[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9593-H9597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PROVIDING FOR VOTING IN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 5174) to amend

[[Page H9594]]

 titles 10 and 18, United States Code, and Revised Statutes to remove 
the uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of Defense to 
permit buildings located on military installations and reserve 
component facilities to be used as polling places in Federal, State and 
local elections for public office.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5174

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF BUILDINGS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND 
                   RESERVE COMPONENT FACILITIES AS POLLING PLACES.

       (a) Use of Military Installations Authorized.--Section 2670 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Under'' and inserting ``(a) Use by Red 
     Cross.--Under'';
       (2) by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``this 
     subsection''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Use as Polling Places.--(1) Notwithstanding chapter 
     29 of title 18 (including sections 592 and 593 of such 
     title), the Secretary of a military department may make a 
     building located on a military installation under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary available for use as a polling 
     place in any Federal, State, or local election for public 
     office.
       ``(2) Once a military installation is made available as the 
     site of a polling place with respect to a Federal, State, or 
     local election for public office, the Secretary shall 
     continue to make the site available for subsequent elections 
     for public office unless the Secretary provides to Congress 
     advance notice in a reasonable and timely manner of the 
     reasons why the site will no longer be made available as a 
     polling place.
       ``(3) In this section, the term `military installation' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 2687(e) of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Use of Reserve Component Facilities.--(1) Section 18235 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Pursuant to a lease or other agreement under 
     subsection (a)(2), the Secretary may make a facility covered 
     by subsection (a) available for use as a polling place in any 
     Federal, State, or local election for public office 
     notwithstanding chapter 29 of title 18 (including sections 
     592 and 593 of such title). Once a facility is made available 
     as the site of a polling place with respect to an election 
     for public office, the Secretary shall continue to make the 
     facility available for subsequent elections for public office 
     unless the Secretary provides to Congress advance notice in a 
     reasonable and timely manner of the reasons why the facility 
     will no longer be made available as a polling place.''.
       (2) Section 18236 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Pursuant to a lease or other agreement under 
     subsection (c)(1), a State may make a facility covered by 
     subsection (c) available for use as a polling place in any 
     Federal, State, or local election for public office 
     notwithstanding chapter 29 of title 18 (including sections 
     592 and 593 of such title).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to Title 18.--(1) Section 592 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``This section shall not prohibit the use of buildings 
     located on military installations, or the use of reserve 
     component facilities, as polling places in Federal, State, 
     and local elections for public office in accordance with 
     section 2670(b), 18235, or 18236 of title 10.''.
       (2) Section 593 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``This section shall not prohibit the use of buildings 
     located on military installations, or the use of reserve 
     component facilities, as polling places in Federal, State, 
     and local elections for public office in accordance with 
     section 2670(b), 18235, or 18236 of title 10.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment to Voting Rights Law.--Section 
     2003 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1972) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Making a military 
     installation or reserve component facility available as a 
     polling place in a Federal, State, or local election for 
     public office in accordance with section 2670(b), 18235, or 
     18236 of title 10, United States Code, shall be deemed to be 
     consistent with this section.''.
       (e) Availability of Polling Places for 2000 Federal 
     Elections.--If a military installation or reserve component 
     facility was made available as the site of a polling place 
     with respect to an election for Federal office held during 
     1998, the same or a comparable site shall be made available 
     for use as a polling place with respect to the general 
     election for Federal office to be held in November 2000.
       (f) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 2670 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 2670. BUILDINGS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS: USE BY 
                   AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS AND AS POLLING 
                   PLACES IN FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ELECTIONS''

