) in subparagraph (H)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$623,000,000,000’’; and 

(8) in subparagraph (I)(ii), by striking the 

figure and inserting ‘‘$635,900,000,000’’. 

SEC. 4. REPEALS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Effective September 30, 

2013, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 

U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is repealed. 

(b) REPEAL OF MANDATORY FUNDING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, effective September 

30, 2013, the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food 

and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 

seq.) (as in effect prior to that date) shall 

cease to be a program funded through direct 

spending (as defined in section 250(c) of the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)) prior to 

the amendment made by paragraph (2)). 

(2) DIRECT SPENDING.—Effective September 

30, 2013, section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)) is amended— 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

at the end; 

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; 

and’’ at the end and inserting a period; and 

(C) by striking subparagraph (C). 

(3) ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY.—Effective 

September 30, 2013, section 3(9) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(9)) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘means—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘the authority to make’’ and 

inserting ‘‘means the authority to make’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a period; and 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6555 

(C) by striking subparagraph (B). 

(4) OTHER DIRECT SPENDING.—Effective September 30, 2013, section 1026(5) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 691e(5)) is amended— 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

at the end; 

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; 

and’’ at the end and inserting a period; and 

(C) by striking subparagraph (C). 

(c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.—Any reference in this Act, an amendment made by 

this Act, or any other Act to the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be 

considered to be a reference to the food 

stamp block grant program under this Act. 

SEC. 5. BASELINE. 

Notwithstanding section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907), the baseline shall 

assume that, on and after September 30, 2013, 

no benefits shall be provided under the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) (as in effect 

prior to that date). 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 571—CONGRATULATING THE NUNAKA 

VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE JUNIOR 

GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2012 LITTLE LEAGUE 

JUNIOR SOFTBALL WORLD SERIES 

Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Ms. 

MURKOWSKI) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. RES. 571 

Whereas the Nunaka Valley Little League 

Junior girls softball team is comprised of 

young women who play softball in Anchorage, Alaska; 

Whereas the Nunaka Valley Little League 

Junior softball team compiled an extraordinary record of 7 wins and 1 loss on their 

way to winning the State tournament; 

Whereas the Nunaka Valley Little League 

Junior softball team went undefeated in 4 

games in winning the West Regional Tournament in Tucson, Arizona; 

Whereas in August, 2012, the Nunaka Valley Little League Junior softball team represented the West Region at the Little 

League Junior Softball World Series in 

Kirkland, Washington; 

Whereas Nunaka Valley Little League Junior softball team manager Richard Hill led 

the Nunaka Valley Little League Junior 

softball team to the Little League Junior 

Softball World Series for a third time in 4 

years; 

Whereas on August 18, 2012, the Nunaka 

Valley Little League Junior softball team 

defeated Victoria, British Columbia to win 

the 2012 Little League Junior Softball World 

Series; 

Whereas the Nunaka Valley Little League 

Junior softball team won 5 games and lost 

just 1 en route to becoming 2012 Little 

League Junior Softball World Series champions; 

Whereas over 2,000 teams and 30,000 players 

compete in Little League Junior girls softball; 

Whereas the Nunaka Valley Little League 

Junior girls softball team is the Little 

League Junior Softball World Series champions; 

Whereas the teamwork and commitment of 

the entire Nunaka Valley Little League Junior girls softball team and the encouragement of their families has again led them to 

success; 

Whereas Little League softball and baseball has provided a positive athletic experience and fostered teamwork and sportsmanship for millions of children in the United 

States and around the world; and 

Whereas, Alaskans everywhere are proud of 

the Nunaka Valley Little League Junior 

girls athletes: Jacynne Augafa, Leilani Blair, 

Morgan Hill, Ashton Jessee, Alexis Joubert, 

Felila Manu, Taria Page, Hannah Peterson, 

Teighlor Rardon, Sierra Rosenzweig, Lauren 

Syrup, and Nanea Tali on their accomplishments in 2012: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) congratulates all of the Nunaka Valley 

Little League Junior girls softball team, 

parents, and coaching staff on a championship season; and 

(2) respectfully requests the Secretary of 

the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of 

this resolution to— 

(A) the Nunaka Valley Little League president, Greg Davis; and 

(B) the Nunaka Valley Junior Girls manager, Richard Hill; and 

(C) coaches Rick Peterson and Sean Syrup. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 572—DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 2012 AS THE 

