[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10705-10709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3295, HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 
                                  2001

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hastings of Florida moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 3295 
     be instructed--
       (1) to insist upon the provisions contained in section 
     504(a) of the House bill (relating to the effective date for 
     the Federal minimum standards for State election systems); 
     and
       (2) to disagree to the provisions contained in section 
     104(b) of the Senate amendment to the House bill (relating to 
     a safe harbor from the enforcement of the Federal minimum 
     standards for State election systems for States receiving 
     Federal funds under the bill).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295, 
the Help America Vote Act. As we all know, conferees are currently 
involved in negotiations on the many tenacious differences that exist 
between the bills passed by each Chamber.
  My motion to instruct will help provide guidance on what I consider 
two of the more critical differences that exist between the bills.
  Section 1 of this motion instructs House conferees to insist on the 
date requiring States to conform to minimum national standards of 
November 2004 contained in the House bill. This is in contrast to the 
even more delayed 2006 effective date in the Senate bill. Currently 
under the House bill, States must conform to all minimum national 
standards within 2 years of the bill's enactment. In the special 
circumstances where a State can demonstrate to the Department of 
Justice that the State cannot meet the 2-year requirement, it can 
receive a waiver until November 2004. Under the Senate bill, States are 
not required to conform to the minimum national standards until January 
2006.
  Realize, Americans will return to the polls in November 2004 to elect 
a President. If the Senate's effective date becomes law, then we may 
very well face the same election day controversies that engulfed this 
Nation the last time we tried electing a President.
  Section 2 of this motion instructs conferees to disagree with the 
safe harbor provision contained in section 104(b) of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 3295. Under a provision added in the Senate by 
amendment, States which receive Federal funds under the bill are 
assumed to be in compliance with the bill's minimum national standards. 
Under the Senate amendment, States are provided with safe harbor until 
2010, or 8 years from now, from being scrutinized or prosecuted for not 
complying with the minimum national standards in the bill. The one 
exception is that States can be prosecuted prior to 2010 for failing to 
conform with accessibility provisions in the bill as they pertain to 
individuals with disabilities.
  If this provision becomes law, then we are giving States zero 
accountability until 2010 as they go about spending Federal dollars to 
conform their election systems. This is a horrible and dangerous path 
to embark on. If there is no enforcement until 2010, then States are 
essentially given the green light to nonconformity until 2010 despite 
any other provision in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I checked the website of the ranking 
Democrat of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers). His website noted that 515 days have passed since the 
election day 2000 fiasco. Five hundred fifteen days, Mr. Speaker. In 
mentioning this number, I remind my colleagues and the American people 
that on a Federal level, our election system is no better off today

[[Page 10706]]