         (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 159 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``2670. Buildings on military installations: use by American National 
              Red Cross and as polling places in Federal, State, and 
              local elections.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on H.R. 5174.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5174 clarifies the authority of the Secretary of 
the Defense to use DOD facilities as polling places in Federal, State 
and local elections for public office.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5174 brings a common sense approach to the issue of 
voting on military installations. There is no retrenchment from the 
prohibition against using military forces to influence voters. The 
Congress will remain vigilant against any potential that military 
forces could be used to intimidate voters. However, we must guard 
against the over reaction that voting must never be allowed on military 
facilities regardless of the benign circumstances in the absence of a 
threat of coercion by military forces.
  The simple fact is that in some remote and rural locations in our 
Nation, military facilities are important community resources that have 
been used for polling for a number of years. The members of the local 
community that have used DOD facilities for voting are not threatened 
by the military forces that live and work in their communities.
  It is important to note that this language does not require military 
commanders to open their facilities for voting. The bill only makes 
explicit that polling on military facilities is not illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5174 does not force either local community leaders 
nor the military commanders to use military facilities for voting. 
However, if both sides agree that using military facilities for polling 
is in the best interest of the community and the military mission is 
not harmed as a result, then this bill authorizes the military 
commander to make the facilities available legally.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for bringing 
this important matter to the attention of the House, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 5174.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to 
H.R. 5174.
  One important component of U.S. foreign policy is the promotion of 
democracies world-wide. Each time the U.S. supports a fledgling 
democracy, we insist on a clear decoupling of the civilian leadership 
and a nation's military. We insist that the military subsume itself to 
civilian control by elected officials. This principle is as important 
today as it was to our Founders. Because of the strength of that 
principle I must stand in strong opposition to the measure before us 
today. Protection of this enduring principle requires adherence to 
established procedures.
  There is a longstanding tradition of avoiding the politicization of 
military bases. Polling activity brings with it electioneering, and 
that activity on a military base is clearly inappropriate.
  Military personnel vote at their home of record. For most, this means 
that they vote through absentee ballot. There is no indication that 
military personnel are currently disenfranchised, and that this measure 
would be necessary.
  There may be legal considerations regarding the assignment of 
precincts and other state election laws. These may conflict with 
federal considerations.
  The addition of new polling places may require that the states 
provide new balloting machines. There is no funding for this under this 
measure, and may therefore present the states with an unfunded mandate.

[[Page H9595]]

  Many of our bases are open bases with free access to civilians. 
However, some bases are not for national security and/or force 
protection reasons. It is unclear how this bill would affect those 
concerns.
  In addition, the Department of Defense is opposed to this provision. 
This provision deserves to be taken through the normal committee 
process, and not be considered under suspension of the rules.
  Most Important: There have been no hearings on this measure. Many 
questions, such as those above, should be fully investigated through 
the committee hearing process before this bill is brought to the floor.
  A citizen's right to vote is the linchpin of our democracy, therefore 
nothing should be held in higher regard nor given more deference. This 
bill should be afforded a full and comprehensive review by the entire 
Congress through established procedures. Anything short of that is 
irresponsible and borders on weakening the time-tested foundations of 
democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I include additional material for the Record.

       The Department of Defense has a standing policy prohibiting 
     the use of federal, active military and reserve facilities as 
     polling or voting places. The Department believes that the 
     military should not be involved in any way in the electoral 
     process, in order to avoid the possibility or the perception 
     of voter coercion or intimidation by military personnel or a 
     military presence, or the perception that the military has 
     authority over the election process. The principle that the 
     military should remain separated from the electoral process 
     is reflected in existing laws imposing criminal penalties on 
     commanders who station troops or armed men at any place where 
     a special or general election is held, and on members of the 
     Armed Forces who impose regulations on the conduct of such 
     elections or otherwise interfere in any manner with an 
     election officer's discharge of his duties. See 18 U.S.C. 
     592, 593. Locating polling places on military installations, 
     where a commander's authority is paramount, in inconsistent 
     with DoD policy and runs the risk of exposing military 
     personnel to criminal sanctions.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) for yielding me this time, and also let me thank the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for bringing this bill up at 
this moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by this legislative proposal. This breaks 
a long-standing American tradition; and I frankly cannot, will not 
support this legislation.
  Let me quote from the Department of Defense on this bill, and I think 
they are absolutely correct.

