[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''.

                          ____________________