than it was on election day 2000. Though some States have taken it upon 
themselves to reform their election laws, the clear majority have not. 
For those which have, like my home State of Florida's baby steps, the 
need for financial assistance and Federal election reform is real and 
immediate.
  The House did the right thing in appropriating $450 million for 
election reform in the supplemental. I note that appropriating before 
authorizing when it came to election reform is something that I called 
for more than 1 year ago. However, as I said then and I will say again 
today, $450 million is not enough money.
  We should all be thankful for the hard work currently being done in 
the election reform conference committee by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as well as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and all of the conferees. Their 
leadership in the election reform arena, even during times when many in 
this body did not want to see any bill, is widely known and much 
appreciated and I say to Bob and Steny how much I genuinely appreciate 
the concrete efforts that they put forward to produce a measure here in 
the House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the absence of new election laws is as 
much of an embarrassment today as it was 2 years ago. All too many 
facts point to the need for Congress to act today. The fact remains 
that election laws today are the same flawed laws around the country 
that were in place on election day 2000. The fact remains that while we 
know what problems exist and we know how to fix them, Congress' 
response to date has been inadequate at best. The fact remains that 
voters in many States have already voted in this year's primaries on 
the same broken system, and I might add that occurred in Florida, that 
failed them 2 years ago. Even in Florida, some of the newer systems 
being offered have shown that they have flaws.
  Therefore, we need to be about the business of trying to get this 
whole matter straightened out. Another 12 States will be returning to 
the polls within the next week to vote with the same faulty technology.
  Confidence in our election system is the linchpin of our democracy 
and we must do anything and everything to restore that confidence with 
the American people. Contrary to what many argue, election reform is 
much more than just a civil rights issue. Rather, the need for election 
reform is a challenge to our democracy. It is a challenge that we 
cannot back down from and it is a challenge that we will not back down 
from. My motion to instruct ensures that real and comprehensive 
election reform occurs before the 2004 presidential election.
  In addition, it ensures that the Department of Justice can hold 
States accountable in cases where they fail to conform to new Federal 
election laws prior to 2010.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
appreciate the sentiment just expressed in the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida. I nevertheless must oppose it. The gentleman 
from Florida has shown a tremendous amount of interest in this issue. 
He has been very passionate and has pushed for action on this issue for 
quite some time. I remember when I testified at the Committee on Rules 
last year on the campaign finance reform bill and the gentleman 
expressed his displeasure that the House was even taking up that issue 
prior to consideration of election reform. I certainly agreed with him 
that election reform should have been the priority and I appreciate his 
support for our efforts.
  I also appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that his motion instructs 
the conferees to insist on the provision in the House bill pertaining 
to the effective date of the minimum standards the bill imposes. I, 
like every American, want the improvements that will be brought about 
by the passage of this bill to be implemented as soon as possible. I 
want to restress that, as soon as possible. I am anxious for the day 
when all voters will have access to provisional ballots and better 
technology, when registration systems are modernized and made more 
accurate. No one should have a vote cancelling out another vote. 
Technology is a part of getting to that solution. A part. But there are 
other parts that we have to be able to insist upon to make sure that 
voting is fair across the Nation. When disabled citizens will be able 
to cast a secret ballot and those serving in our military will be 
assured that their votes will be counted, this will be an appropriate 
election process for the United States.
  The House bill set up a formula grant process that would ensure that 
Federal funds get to the States quickly, allowing them to begin 
implementing these improvements without delay. That is a very good and 
important provision of the bill that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), worked on.
  Obviously, like the gentleman from Florida, I want to see these 
improvements in place as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, I must 
oppose the gentleman's motion for a simple reason. The effective dates 
that were in the bill that passed this House last December were drafted 
in the fall of 2001.

                              {time}  1115

  They provided that the requirements go into effect 2 years from the 
date of enactment and gave a waiver to States that could not comply, 
allowing them until the November 2004 election to come into compliance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now June of 2002. While I hope the Congress will 
be able to come to agreement rather soon, I think the best we could 
hope for is a bill being enacted in July. The waiver language which we 
included was intended to give States having difficulty coming into 
compliance a significant amount of time to do so. The reality of the 
time frame we are now working under has effectively rendered the waiver 
meaningless.
  I certainly also agree with the gentleman from Florida that we need 
to get going and should impose an aggressive schedule for compliance. 
However, we must also be realistic in what we impose. We cannot fall 
into the trap of thinking that, just by commanding it, we can make it 
work and make it so.
  The fact is, whatever conference agreement is reached, States will 
have a heavy burden in coming into compliance with the requirements 
imposed. We will be offering a significant amount of Federal money to 
assist them in their efforts, but the fact remains it will simply take 
some time for States and localities to incorporate the changes we will 
require to their election systems.
  The Senate bill has a number of different effective dates for 
different provisions that, frankly, we do not have necessarily in our 
House bill. This is appropriate, as some requirements will be more 
difficult to meet than others. Establishment of a state-wide 
registration system will take more time, for example, than it will to 
provide voters with educational materials and sample ballots. The 
Congress will have to wrestle with how best to strike the balance 
between imposing effective dates that get States into compliance as 
soon as possible, without imposing unrealistic time frames that prove 
impossible to meet, create chaos, and wind up doing more harm than 
good.
  In light of that, we should not be instructing the conferees to 
incorporate bill language that is outdated, and thereby unrealistic, 
given our current schedule.
  Therefore, I do oppose the gentleman's motion; but I do want to 
reiterate that I agree with the sentiment and the spirit that it 
expresses and hope and will push and work with my colleagues on the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce to make sure the conference will be 
able to reach agreement quickly on effective dates that are realistic 
and achievable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who 
hosted a forum on election reform in her city.