       The Department of Defense has a standing policy prohibiting 
     the use of Federal, active military and reserve facilities as 
     polling or voting places. The Department believes that the 
     military should not be involved in any way in the electoral 
     process, in order to avoid the possibility or the perception 
     of voter coercion or intimidation by military personnel or a 
     military presence, or the perception that the military has 
     authority over the election process.

  Further,

       The principle that the military shall remain separated from 
     the electoral process is reflected in existing laws imposing 
     criminal penalties on commanders who station troops or armed 
     men at any place where a special or general election is held, 
     and on members of the armed forces who impose regulations on 
     the conduct of such elections or otherwise interfere in any 
     manner with an election officer's discharge of his duties.

  Let me give an example there if I may, Mr. Speaker. Polling places 
being held on a military installation such as Fort Leonard Wood in 
Missouri, military installations, bases or posts by their very nature 
have men and women under arms; and then, of course, near a polling 
place would consist of a criminal penalty, and I think that is asking 
too much of our military personnel to impose that type of restriction 
and threat on them of having violated a criminal statute.
  Further, the Department of Defense states that locating a polling 
place in military installations where a commander's authority is 
paramount is inconsistent with the Department of Defense policy, and it 
runs the risk of exposing military personnel to criminal sanctions, as 
I just mentioned.
  Now, let me point this out, Mr. Speaker: this is a controversial 
issue at best; and as such we have committees, we have a Committee on 
Armed Services that I am pleased to be the ranking member thereof and 
all of us on the committee take our jobs very seriously. I think that a 
measure such as this should have extensive hearings. Those in favor of 
it should appear before us and say why they feel as they do and those 
of us that oppose it will have the opportunity to ask questions and 
cross-examine the witnesses and hear witnesses who are opposed to it, 
including those from the Department of Defense. I think it is a 
violation at least of the process by which controversial legislation is 
handled in this wonderful body we call the House of Representatives. So 
consequently, I find that I must and do sincerely oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I would add a letter from 
the Department of Defense which outlines in detail their reasons, and 
there are four of them spelled out.
                                            General Counsel of the


                                        Department of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
     Hon. William M. Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Administration,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for 
     the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 5174, 106th 
     Congress, a bill ``To amend titles 10 and 18, United States 
     Code, and the Revised Statutes to remove the uncertainty 
     regarding the authority of the Department of Defense to 
     permit buildings on military installations and reserve 
     component facilities to be used as polling places in Federal, 
     State, and local elections for public office.''
       The Department of Defense opposes this legislation.
       The Department has a longstanding policy prohibiting the 
     use of military installations as polling sites for elections. 
     This policy is based on sound public policy of maintaining 
     strict separation between the military and the political 
     process. The policy of separating the military and partisan 
     politics is critically important to maintaining public 
     support for and confidence in our Armed Forces, as well as 
     maintaining good order and discipline within military ranks.
       The principle of separating the military from the political 
     process is also reflected in two federal criminal statutes. 
     18 U.S.C. Sec. 592 provides that:
       [W]hoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other 
     person in the civil, military or naval service of the United 
     States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or 
     control any troops or armed men at any place where a general 
     or special election is held, unless such force be necessary 
     to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined 
     under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or 
     both.
       Similarly, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 593 subjects members of the Armed 
     Forces to criminal penalties if they ``impose or attempt to 
     impose any regulations for conducting any general or special 
     election in a State, different from those prescribed by 
     law,'' or ``interfere in any manner with an election 
     officer's discharge of his duties.'' Placement of voting 
     sites on military installations in which ``troops or armed 
     men'' are likely to come into close contact with voters is 
     fundamentally incompatible with the concept of maintaining 
     separation between the military and politics.
       If enacted, H.R. 5174 would reverse Department of Defense 
     policy by authorizing the use of military installations as 
     polling places. We strongly disagree that it is appropriate 
     for the fundamental political activity of voting to take 
     place at locations that the Department of Defense strives to 
     make politically neutral and nonpartisan. The proposed 
     legislation also would not effectively amend the criminal 
     statutes reference above to relieve military personnel from 
     potential criminal liability. Specifically, the amendments to 
     the criminal statutes proposed in section 1(c) of H.R. 5174 
     would only clarify that it is not a crime for polling places 
     to be placed on military installations. It would not address 
     at all the placement of troops or armed men at polling 
     places. It would not be practical simply to prohibit military 
     personnel from approaching or entering a polling place on a 
     military installation during voting hours. The commander of a 
     military installation must at all times have complete control 
     over the facilities within his or her authority. It is 
     possible that circumstances could arise that would require a 
     commander to order military personnel to enter a building 
     designated as a polling site if that building is located on a 
     military installation. We believe it is therefore prudent to 
     retain the prohibition on the use of military buildings as 
     polling places.
       We recognize that some installations have overlooked the 
     Department's policy on this issue in the past and that some 
     military facilities have been used as polling places in some 
     localities. In some cases, short-term waivers of the policy 
     have been granted if an alternative location could not be 
     identified in time to avoid disruption to an upcoming 
     election. In such cases, local election officials have been 
     advised to designate a new polling place as soon as possible. 
     Furthermore, section 121 of the Military Construction 
     Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2001 requires that military 
     facilities that have been used as polling places over recent 
     years must be permitted to be used as polling places for the 
     November election. Enactment of H.R. 5174 is not necessary, 
     therefore, to relieve any possible inconvenience to voters in