‘‘NATIONAL MONTH OF VOTER 

REGISTRATION’’ 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MERKLEY, and 

Mr. TESTER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. RES. 572 

Whereas the United States has overcome 

the stains of historic State-sponsored voting 

discrimination, including State laws that 

imposed voting qualifications such as property ownership, religious qualifications, 

grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and literacy 

tests and were designed to exclude racial minorities, poorer voters, and certain religious 

groups from voting; 

Whereas courts have struck down these 

State laws because the laws conflict with the 

Constitution of the United States; 

Whereas Congress has continuously moved 

to expand the franchise of voting; 

Whereas the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 

24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution of the United States are intended to 

protect minorities, poorer voters, women, 

the elderly, and youth from voting discrimination; 

Whereas, in 1965, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) 

to remedy past discrimination in voting and 

protect vulnerable citizens from practices 

that infringe on the right to vote or elect a 

candidate of their choice; 

Whereas, in 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 

U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) to establish protections 

around the voting process, increase the number of citizens who register to vote, and encourage governments to protect the integrity of the electoral process; 

Whereas, in 2002, in response to the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential 

election, Congress enacted the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et seq.), 

which provided new standards for voting systems, created the independent Election Assistance Commission to assist with the administration of Federal elections, and established minimum standards for States and 

local governments that administer Federal 

elections; 

Whereas Congress has reauthorized the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 5 times, most recently in 2006, recognizing the need for continued enforcement against State practices 

in voting that discriminate against or disenfranchise vulnerable citizens; 

Whereas, since 2010, some States have enacted voting laws that are reminiscent of 

historic State-sponsored voting discrimination; 

Whereas some States have already 

disenfranchised some young people, elderly 

people, and former Members of Congress 

through strict new voting laws; 

Whereas some States continue to disenfranchise United States citizens with past 

criminal convictions who live and work in 

our communities; 

Whereas Members of Congress and notable 

civil rights organizations have studied recently-enacted State voting laws and calculated that the laws will have a grave impact on millions of minority, elderly, young, 

and poor individuals who are eligible to vote 

and will seek to register to vote and vote on 

election day; 

Whereas, since March 12, 2012, 2 State 

courts in Wisconsin have held that the Wisconsin voter identification law enacted in 

2011 violates the Wisconsin constitution, 

with one court writing that ‘‘a government 

that undermines the very foundation of its 

existence—the people’s inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote—imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the 

people, and especially of the people’’; 

Whereas Federal courts in both Florida 

and Washington, DC, recently struck down 

new Florida state laws that restrict new 

voter registration and early voting hours, 

with one court writing that the new restrictions on voter registration drives ‘‘impose 

burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements that serve little if any purpose, 

thus rendering them unconstitutional even 

to the extent they do not violate the [National Voter Registration Act of 1993]’’, and 

another court holding, ‘‘[W]e conclude that 

we cannot . . . preclear Florida’s early voting 

changes because the State has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that those changes 

will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Specifically, the State has not 

proven that the changes will be nonretrogressive if the covered counties offer only 

the minimum number of early voting hours 

that they are required to offer under the new 

statute, which would constitute only half 

the hours required under the prior law.’’; 

Whereas a Federal court in Washington, 

DC, recently struck down a Texas voter identification law, writing that the law ‘‘imposes 

strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor’’ and 

that ‘‘a disproportionately high percentage 

of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas 

live in poverty’’; 

Whereas a Federal court in Ohio recently 

struck down a State law that mandated that 

even in cases where poll workers steer voters 

to the wrong polling place, provisional votes 

cast in the wrong precinct must be discarded; 

Whereas State representatives and political leaders in States such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida have made 

public admissions about how certain laws in 

their States were designed to put a dent in 

the democratic process; 

Whereas, without a response from Congress, millions of voters in the United States 

may be subjected to State actions that will 

harm the franchise; 

Whereas the month of September 2012 

would be an appropriate month to commemorate a national focus on the importance of every citizen being registered and 

empowered to vote; 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE