[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9254-H9264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3295, HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 311 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 311
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3295) to establish a
program to provide funds to States to replace punch card
voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance
Commission to assist in the administration of Federal
elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the
administration of certain Federal election laws and programs,
to establish minimum election administration standards
[[Page H9255]]
for States and units of local government with responsibility
for the administration of Federal elections, and for other
purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The amendment recommended by the Committee on House
Administration now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the
ranking member of the Committee on Rules; pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 311 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001, with 1
hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. Additionally, the rule provides that the amendment recommended by
the Committee on House Administration now printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, last year's Presidential election was the most dramatic
and most memorable in recent history. Election reform is not a new
concept, but last fall was a stark reminder of the modifications that
our voting system desperately needs. Voter fraud and faulty machines
are only a few examples of the inadequacies of the system. That is why
I am proud to stand before you today not only as a member of the
Committee on Rules but also a member of the Committee on House
Administration.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), chairman of the Committee on House
Administration, and the ranking member of that committee, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), have approached this issue with open minds,
and their cooperation has produced the bipartisan legislation before us
today. I commend their efforts as well as the efforts of my other
colleagues on the Committee on House Administration, both Republican
and Democrat.
This legislation represents the true essence of bipartisanship. In
fact, of the 170 total cosponsors, there are more Democratic cosponsors
than there are Republican. Politics was put aside in order to strike an
appropriate middle ground. Mr. Speaker, this is not a one-time fix
miracle solution to election reform. However, this is a first step, a
bipartisan step in the continuing effort to update and modernize the
way Americans actively participate in our democratic process.
The Help America Vote Act of 2001 offers the best opportunity to pass
real, comprehensive, and truly bipartisan election reform legislation
before the end of session. While careful and thoughtful consideration
was given to this issue throughout the year, America should not have to
wait any longer. Before we know it, another election cycle will be upon
us, and, so far, many States have had to rely on their own resources to
modify the election systems. It is time for the Federal government to
step up to the plate. Not only will this legislation infuse
considerable funding into election reform initiatives, it will supply
States with minimum election standards to reduce the frequency of
inadequate, inaccurate, or duplicate voting.
The bill also addresses the issues of overseas voting. I am pleased
that Chairman Ney was able to include some of the provisions in the
manager's amendment that is now a part of this rule. Our men and women
in uniform around the world should be afforded the same ease and
efficiency of voting as all Americans. The most fundamental privilege
of American citizenship is the right to vote.
Let us now embrace the spirit of bipartisanship that produced this
legislation by supporting this bill and preserving the very integrity
of democracy. At last night's Committee on Rules hearing on this bill,
Chairman Ney said, ``We want fair elections.'' I urge my colleagues to
join me in taking that first step towards fair elections by supporting
this rule and the underlying bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year's elections brought to light, Mr. Speaker, troubling
deficiencies in our electoral system, leaving many Americans
disillusioned about our democracy itself. We are all, of course,
painfully aware of the tragedy in Florida, which culminated on this
very day 1 year ago. But the problem was clearly larger than that, so
the Democratic Caucus' Special Committee on Election Reform, under the
able leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), spent
much of the past year conducting field hearings in communities around
the Nation. The committee confirmed what so many others have found;
that America's electoral system is broken, and that Americans from
coast to coast have been disenfranchised in every election.
In my own Congressional District in Fort Worth, Texas last year, I
personally witnessed and fought against a systematic partisan campaign
to harass, intimidate, and suppress African American voters, especially
senior citizens. For all these reasons, real election reform is a
priority for the American people, and it is a passion for Democrats.
But protecting every American's right to vote should not be a
partisan issue. It is the cornerstone to rebuilding faith in our
democracy, and it is the civil rights issue of the new millennium. That
is why Democrats have worked so hard to find bipartisan solutions to
the ills that plague America's electoral system. And this bill, H.R.
3295, the Help America Vote Act, provides a very good start.
Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer deserve tremendous credit for
crafting a bipartisan approach to get election reform started. This
bill sets minimum national election standards and provides Federal
assistance for the States to improve ballot counting, access to the
polls, and voter registration. It authorizes $2.65 billion for this
overhaul, including $400 million to help States replace their punch
card voting systems.
It also establishes an Election Assistance Commission to oversee the
program, creates a variety of programs to get students involved as poll
workers, and includes provisions intended to facilitate absentee voting
by military and other overseas voters.
Unfortunately, the bill does not go as far as many Democrats believe
it should. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it does not get us all the way
there. So the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the vice chair
of the Democratic Caucus, had an amendment to improve this bill to
achieve comprehensive election reform. And certainly we should all be
able to agree on helping Americans with disabilities vote, on ensuring
States meet the standards of this bill, and on ensuring compliance with
other standards like the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter
Registration Act. So the decision of the Committee on Rules last night
to issue a closed rule, and particularly to deny the gentleman from New
Jersey his right to offer his amendment, is inexcusable.
Election reform need not be a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker, but
Republican leaders insist on trying to make it one. For that reason, I
urge that this rule be defeated, and that we force Republican leaders
to take a bipartisan approach to election reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H9256]]
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. This
is great work done by the ranking member and the chairman. I want to
point out one provision in this that I really am appreciative of, which
is a self-executing provision in this rule that does address the
disabled community, especially the blind and the visually impaired at
the voting booth.
Everyone should have a right to cast a truly secret ballot.
Unfortunately, with current voting methods, the visually impaired have
to rely upon others to help them cast their votes. New voting
technologies can enable the blind to complete their own ballots without
assistance. The language included in this bill requires nonvisual
access to be an essential component of any new voting machines designed
for Federal elections. It also provides financial assistance to help
local election officials pay for the cost of these machines.
I know the election officials in downstate Illinois have been doing a
great job in ensuring that elections are run smoothly and that everyone
who wants to vote is given the chance to do so. I am pleased that this
amendment helps make voting easier for the visually impaired voters.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), along
with the Ranking Member Hoyer and Chairman Ney for working on this
issue and helping to get this provision included in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the National
Federation of the Blind supporting this bill.
National Federation
of the Blind,
Baltimore, MD, December 11, 2001.
Hon. Robert Ney,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the support of
the National Federation of the Blind for the Help America
Vote Act of 2001 (H.R. 3295), including language we requested
to address the needs of people who are blind. Thanks to your
efforts and understanding, this legislation points the way
for blind people to vote privately and independently.
While the 2000 election demonstrated significant problems
with our electoral system, consensus regarding the solution
has been much more difficult to find. Nonetheless, it is
clear that installation of up-to-date technology will occur
throughout the United States. This means that voting
technology will change, and devices purchased now will set
the pattern for decades to come. Therefore, requirements for
nonvisual access must be an essential component of the new
design.
With more than 50,000 members, representing every state,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the NFB is the
largest organization of blind people in the United States. As
such we know about blindness from our own experience. The
right to vote and cast a truly secret ballot is one of our
highest priorities, and modern technology can now support
this goal. For that reason, we support any legislation that
will accomplish this objective. Thank your for your
assistance in addressing this concern as part of the Help
America Vote Act of 2001.
Sincerely,
James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for yielding me this
time and for his distinguished leadership on this particular subject,
and also my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
All the members of the Committee on Rules heard me last night speak
very passionately, moved by the fact that now we have a year that has
passed and we still have not undertaken what I believe to be what the
American people want in the way of ensuring that we have free, fair,
and transparent elections.
Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I want to share a vignette
with everybody here. In 1974, in Florida, I ran for the Public Service
Commission, and I lost that election by 2 percentage points. When I got
home that night, my mother said to me, ``Something is wrong.'' My
comment to her was, ``Mom, there can't be anything wrong with this
election.'' I was kind of angry, upset, and hurt that I had lost. I
said ``There can't be anything wrong, because we have this new punch
card system.''
Well, now, 30-plus years have passed since that election, and the
fact of the matter is that she has said to me, at times when we have
spoken privately, that she thought something was wrong. And now I can
say to you, ``Mom, you were right, something was wrong all that time.''
Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that when I speak on the floor, my
words are eloquent and my thoughts are well expressed. But now is not
the time for eloquence. Quite frankly, this rule just stinks. More than
13 months have passed since last year's debacle of an election. Now,
when the House finally considers election reform legislation, the
Republican leadership is eliminating the option of debate. The only
word that I can use to describe this irresponsible act of poor
leadership is shameful.
During last night's hearing in the Committee on Rules, more than 20
amendments were offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. I
offered four amendments that would have fixed some of the problems that
I believe currently exist in the bill.
{time} 1230
My amendments would have required that every polling place in the
country be fully accessible to people with disabilities, and somebody
please tell me why we cannot accomplish that. They would have taken
significant steps, my amendments, towards halting the illegal purging
of voters' names, provided for the immediate restoration of former
felons' rights to vote; and, finally, ensure that all Americans be
given the right to cast a provisional ballot in the case their name
does not appear on the list of eligible voters.
However, the American people will never hear debate on these
amendments, nor the more than 16 others, because the rule that the
Republican leadership has reported is closed. Not one amendment that
was offered last night will be permitted to be debated today. Granted,
I do not agree with all of the amendments that were offered last night.
In fact, I am quite opposed to some of them. However, if the House is
going to consider an issue as important as the integrity of the
American election system, I think that it should be open for debate. I
believe that, and I believe the American people do also.
Where has the leadership been on this issue? From the looks of this
rule, we can tell where the leaders on the other side of the aisle have
been. But what about the administration, the primary beneficiary of
last year's sham of an election? The answer is we just do not know.
I asked the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) what is the position of the
administration. To date, the administration has not even issued a
statement on the Ney-Hoyer bill that is being considered.
Mr. Speaker, realize I applaud the work of the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the work that
they have done on this bill; and so should the rest of this body, and
we should thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for helping to improve this
measure.
Under the constraints that were placed on the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I do not think
that we could have gotten a better bill. I am nonetheless astonished
while we know what problems exist, and all of us know how to remedy
them, I was astonished by the unwillingness of the Republican
leadership to act on a bill that actually fixes all of the problems
that exist in our country's broken election system, and it baffles me
beyond comprehension that we are not doing it.
If the underlying bill is the best that we can do, then it is not
good enough. If we are to define our democracy by the rights we
guarantee to our citizens and the methods by which we choose our
leaders, then we must never find ourselves denying these rights or
questioning the results of our methods.
Mr. Speaker, few issues in this country ignite the tempers of the
American citizenry as much as election reform. In the past year, many
of us traveled across the country to hear voters speaking about the
problems that they faced during last year's election. From these
hearings and meetings, we have
[[Page H9257]]
garnered a general understanding that the problems we saw in Florida
last year are not unique to Florida. On the contrary, the travesty that
the Florida's voters faced last November is merely a representative
sample of the problems voters faced throughout the United States. Civil
rights violations, lack of provisional ballots, increasing amounts of
overvotes and undervotes, uneducated voters and poll workers, outdated
voting machines, the purging of eligible voters, confusing ballots,
lack of accessibility, and not enough funding for States to improve
their voting technology, are not problems that are unique to Florida.
The Ney-Hoyer bill fixes many of these problems, but at the same time
it fails to mandate that others be addressed. Today, Members are faced
with a difficult question: Do we allow the perfect to be the enemy of
the good, or do we approve a bill that does not fix all of the problems
that we know exist in our election system to date? This rule is not, in
my view, just irresponsible and shameful; but it is an insult to this
body, the American people and the integrity of our democracy. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this closed rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule at hand and the bill that
follows; but I must place into the Record my concern that the entire
process did not go far enough with respect to election reform, and that
has to do with the rampant number of complaints that every Member has
received about the failings of the motor voter law. This bill and the
rule that implements it, actually specifically states that the motor
voter law that we passed in 1993 will remain practically inviolate. Yet
the horror stories we have heard demands our attention to motor voter.
In that regard, I fashioned a Motor Voter Reform Task Force in my
district which made certain findings and recommendations. The findings
to which we must pay attention are very serious. Number one, there were
a large number, not just in my district but in other districts as well,
of people who were not American citizens who, by virtue of motor voter
flaws, were able to cast votes. That is unacceptable. That dilutes the
votes of people who are American citizens who are registered to vote.
We must do something about that. Our task force has recommendations as
to that, and this bill does not cover that particular situation.
Insofar as the bill goes to determining and helping States determine
eligibility of voters to allow culling of votes to bring them up to
date every couple of years, the bill goes a long way.
I hope in some future time that Congress tackles revision of motor
voter, updating motor voter in a time and a place where we can
concentrate on the flaws that everyone has discovered.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the report of my Motor Voter
Reform Task Force.
Motor Voter Reform Task Force Report
INTRODUCTION
The Motor Voter Task Force was created in May of 2001, by
Congressman Gekas of the 17th Congressional District to
investigate the effects of the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993. In June, the Task Force visited the five County
Election Offices and also spoke to Jury Commissioners in the
five counties in the Congressman's district and met with
Pennsylvania's Commissioner Dick Filling and Ted Koval,
Pennsylvania's Director of Voter Registration, both of whom
serve under the Bureau of Commissions, Elections and
Legislation. On July 9th, the Task Force held a hearing
involving the five County Registrars, a representative from
Penn DOT, a representative from the Department of State, and
two Representatives from the Pennsylvania State House. The
Task Force has also researched data concerning elections at
the local, State and National level.
Although the Motor Voter Law of 1993 did make voter
registration easier, it failed in its stated goals, it has
incurred great cost to the American taxpayer, it has made
maintaining the voter registration rolls more difficult, and
it has facilitated voter fraud.
We, the Motor Voter Reform Task Force, believe the Motor
Voter Act must be reformed to stop the current strains on our
electoral system.
problem specifics
The Motor Voter Law, officially known as the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, allowed a potential voter to
register while applying for, or renewing, a driver's license.
Motor Voter Has Caused Bloated Registration Rolls
While this Act made it easier to register to vote, it
simultaneously made it much more difficult for election
officials to remove inactive voters from the rolls.
Under the Motor Voter Act, all registered voters who have
not had any activity (have not voted, changed address,
changed name) are sent a ``Five-Year Notice.'' If the
registered voter responds to the notice, they are coded
``active'' and remain on the rolls. If they do not respond,
or if the Notice is undeliverable, they are coded as
``inactive'' and remain on the rolls until two more Federal
elections have passed without any activity. Any registered
voter who has been coded as inactive and remains on the
rolls, may vote by asking for an ``Affirmation of Elector''.
The Affirmation of Elector will activate their registration
by verifying address information.
In addition, once every calendar year, counties are
required by the Law to do either a mass mailing, or a cross-
referencing with the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of
Address Listing. This is a national list of residents by name
and address in the country. Any address discrepancy between
the county's address list and the National Change of Address
list will trigger a notice to be mailed to the registered
voter in question. Mass mailings are extremely expensive to
counties costing tens of thousands of dollars. The National
Change of Address Listing compiled by the U.S. Postal Service
is less expensive, but also costs counties several thousand
dollars to purchase. Some consideration should be given to
making this list available to counties at either no cost or
at a minimal cost.
All told, it may take up to nine years for an inactive
voter to be removed from the registration rolls. This causes
woefully inaccurate voter registries and the potential for
fraud. The Task Force believes this is unacceptable.
The Motor Voter System Allows Fraudulent Registration
The Motor Voter Act requires only the ``minimum amount of
information necessary'' to assess the eligibility of a
registrant. Ironically, this minimum information is often
insufficient in determining a registrant's eligibility.
Because proof of identity and citizenship is not required
when registering to vote, it is possible for resident aliens
(i.e., non-citizens) to vote in our elections. There were
several reported incidents in the 17th congressional district
where non-citizens were registered to vote. This means that
the fundamental right of legitimate Americans to vote is
being undermined. It is alarming to think that American
citizens may be letting fraudulent voters decide the outcome
of their local, State and Federal elections.
Just as alarming is the fact that voter registration rolls
are used across America as a source for selecting jurors. It
is very possible that non-citizens have already been called
for jury duty and have served. It was also discovered in
conversation with Jury Commissioners is the 17th
Congressional District that, indeed, jurors had been called
who had registered to vote through Motor Voter, but were not
citizens of the U.S.A. We must consider the possible serious
consequences if a juror is discovered to be a non-citizen
during a trial. If a non-citizen juror went undetected, the
defendant's right to a jury of peers would be debased.
Evidence of Fraud
During the 2000 Presidential Election, the national media
reported numerous cases of voter fraud. The shortcomings of
Motor Voter are the reason behind several notable failings of
our electoral system.
Examples of these weaknesses are vivid and well documented:
A dog was registered to vote in St. Louis, Missouri, deceased
individuals registered and voted, nonexistent individuals
registered and voted, and false addresses were used to
register. Eighteen municipalities in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, reported a registry larger than the voting-age
population. Clerical errors caused legitimate, eligible
voters to be taken off registration rolls and/or listed in
the wrong county.
Costs of the Motor Voter System
The Motor Voter Act has caused massive expense to the
American public. Furthermore, the Act was an unfunded Federal
mandate, so all expenses incurred were passed on to the
States and counties. The extra costs have accrued in three
basic areas: equipment, postage, and staff.
Equipment: The States have had to upgrade or install new
technology at their respective Departments of Motor Vehicles
to comply with the Motor Voter Law. Simultaneously, counties
have had to upgrade or install new technology, provide
additional polling places and purchase extra voting machines
or booths and balloting materials, as State laws often
requires the number of polls and equipment to be in a certain
proportion to the number of registered votes. E.g.,
Pennsylvania state law requires one voting machine per 600
registered voters.
[[Page H9258]]
Postage: The Act required municipalities to send
confirmation mailings to remove inactive voters from the
registration rolls. Simultaneously, Motor Voter registrations
are often left inaccurate or incomplete. Thus, election
officials must frequently send mailings and make countless
telephone calls in order to recollect information from people
who registered through Motor Voter.
Staff: Additional election staff is now required at the
State and county levels due to the increased numbers of
mailings, polling machines, and polling locations.
Motor Voter Has Done Little to Increase Voter Turnout
While Motor Voter has increased the number of registered
voters, it had done little to increase actual voter turnout.
Appendices A and B contain information taken from the
Federal Elections Commission web site. Since voter turnout is
traditionally better during a Presidential Election year, it
is necessary to compare sets of years with the same number of
Presidential Elections. Hence, both tables contain voter
enumerations from three Federal elections, with each table
containing one Presidential Election.
Appendix A comprises three years before Motor Voter was
enacted and Appendix B spans three subsequent years after the
Motor Voter Law was passed.
The difference between the two sets of elections is a mere
0.3% increase in voter turnout. The enormous costs of the
Motor Voter system is hardly worth this questionable
increase. Seven years after this Act became law, we have
learned from experience and research that voter registration
is not the impediment to low voter turnout. In fact,
statistics published by the Federal Elections Commission
shows that voter turnout has remained fairly constant since
1972.
The bloated registration rolls have made it very difficult
to accurately report voting statistics. Percentages of voting
seem lower because registration is so bloated. In reality, as
stated above, voter turnout has remained about the same since
1972. The inaccurate interpretation of the statistics which
are being reported may be adding to voter apathy and having
an adverse effect on voter turnout.
For an example, in Congressman Gekas's district, we can
look to Lancaster County's swelling registration rolls which
have not produced increased voter turnout. If we compare the
number of Motor Voter registrations in Lancaster County to
the number who actually vote, a significant difference is
observed. (Appendix C)
summary of failings
The Motor Voter Law has four intended purposes, as per
section b:
(1) To establish procedures that will increase the number
of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for
Federal office;
(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local
governments to implement this Act in a manner that enhances
the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections
for Federal office;
(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration
rolls are maintained.
Contrary to its stated purposes: ineligible citizens have
registered to vote, the Federal government has not helped
cover the expense of the new system, the integrity of the
electoral process has been compromised, and the Law had made
it more difficult to purge inactive voters from the rolls. As
a result, rolls are neither accurate nor current.
In short, the Motor Voter Law has failed in all four of its
intended purposes.
recommendations
Because the States and counties have invested a great deal
of money in the Motor Voter system, it would be irrational
and wasteful to repeal the Law. Therefore, the Motor Voter
Law must be amended if its various flaws are to be corrected.
The Task Force has conceived of nine recommendations for
amending the Motor Voter Law.
[Recommendation 1] Provide Monetary Compensation to States
and Counties
Since the Motor Voter Law was enacted, there has been a
great deal of expense incurred by the States and counties in
meeting the Law's requirements. Most of the expenditures are
due to additional equipment, postage, and staff. We believe
Federal mandates should have Federal funding; it seems
appropriate that the Federal government should compensate the
states and counties for the overhead the Motor Voter Law
created. Additionally, a special reduced postage rate for the
official use of State and County Election Boards must be
considered.
[Recommendation 2] Mandate Information Sharing between
Bureaus to Keep Rolls Accurate
Unless election officials have access to information that
disqualifies ineligible voters, these individuals will remain
on the rolls. For that reason, we suggest the Immigration and
Naturalization Service inform the counties about the
citizenship status of registrants, if requested. We also
suggest that the each Bureau of Vital Statistics share
information with the counties regarding: deaths, marriages,
felons, and changes of name, and that State cooperate with
each other in order to prevent duplicate or multiple
registrations by an individual in multiple States or
municipalities in any one state. The U.S. Postal Service
should also be a source for National Address Verification.
The sharing of information between these Agencies and Bureaus
and between States, in particular those states which maintain
a central Voter Registry, and counties will allow election
officials to maintain much more accurate registration rolls.
[Recommendation 3] Require Counties to Immediately Remove
Ineligible Voters
Upon receipt of disqualifying information from a Bureau or
Agency, county officials should be required to immediately
remove an ineligible voter from the registry, regardless of
their activity status.
[Recommendation 4] Rolls Should be Purged of Inactive Voters
More Frequently
We recommend automatically removing any voter that should
fail to vote in two consecutive Federal elections. Not only
would this keep the rolls current and accurate, but it would
completely eliminate the cost of sending confirmation
mailings. Furthermore, this implementation would allow office
holders and candidates running for office to target their
constituents more effectively.
[Recommendation 5] Require Proof of Citizenship upon
Registering to Vote
Proof of citizenship should be required of everyone upon
registering or re-registering to vote. A signed attestation
or a check box will not do, as many resident aliens may
misunderstand the meaning of the word `citizen.' There is
also the very real possibility that many non-citizens may be
taking advantage of the very lax system of voter registration
which is now in place. Acceptable forms of proof would be: a
passport, a birth certificate, or a naturalization document.
There must also be a system in place to make certain that
everyone who registers to vote is indeed a real and living
human being residing at an actual address in the county and
state where they are registering.
[Recommendation 6] Voter Identification Number
A Voter Identification Card with an assigned Voter ID
Number, a photo, and a digitized signature for every
registered voter could be sent to County Election Boards to
be kept in the voter registration roll books used by each
county at each polling place. There must be a system in place
to protect the confidential nature of these numbers.
Otherwise, their purpose would be defeated. The Voter ID
Numbers should be available only to Election Officials and
the voter to whom the number is issued.
[Recommendation 7] Require Better Checks at the Polls
In addition to preventing registration fraud, better checks
must be in order to prevent it at the polls as well. To keep
anyone from voting under another person's name, there need to
be better identity checks at the polls. A signature and
presentation of a photo ID should be required of all voters.
This should then be compared to the Voter ID Card in the
county's roll book.
[Recommendation 8] Verification of Absentee Ballot
Applications and Absentee Ballots
There must be a better system in place for verifying the
authenticity of Absentee Ballot Applications and Absentee
Ballots
[Recommendation 9] Personnel Training
All personnel mandated and responsible for registering
voters as provided by the National Voter Registration Act of
1993, must receive comprehensive and intensive training in an
attempt to prevent inaccurate, incomplete or fraudulent
applications for voter registration.
respectfully submitted
In conclusion, it is with sincere thanks to Congressman
Gekas for his concern to insure a voting system with the
utmost integrity, that we submit our findings and
recommendations.
APPENDIX A.--THREE ELECTIONS BEFORE MOTOR VOTER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VAP No. registered % Registered No. voted % Voted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................ 185,812,000 121,105,630 65.18 67,859,189 36.52
1988............................ 182,778,000 126,379,628 69.14 91,594,693 50.11
1986............................ 178,566,000 118,399,984 66.31 64,991,128 36.40
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 547,156,000 365,885,242 66.87% 224,445,010 41.02%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H9259]]
APPENDIX B.--THREE ELECTIONS AFTER MOTOR VOTER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VAP No. registered % Registered No. voted % Voted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................ 200,929,000 141,850,558 70.60 73,117,022 36.39
1996............................ 196,511,000 146,211,960 74.40 96,456,345 49.08
1994............................ 193,650,000 130,292,822 67.28 75,105,860 38.78
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 591,090,000 418,355,340 70.78% 244,679,227 41.39%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C.--LANCASTER COUNTY MOTOR VOTER REGISTRATION STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MV Total MV to
registrations vote Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall 1995...................... 36 3 8.33
Spring 1996.................... 38 4 10.53
Fall 1996...................... 39 16 41.03
Spring 1997.................... 40 3 7.50
Fall 1997...................... 42 5 11.90
Spring 1998.................... 3,275 44 1.34
Fall 1998...................... 5,568 1,167 20.96
Spring 1999.................... 10,074 571 5.67
Fall 1999...................... 12,324 928 7.53
Spring 2000.................... 15,334 819 5.34
Fall 2000...................... 18,922 10,581 55.92
Spring 2001.................... 21,701 589 2.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAP: Voting-Age Population.
MV: Motor Voter.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we arrive at a point where I think we will be
considering the election reform bill, the Help America Vote Act. I
believe this bill is one of the most important bills that we will vote
on and pass this year. I am disappointed that the rule did not allow a
substitute to be offered. I asked for that in the Committee on Rules. I
urged that that be allowed.
Frankly, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who is the
sponsor of a very significant bill that is pending in the House
Committee on the Judiciary, had wanted to offer his substitute, I would
have been even more adamant.
Having said that, I want to see this bill move forward. I regret this
rule did not allow a substitute, but I believe it is important that we
pass this bill and pass it today. It provides, as I will say in the
general debate later today, very substantial resources for States to
get us to a point where votes will not only be cast, but will be
accurately counted; where votes will be counted, having made sure that
every American was able to cast their vote properly; that state-wide
registration would make sure that we knew who was registered; that
provisional ballots would make sure that, even if we made a mistake in
the system, that people would be allowed to vote; where, if the
technology allows in 2002, citizens will be told they made a mistake,
and if they want to change it, voters have an opportunity to do so.
This bill brings some very significant reforms. It answers many of
the questions raised by last year's extraordinarily difficult election.
So although I am very deeply distressed, as expressed by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), that we did not have the ability to offer
a substitute, I know that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will be
offering a motion to recommit.
If we pass this rule, I will speak strongly on behalf of this bill
and hope to see its passage. The reason that I say that I think it
should pass today, I am hopeful that the earliest possible date to both
appropriate funds for the funding of the reforms, doing away with the
punch cards, upgrading technology, educating voters, educating and
training election officials, all to enhance the election process for
our citizens, I am hopeful that we can do this as quickly as possible
so that 2002 and certainly 2004 will not be a repeat of 2000. That
election in 2000 ended 37 days after it began. It ended on this day
exactly 1 year ago. It is appropriate that we act today.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the Committee on House
Administration. We need to act today. This is bipartisan legislation.
It has the best chance of passing Congress this year and becoming law
before next November's elections. Time is of the essence. There are
only a few days left in the session of this Congress, and we must act
now. The train has sounded its whistle. Election reform must be aboard.
The American people expect and deserve real election reform that
ensures that every single vote is counted.
Mr. Speaker, there also must be some facts brought into the record as
to the result of the Committee on Rules. With 435 Members of Congress,
there are 435 ideas. That is important. It brings debate and consensus.
But the Committee on Rules also has done the least partisan action
today by taking a bipartisan product of 108 Democratic Members and 61
Republicans, which have come together with the bipartisan support of
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman, and most of us on the
Committee on House Administration. It was constructed in a bipartisan
way, not only in the hearings and in the committee and in the result of
the committee, but in the press conferences.
Quite frankly, maybe not allowing partisanship to come in now as each
side of the aisle tries to figure out how they can angle their leverage
up, to leverage up their best position on election reform.
A closed rule ensures that the bipartisan bill which actually has
more Democratic Members than Republican on it, remains bipartisan. I
remind my colleagues for the record in the Chambers and throughout the
Capitol that no viable formal substitute came before the Committee on
Rules until late in the process. As a matter of fact, in consultation
with the other side of the aisle, they did not even know which Member
was going to submit a formal amendment. There was no amendment on the
summary list that all members, Republican and Democrat, that the
Committee on Rules had before them because there was not a formal one
presented yet. In the end, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules
submitted the Menendez as a substitute.
The reality, as I opened my remarks, is maybe the best way to get a
bipartisan result of what started with hearings months ago and came
with bipartisan input, bipartisan sponsorship, bipartisan passage in
the Committee on House Administration and now before the House under
this rule if passed, is the best way to have bipartisanship is to move
forward on a bipartisan bill without trying to leverage it up from
either side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because
of my belief in one of our core principles, which is ``one person, one
vote.'' And it is that simple, but grand, principle we are here to
protect. And to limit the debate on election reform which is the
foundation of the democracy for which we risk the lives of our young
men and women abroad with a closed rule is outrageous. That is why the
debate here today goes to the very heart of this institution, the very
heart of our democracy, the very heart of our Nation, because we have a
solemn responsibility to ensure that every American is given a full and
equal access to vote.
The bill before us takes a good step in that direction; but I believe
it should go further, and that is why I introduced an amendment at the
Committee on Rules with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson) and others to clarify and expand the bill's provisions on full
access for disabled voters, civil rights protections, multilingual
ballots and materials, Federal enforcement of standards, guarantees for
provisional voting and preservation of the Motor Voter Act.
Mr. Speaker, 14 million disabled voters cannot vote in secret. At the
beginning of the 21st century, that is an outrage. The bill does not
guarantee that that will change; my amendment would.
____
[[Page H9260]]
{time} 1245
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of voters were improperly turned away at
the polls in the last election, their votes effectively robbed through
a careless bureaucracy at best, and malintent at worst. We may never
know for sure, but we do know that we need provisional voting to
prevent this travesty from ever occurring again. Our amendment would
have guaranteed that. The bill we will be voting on today does not. The
motor voter law has helped bring so many Americans into the democratic
process. Our amendment would have preserved it.
These are vitally important issues that deserved a full and complete
debate in the House on the fundamental issue of our democracy and the
process by which we choose those who govern us. As it is, I will offer
the amendment in the form of a motion to recommit. This bill is too
important, too central to who we are, to close off debate as the rule
does. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my friend,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for not only his handling of
this rule, but also for his fine work on the Committee on House
Administration and, of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who have, as has been pointed
out in this debate, fashioned this bipartisan effort to deal with a
very serious problem that exists out there.
We know that it was a year ago today, Mr. Speaker, that we saw a
conclusion to the most historic election in our Nation's history for
President. If we have learned anything in the past year, it is that
democracy is a work in progress.
A year ago this month, I had the opportunity to join with a number of
other Americans in representing this country at the inauguration of
President Vicente Fox in Mexico. It was the first time in 71 years that
the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party had, in fact, been
defeated in a presidential election. I was an observer of that election
on July 2 of last year. We as Americans were there in behalf of the
International Republican Institute, an arm of the National Endowment
for Democracy which President Reagan established in 1985, to talk about
how to hold elections and how to encourage democracy and to observe
that process a year ago this past July. I will say that to then go into
our election process here and see former Secretary of State James
Baker, with whom I stood checking the validity of ballots in the hills,
above Pueblo, Mexico, doing the same thing in Florida following our
presidential election, was clear evidence that democracy is a work in
progress.
We also, over the past year, have had at least a couple of other
experiences showing us that. Ten years ago in Nicaragua, we were able
to bring about a free election, and it saw the removal of the Communist
dictator, Daniel Ortega. Many of us who during the 1980s spent a lot of
time encouraging the process of democracy and free and fair elections
there had a rather rude awakening this year when this summer we found
that the prospect of making changes that could have undermined the
opportunity for voters to participate in Nicaragua was a serious one. I
am happy to say that the International Republican Institute and other
organizations played a role in encouraging voter registration and
moving towards democracy, clearly showing that even though we saw an
election a decade ago, it had to be closely monitored.
Of course, the attention of the world is focused on Afghanistan.
Again, a decade ago we saw the liberation of the people of Afghanistan
from the Soviet Union. Many of us, after having spent a great deal of
time focused on the problems in Afghanistan, chose to put our attention
elsewhere.
And so I think that this legislation is a demonstration that we as
Americans understand that democracy is a work in progress. That is why
I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration
for coming up with what is, as I said, truly a very bipartisan bill.
Passage of this rule, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that there is language
to deal with the issue that the gentleman from New Jersey just raised,
and, that is, the access of the disabled to the polls. We have seen
organizations like the National Council on the Blind come forward and
indicate their willingness to be supportive of this measure. We also
know that there are disenfranchised voters in this country, and we are
strongly committed, again in a bipartisan way, to ensuring that, in
fact, we will see an opportunity for everyone who wants to have the
right to vote and access to the voting booth.
It is just a first step, though. That is why I keep referring to this
work in progress. We know that there are going changes that will be
further proposed in the future. I know that under the leadership of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) on the Committee on House Administration, there will be further
efforts to look at this. But as was pointed out by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in his testimony before the Committee on Rules
last night for the first time ever, the Federal Government is stepping
up to the plate and providing $2.65 billion in assistance to the States
for Federal elections. Never in the history of our Republic has that
been done before. This legislation moves us toward doing that.
Yes, it is a closed rule. It is a closed rule because there is strong
bipartisan consensus, as was pointed out by both Presidents Carter and
Ford, to support this measure, and there are a lot of people out there
who do, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) said so
eloquently, want to game this thing and improve the opportunity for the
Republican Party or improve the opportunity for the Democratic Party to
maybe get an edge in this. I think that this package, moving forward
from this committee under the structure that we have proposed here for
consideration by our colleagues, will, in fact, maintain the bipartisan
nature of it and move us in a very positive and bold way towards
achieving our goal, and, that is, enhancing the opportunity for the
American people to choose their leaders.
It is a good measure, it addresses the concerns of the disabled, the
concerns of minorities, and I think if there are proposals that others
might want to offer, we had guaranteed the motion to recommit, and so
that is a package that can come forward from our colleagues who do want
to offer some other proposal on this. The rule deserves strong support,
and I believe that the legislation at the end of the day deserves
strong support as well. I encourage my colleagues to join with us.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the two gentlemen who
have put in laborious time in crafting legislation which admittedly
does advance, does progress the electoral system. We attempted last
night through the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) to offer an
amendment that was rejected because of the closed rule. I wanted to
come to the floor and speak in a bipartisan way, those veterans who are
Democrats and those who are Republicans and perhaps those who are
libertarians but who form this bipartisan coalition of suffering
posttraumatic stress and who end up after war, who have been there
protecting this country, who end up homeless, who end up in prison. As
we know, many States deny those individuals who have been convicted of
felonies from ever having the right to participate in the electoral
process.
We do not deny Members of Congress from coming to Congress because
they are convicted felons, but we do deny people who have sacrificed
their life and their well-being. Our amendment had the support of the
Vietnam Veterans Coalition and many others. I would just encourage that
we defeat the rule so that we can ascertain that democracy does indeed
work.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me
[[Page H9261]]
this time. I also want to commend Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer
for the development of this legislation, but I rise in strong
opposition to this rule. I do not rise because it is a bipartisan bill,
I do not rise because it has a large number of supporters, but I rise
in opposition to this rule because it is a contradiction to democracy.
It is a contradiction to the whole purpose of voting.
Voting is a way of expressing oneself, of expressing one's ideas,
thoughts and opinions. This rule denies that opportunity. It is closed.
I had offered an amendment that I wanted to offer last night in the
Committee on Rules that would deal with the whole question of
intimidation, of fraud, by making sure that States had some mechanism
in place to deal with that. All of my life I have heard of intimidation
and fraud in elections in communities where I have lived and worked. I
have never seen anything really done about it. This would have been a
great opportunity. It does not exist. For that reason, I urge that we
vote down this rule and come back with an open rule that gives people
the opportunity to really express what democracy and voting is all
about.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from Texas for
yielding me this time.
H.R. 3295 does not provide the comprehensive reform that this
Nation's election system needs. While this bill does attempt to
establish minimum standards for voting machines, it does not go far
enough. The Federal Government should have the ability to take action
against States that fail to meet minimum standards and it is not
possible under this bill. The bill has no mandatory access to machines
for individuals with disabilities. Citizens who have language barriers
or physical disabilities should not have added difficulties when they
go to vote.
Current law requires some jurisdictions with language minority groups
to provide bilingual assistance in each step of the voting process.
However, this law has been poorly enforced and it certainly is not
strengthened by this bill. In addition, this bill does not specifically
require assistance for elderly voters or for voters with disabilities.
Polling places should allow people to exercise their right to vote,
regardless of their disability.
Lastly, election reform must also ensure that sample ballots are
distributed that educate voters and that poll workers are properly
trained to assist the voter. A better informed electorate will be able
to make better decisions when voting for their elected officials.
Although H.R. 3295 authorizes the use of funds for voter education, it
does not require them to be spent for that.
There is one thing I know. Democracy is stronger when more Americans
vote. H.R. 3295 is well-intentioned, but it is not the solution to our
Nation's needs.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This legislation authorizes $2.65 billion for Federal election
reform, including $400 million to buy out unreliable punch card voting
systems that was brought out in this rule debate earlier, and $2.25
billion in election fund payments to improve equipment, recruit and
train poll workers, improve access for disabled voters, and educate
voters about their rights.
The Help America Vote Act would require States to adopt minimum
election standards, including a statewide voter registration system,
in-precinct provisional voting, assurances that voters who make errors
will be able to correct them, and a means for disabled voters to cast
secret ballots on new voting equipment. The bill is real, meaningful
reform that will significantly improve our election system and restore
public confidence in it.
I just want to outline that this bill is a bipartisan bill. It is not
a magic elixir for the problems that plagued us last November, but it
prescribes the right medicine for our ailing election system and
Federal assistance to the States and minimum election standards that
they must adopt. This bipartisan bill is the outgrowth of a series of
hearings by the Committee on House Administration earlier this year and
input from a wide variety of advocates for civil rights, disabilities
and election reform groups. Their views were solicited and given
serious consideration and this bill reflects their views and their
efforts. This bipartisan legislation has been endorsed by the National
Association of Secretaries of State as well as the National Conference
of State Legislatures, NCSL, and others, like the Carter-Ford
Commission.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill that has
the opportunity to be considered by this House today to move forward on
election reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office
and I thought I misunderstood what my colleague who is pushing this
rule had to say, and then he said it again, that a bipartisan group of
people have gotten together and gotten behind a bill; and, therefore,
since you have a bipartisan bill, democracy should be suspended and
other people who want to offer their amendments and have their voices
be heard should not be given that opportunity.
I got alarmed by that, because quite often that is the way people
perceive that democracy works. You get some people kind of at the
center of the democracy and they say, well, we represent this
perspective and this perspective, one marginally on the progressive
side and one marginally on the conservative side, and we represent
America, so the rest of America should not be heard.
That is what this rule reminds me of. A small group of people who
have decided that this bill should be the vehicle for election reform
have gotten together; and the Committee on Rules has said, well, if we
break apart this fragile compromise and allow people either on the
progressive side or on the conservative side to offer amendments, then
somehow democracy will be undermined.
There is something wrong with that analysis. We all come here to
represent our districts and to bring our voices to the table, and this
process is not allowing that to happen. I hope we will vote down this
rule and give us the opportunity to participate.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is the cornerstone of our
democracy. It is the most basic and most essential expression of
citizenship. When that right is put into doubt, when citizens cannot
know that a ballot cast is a ballot counted and that their unique voice
has been heard. It undermines confidence in our entire political
system, as well as the government formed on a foundation of those
ballots. People must have confidence that their votes counts.
Last year's Presidential election shook that confidence to the core.
And while the Ney-Hoyer bill is a first step toward reforming that
system, the substitute that my colleagues and I would have offered, had
it been allowed, would have vastly improved on the underlying bill. It
would have required that all voting systems and polling places be
accessible to disabled and blind voters and that alternative language
accessibility be provided for citizens with limited English
proficiency.
To accurately record the voter's intent, the amendment would have
required that all voting systems notify voters of over- and undervotes,
verify the vote, and provide the opportunity to correct the ballot
before it was cast. This is particularly important, because the poorest
technology, the most error-ridden technology, is often found in the
poorest communities.
Our amendment would have allowed voters to be purged from the voter
rolls in a way that is consistent with the motor voter law. It required
that provisional voting be available for voters whose names have been
mistakenly removed from the voter rolls.
Finally, it ensured that these measures are fairly and strictly
enforced, by requiring the Attorney General to verify State
certification and to enforce the minimum standards. Right now in cities
and towns across the
[[Page H9262]]
country, it remains more difficult to go to the polls to cast your
vote than it is to make a simple withdrawal from an ATM; and there is
something very, very wrong with that.
The right to vote is the basic foundation of our rights as American
citizens. We need to ensure that every American citizen has access to
polling places, is able to cast a secret ballot, and is sure that his
or her vote has been accurately counted. This issue is too important to
merit anything less than a full and an open debate.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001. I wholeheartedly endorse
the efforts of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and others in this great effort.
It is a very important first step in correcting the mistakes made in
our election system that were highlighted in the aftermath of the 2000
election.
While many minority groups such as the NAACP and the Council of
LaRaza and senior groups have contacted me expressing concerns that the
bill might not go far enough, I have seen firsthand the challenges
inadequately equipped polling places and poorly trained poll workers
pose to their constituencies.
This measure will go far in assuring everyone's right to access to a
vote. I pledge to work with my colleagues in moving forward with this
legislation and in future efforts to ensure that no voting population
is disenfranchised in our democracy, and that every American,
regardless of race, disability, age or creed, is afforded an equal
opportunity to have their vote counted.
I am very pleased by the cooperative bipartisan effort behind this
legislation. I urge support of it and the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, one of my Democratic colleagues as we voted
on this in the Committee on House Administration summed it up so well,
so I think the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) that
this is not a perfect bill, properly imply, and undoubtedly apply to
every bill that has ever been considered in the Congress of the United
States.
Having said that, I think this is a good bill. It is worthy of
support, and it will move us forward. With 170 cosponsors on this
legislation, 108 Democrats, 61 Republicans and one Independent, I
believe as we move forward in passing this rule we will have a
substantial vote in the affirmative on this legislation, which will
move America forward with safe and solid elections.
The most fundamental privilege of American citizenship is the right
to vote. Let us now embrace that spirit of bipartisanship that produced
this legislation by supporting this bill and preserving the very
integrity of democracy.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
rule and the bill on election reform, H.R. 3295, brought forward by the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee,
Representatives Ney and Hoyer.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that local jurisdictions across America have
voter registration rolls that are incomplete and grossly inaccurate.
The Ney-Hoyer bill offers some real solutions. A $2.25 billion election
assistance grant program will help States and localities invest in real
solutions for their election system and voter registration problems.
Further, the bill mandates statewide voter registration databases to
enhance accountability and promote accuracy in voter registration.
Pennsylvania has already taken this step and is implementing a
statewide registration database that conforms with the requirements of
Ney-Hoyer. Unfortunately, the Ney-Hoyer bill does not attack the
problems associated with the Motor Voter Act (MVA) head on. The bill
reaffirms that law and attempts to clarify some of its language
regarding the purging of voter registration rolls. However, I believe
Congress must reopen the MVA at some point, and I am committed to
making that happen.
I am supporting this important legislation as it reflects many of the
findings of a Pennsylvania 17th Congressional District Motor Voter Task
Force I initiated in the spring of this year. After the last
Presidential election, numerous concerns were raised by local election
officials, elected representatives and citizens of central
Pennsylvania. These concerns focused on the glaring failings of the
Motor Voter Act. I believe that H.R. 3295 goes a long way toward
addressing some of the most essential concerns raised in my District.
While it is not the final answer, it is a good first step. I will vote
for this legislation, but I will vigilantly monitor its implementation
to ensure that it does indeed help improve the situation. Moreover, I
will work to make sure Congress revisits the failings of the Motor
Voter Act more specifically in the future.
In May of this year I appointed three local leaders to a bipartisan
task force to study the impact of the MVA on our federal elections.
Louisa Gaughen, chairperson, Sue Helm and Leon Czikowsky--together with
Task Force Coordinator Jordan Olshefsky--engaged in formal hearings,
interviews with election officials and fact finding sessions before
drafting their report. The Task Force found that the law, ``failed in
its stated goals, that it incurred great cost to the American taxpayer,
that it has made maintaining the voter registration rolls more
difficult, and it has facilitated voter fraud.'' The MVA was touted as
a mechanism for increasing voter registration and voter turnout.