[[Page H9596]]

     the November election resulting from enforcement of the 
     Department of Defense policy.
       Finally, we want to point out that our policy does not 
     apply to National Guard armories or other Guard facilities. 
     These buildings are subject to the control of state Governors 
     through their Adjutant Generals, not the Department of 
     Defense.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report for 
     consideration of the Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                               Douglas A. Dworkin.

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I would ask the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
if he might engage in a colloquy with me.
  It is my understanding that for a number of years now at certain 
limited number of our military facilities that there has been voting. 
If this has been going on, and I am assured that it has, then clearly 
this is in violation of current law. What this bill, as I understand 
it, intends to do is to make it possible to continue voting at some of 
these remote bases and a few reserve bases where this has appeared to 
be in the best interest of the community.
  I would point out that this legislation is entirely permissive. The 
military can decide that they do not want voting in any of their 
facilities. I am reading from the bill itself now. It says: ``The 
secretary of a military department may make a building located on a 
military installation available, and for the reserve component the 
language is essentially the same.'' The secretary may make a facility 
covered by subsection A available for use. They do not have to make it 
available at all.
  My question to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is if this 
has been a practice, and if at some very remote locations where the 
military facility is just about the only show in town, because it was 
placed there because of the desire of the military to be very remote so 
that essentially all of the people in that community are associated 
with the military, it is my understanding that is predominately the 
locations where this has been going on, and my question is, if that has 
been going on and if it was deemed necessary to do that because of a 
shortage of other places in the community, then why would this totally 
permissive legislation be objectionable since in all other places the 
military could exercise its option to not permit voting at all?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett) for his inquiry. Back home in Missouri we have the saying, 
two wrongs do not make a right. And the fact that they have been doing 
it, I think, because of the policy of the United States in the past, 
they have been violating that policy.
  Now, this does not apply to National Guard armories, because National 
Guard armories are State property. There are many places that are 
available, whether it be schools or private places, sometimes private 
homes. There are many places and one does not need a military 
installation to fulfill the opportunity for folks to vote.
  Let me say that there are four reasons that the Department of Defense 
opposes this legislation. There is a long-standing policy prohibiting 
the use of a military installation as polling sites for elections. This 
policy is based on sound public policy of maintaining strict separation 
between the military and the political process.
  Similarly, the law, 18 U.S.C. 593, subjects members of the armed 
forces to criminal penalties if they impose or attempt to impose any 
regulations for conducting any general or special election in the State 
different from those prescribed by law.
  I think that that is a situation where one may put someone in the 
armed forces in a very embarrassing and possibly a criminal violation.
  Further, the Department of Defense policy, if this were enacted, 
would reverse the policy by authorizing the use of military 
installations, and the Department strongly disagrees that it is 
appropriate for the fundamental political activity of voting to take 
place on locations that the Department of Defense strives to make 
politically neutral and nonpartisan.
  The proposed legislation would not effectively amend the criminal 
statutes. It leaves those alone and consequently would subject certain 
members of the armed forces to criminal violations.
  Further, the Department recognizes some installations have overlooked 
the Department's policy, as the gentleman has pointed out, on this 
issue in the past and that some military facilities have been used. In 
some cases short-term waivers of the policy have been granted, and I 
think there is a short period that a waiver has been established. But I 
think quite honestly we should not allow this situation where there 
have been a few folks in violation of this policy, to enlarge itself 
and become the norm.

                              {time}  2130

  It bothers me a great deal. I just do not think that the military and 
the political process should get thrown together. Consequently, let us 
keep them separated. The military is far removed from the political 
ways of our country, as they should be.
  That is why I just, in all good conscience, cannot support this. At 
best, we have to have a hearing on this. I would like to have the 
opportunity to cross-examine those who propose it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the gentleman 
yielding, and for the opportunity, particularly since I have so much 
respect for his commitment to all questions that we have dealt with in 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  The issue is an important one. There is a waiver in existence now 
with respect to the use of the facilities so perhaps we do not find 
anybody in violation, inadvertently or otherwise. Perhaps this is an 
issue, although I realize the gentleman is not in the position of 
advocating the bill this evening.
  There should be an opportunity for us to discuss this, then, in 
committee. I am sure we could take up the pros and cons and maybe talk 
it out a little bit, and perhaps another solution could be arrived at.
  But I have to stand, then, with my original reluctance and at the 
same time say that even after this colloquy I find myself still in 
opposition, not necessarily to doing it or finding some other solution, 
but at this particular time, pending hearings in the House Committee on 
Armed Services, I ask that it be defeated for the time being, at least.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's 
concern. I would state that I do not believe it was the intention of 
this bill to enlarge this practice.
  The gentleman mentioned that waivers have been granted. These were in 
very limited locations, and they were granted because it was felt that 
voting at the military facility was the only reasonable thing that 
could be done.
  I think the reason for this bill is that we cannot, in a military 
base, waive law. That is what they were pretending to do. We cannot 
just waive law. The law now says we cannot do it there. I think what 
the intent of this bill is is simply for those rare occasions where 
this needs to be done, that this now puts the commander of the base not 
in violation of the law when he does a reasonable thing, and that is to 
permit the people to vote there.
  That is my understanding of the bill, and I think that is all that 
was intended by the bill, was to solve a current problem where those 
commanders who have waived the law, and I do not think we can waive a 
Federal statute, they have waived the law and in effect they have been 
in violation of the law when they have permitted voting in their 
facility, this now would make them in compliance with the law, because 
this would say they have the option of doing that if it is appropriate.
  The bill makes very clear that this is not appropriate when it 
violates any of the intent, any of the mission of that facility. It is 
totally permissive, it is not obligatory in any sense. I believe that I 
am clearly expressing the intent of the legislation and the desire of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
appreciate that statement.
  I keep going back to my old Missouri comment: Two wrongs do not make 
a

[[Page H9597]]

