[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.
____________________