However, my task force found that, ``[w]hile Motor Voter has increased
the number of registered voters, it has done little to increase actual
voter turnout.'' Disturbingly, the task force found that registration
increases often are explainable by the fact that non-citizens have been
registered to vote. Not only does this undermine the integrity of our
election system, it also has adverse effects on our judicial system.
For example, all across America jurisdictions use voter registration
rolls as a primary source for selecting jurors. A corrupted voter
registration list means a corrupted juror pool list.
In fact, the MVA has led to vastly inaccurate and bloated
registration rolls. As my task force put it, ``[w]hile this Act made it
easier to register to vote, it simultaneously made it much more
difficult for election officials to remove inactive voters from the
rolls.'' Localities have interpreted the MVA in such a way as to
prevent the expeditious removal of names from registration rolls even
in cases of death of a registrant because of seemingly contradictory
language in the MVA which seems to prevent the removal of a
registrant's name upon failure to vote in consecutive federal
elections. The Ney-Hoyer bill seeks to clarify this ambiguous language,
but based on the recommendations of my task force, I feel Congress will
soon have to take a stronger stand. Too many localities have vastly
more registered voters than actual, legal voters residing in their
jurisdictions. Regular purging of these rolls must happen in order to
ensure the credibility of our election system. Ney-Hoyer helps, but we
eventually may have to go farther.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I support the rule, and I will vote for
H.R. 3295, The Help America Vote Act of 2001 because we need to begin
the process of election reform in this country. After an unprecedented
election year of butterfly ballots, chads, and court challenges, we
need to assure the American public that real, practical steps are being
taken to ensure that the events of Fall 2000 are never repeated. Ney-
Hoyer is a good foundation upon which to build. I ask unanimous consent
that the following recommendations of my task force be added to the
Record.
Motor Voter Reform Task Force Committee, Commissioned by Congressman
George W. Gekas, Reported Recommendations, Monday, September 17, 2001
Because the states and counties have invested a great deal
of money in the Motor Voter system, it would be irrational
and wasteful to repeal the Law. Therefore, the Motor Voter
Law must be amended if its various flaws are to be corrected.
The Task Force has conceived of nine recommendations for
amending the Motor Voter Law.
Recommendation 1--Provide Monetary Compensation to States
and Counties: Since the Motor Voter Law was enacted, there
has been a great deal of expense incurred by the States and
counties in meeting the Law's requirements. Most of the
expenditures are due to additional equipment, postage, and
staff. We believe Federal mandates should have Federal
funding; it seems appropriate that the Federal government
should compensate the states and counties for the overhead
the Motor Voter Law created. Additionally, a special reduced
postage rate for the official use of State and County
Election Boards must be considered.
Recommendation 2--Mandate Information Sharing between
Bureaus to Keep Rolls Accurate: Unless election officials
have access to information that disqualifies ineligible
voters, these individuals will remain on the rolls. For that
reason, we suggest the Immigration and Naturalization Service
inform the counties about the citizenship status of
registrants, if requested. We also suggest that each Bureau
of Vital Statistics share information with the counties
regarding: deaths, marriages, felons, and changes of name,
and that States cooperate with each other in order to prevent
duplicate or multiple registrations by an individual in
multiple States or municipalities in any one
[[Page H9263]]
state. The U.S. Postal Service should also be a source for
National Address Verification. The sharing of information
between these Agencies and Bureaus and between States, in
particular those states which maintain a central Voter
Registry, and counties will allow election officials to
maintain much more accurate registration rolls.
Recommendation 3--Requires Counties to Immediately Remove
Ineligible Voters: Upon receipt of disqualifying information
from a Bureau or Agency, county officials should be required
to immediately remove an ineligible voter from the registry,
regardless of their activity status.
Recommendation 4--Rolls Should be Purged of Inactive Voters
More Frequently: We recommend automatically removing any
voter that should fail to vote in two consecutive Federal
elections. Not only would this keep the rolls current and
accurate, but it would completely eliminate the cost of
sending confirmation mailings. Furthermore, this
implementation would allow office holders and candidates
running for office to target their constituents more
effectively.
Recommendation 5--Require Proof of Citizenship upon
Registering to Vote: Proof of citizenship should be required
of everyone upon registering or re-registering to vote. A
signed attestation or a check box will not do, as many
resident aliens may misunderstand the meaning of the word
`citizen'. There is also the very real possibility that many
non-citizens may be taking advantage of the very lax system
of voter registration which is now in place. Acceptable forms
of proof would be: a passport, a birth certificate, or a
naturalization document.
There must also be a system in place to make certain that
everyone who registers to vote is indeed a real and living
human being residing at an actual address in the county and
state where they are registering.
Recommendation 6--Voter Identification Number: A Voter
Identification Card with an assigned Voter ID Number, a photo
and a digitized signature for every registered voter could be
sent to County Elections Boards to be kept in the voter
registration roll books used by each county at each polling
place. There must be a system in place to protect the
confidential nature of these numbers. Otherwise, their
purpose would be defeated. The Voter ID Numbers should be
available only to Election Officials and the voter to whom
the number is issued.
Recommendation 7--Require Better Checks at the Polls: In
addition to preventing registration fraud, better checks must
be in order to prevent it at the polls as well. To keep
anyone from voting under another person's name, there need to
be better identity checks at the polls. A signature and
presentation of a photo ID should be required of all voters.
This should then be compared to the Voter ID Card in the
county's roll book.
Recommendation 8--Verification of Absentee Ballot
Applications and Absentee Ballots: There must be a better
system in place for verifying the authenticity of Absentee
Ballot Applications and Absentee Ballots.
Recommendation 9--Personnel Training: All personnel
mandated and responsible for registering voters as provided
by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, must receive
comprehensive and intensive training in an attempt to prevent
inaccurate, incomplete or fraudulent applications for voter
registration.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 193, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 487]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Ballenger
Burr
Buyer
Cubin
Culberson
Delahunt
Dooley
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Granger
Hostettler
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Luther
Quinn
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Young (AK)
{time} 1329
Mr. CONYERS, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because of a hearing in the
Committee on Financial Services on Enron, I missed the previous vote,
the rule on election reform. If I had been here, I would have cast a
vote for no on the rule.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this is to inform you that on
rollcall No. 487,
[[Page H9264]]
I inadvertently voted ``yes'' when my intention was to vote ``no''.
____________________