right. I am very concerned that should this bill become law it would be 
permissive, and it would enlarge a practice that really should not have 
begun to begin with.
  So I do not think that we are doing anyone a service here. I think we 
are doing ourselves a disservice by mixing the military and the 
political process together. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
taking the bill up at this time.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in closing 
that Federal law prohibits political activity on any Federal land, 
including military land.
  In Maryland, we can campaign within 100 feet of the polling place. If 
that polling place were on a military facility, it would be my 
understanding that we could not campaign within 100 feet of the polling 
place.
  I do not see voting as a partisan political activity, I see it as a 
patriotic activity. Campaigning for a specific candidate I see as 
partisan political activity, which I would not think would be 
appropriate to go on on a military facility.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the last observation of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), which I agree with. 
Unfortunately, I come to a little bit different conclusion this 
evening. This is one of the reasons why I oppose it at this time, or 
oppose passage at this time.
  I believe voting is a patriotic act. I believe it is an act, if you 
will, of self-preservation of a democracy, certainly our democracy. 
Because free speech is so important, I think the gentleman is quite 
correct in observing that it is unlikely that commanders would like to 
have political activity, sign-holding, et cetera, very near a polling 
place if it was in the middle of a base.
  I expect different jurisdictions across the Nation have different 
rules with respect to how close to a voting booth one can actually 
politic, but nonetheless, it is unlikely that military bases would find 
themselves easily resolving those kinds of questions.
  My point, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that while this is an idea 
that certainly should receive full discussion and consideration, 
passing it at this time has not allowed for that. So therefore, again, 
I reluctantly state my opposition at this time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 5174, a 
bill to help families and communities that support military bases 
preserve their voting rights.
  I have been very concerned with the decision earlier this year by the 
Department of Defense to not allow voting booths on military 
facilities, even though many of these facilities are isolated and in 
remote areas of our country. The Department refers to a law preventing 
the presence of troops at election sites, something we can all agree is 
a good law. Mr. Speaker, that law was never intended to prevent local 
election officials from asking to set up voting booths in order to let 
military personnel and people in the community vote. The purpose of 
that old law was to stop intimidation and abuse of the military in 
elections.
  The men and women who support these bases, not only those in the 
service, have been used to voting at long established voting booths in 
some of these military owned buildings. Sometimes in these remote 
communities, the military owns all the buildings suitable to set up a 
voting booth. It is unfair that we would stop this from continuing 
since there are no known instances in which this posed a problem or 
voting infringement by anyone. Frankly, it is just overzealous 
lawyering at work in the Department. H.R. 5174 sets this straight.
  I am especially pleased that H.R. 5174 does not attempt to force some 
new mission onto the military. It quietly allows voting booths to 
continue to be set up on these military facilities. It also gives the 
proper discretion to the military to continue or discontinue this 
practice. H.R. 5174 allows the military to keep the status quo of 
providing this service to our servicemen and their supporters while 
taking away any fear of breaking the law. I support H.R. 5174 because 
it helps service personnel, their families, and the people who support 
these isolated bases to continue to exercise their right to vote.
  People in the military work hard enough and suffer hardships by 
living in isolation. We should not be making it harder for them to 
vote. We should make it easier.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill H.R. 5174, 
which preserves the voting rights of people in communities who live on 
or around military bases in remote, rural areas.
  Earlier this year the Department of Defense issued a directive that 
disrupts the traditional role of these bases whose commanders have for 
years allowed local election officials to set up election voting 
booths. Lawyers at the Department of Defense have said they are 
concerned that an old Civil War era law prohibiting troops at election 
polls could be used to impose criminal sanctions on military personnel 
who are simply allowing local election officials to set up voting 
booths. My interest is in protecting those military personnel while 
allowing the commanders of remote bases to continue to allow the 
setting up of voting booths. H.R. 5174 does this.
  The need to act quickly is great. These bases are sometimes the only 
facility in a remove and isolated area; indeed, the remoteness is 
usually what attracted the military to locate the base there in the 
first place. It is entirely proper that the military should permit 
these election polls to continue at the commander's discretion. The 
people in communities that support our military bases sacrifice by 
living in isolated rural areas. They look to the military for shopping 
needs at commissaries, recreation needs at rec halls and theaters, and 
sometimes homes and schools on base. We should not be making it more 
difficult for them to vote. We should be making it easier.
  At the same time, I am very aware that the military must have the 
final say as to whether an election poll can be permitted on a military 
base. The very nature of national defense is such that we must not tie 
the hands of those who are working to protect us. Obviously, many 
bases, if not most, are sensitive and should not be open to election 
operations. That is why I have written H.R. 5174 with great care to 
allow the presence of election polls on military sites, but the 
discretion to have them is entirely with the military. H.R. 5174 
provides a safe harbor by expressly stating that the military may make 
a building located on a military installation available for use as a 
polling place in any Federal, State, or local election.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this bill and 
preserving the tradition of the military in protecting the voting 
rights of people in communities that support our military facilities.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5174.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________