[[Page 10707]]


  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) did in fact come to Cleveland, Ohio, when we hosted our 
election reform committee. I would say to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), I rise 
in support of the motion to instruct.
  Now, my problem is that even though we have not reached an agreement 
as to how this bill should come into play, States should not be waiting 
for us to dot the I's and cross the T's in this instance. They should 
be beginning the process of putting in place programs that will assure 
that each and every one of the voters in their States have access to 
information.
  I am pleased to say that in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where I live, our 
board of elections has begun to try out various new automated systems. 
They tried out one system at the Indians game. The owner of the system 
came in and put in the system, and the people at the game were able to 
vote on their favorite baseball player. On two or three of the 
elections we have had, they have been able to put in systems at two or 
three locations throughout Cuyahoga County to give voters an 
opportunity to try out these systems.
  As much as we want to believe that everybody is comfortable now or 
believes that the Florida election was kind of something that would 
never happen again, the reality is there are many, many voters out here 
across this country who are expecting that this Congress will say it 
will never happen again, that everyone will have the right to vote, 
that people will not be faced with punchcard systems or butterfly 
ballots or have to stand in line and be turned away because someone 
says I have to show my driver's license or you are not registered, or 
it has not been explained that if there is a problem they have the 
right to vote and a decision made later on as to whether their vote 
will count.
  We should never in this country be placed in the position that we 
send people to other countries and say we want to check out your voting 
system, when our own is not in order.
  So I stand here adamantly in support of this motion to instruct the 
conferees. If we give people more time, they are going to take more 
time. Let us stop this. Let us make sure that the people in the United 
States are not disenfranchised. Let us give them the right to vote, 
right away, right now.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8\1/2\ 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, 
a leader on election reform and other matters in this House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding, and I want to, at the outset, thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) as the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration has been absolutely critical, along 
with the staff of our Committee on House Administration on the majority 
side and the minority side, absolutely critical to getting election 
reform to where it is right now. It would not be nearly as far along.
  We passed this bill last December. Frankly, we could have passed it a 
year ago July, but there was some controversy on our side of the aisle, 
some controversy on side of the aisle of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney); and we needed to work with our members. We came to the floor in 
December, and over 360 Members of this House voted for this 
legislation.
  The instructions which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
seeks do not in any way, as the chairman has indicated, undermine the 
thrust of our legislation, which was to get election reform in place as 
soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Senate took 4 months to pass its 
legislation after we passed our legislation.
  We have now been in conference for over a month now, and we are not 
moving quickly enough. We need to get this conference completed, we 
need to get this bill to the floor, we need to pass it, and we need to 
have States start implementing it.
  Mr. Speaker, the effort to correct the problems that surfaced in the 
2000 election has been a Herculean and often difficult one. But, then, 
of course, most worthwhile efforts are such. Today we are closer than 
ever, in my opinion, to enacting the most comprehensive voting reform 
legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  The motion that I am supporting today is intended to ensure that, as 
Congress enters this final critical stage of election reform, we 
remember that reform delayed is reform denied. The motion before us 
will ensure that delay of essential reforms will not be an option.
  The bill that we passed through the House did not have these 
extraordinarily long times, this safe harbor, this 2010 provision, this 
2006 provision, this 2008 provision.
  The chairman is absolutely right. We understood that time was a 
problem and we needed to give States a reasonable time in which to 
implement. Very frankly, I think the House bill as it reads continues 
to be a reasonable bill, and I would hope as it reads we could adopt 
it. That is a little short of what the gentleman wants; but it is, I 
think, a reasonable place for us to be.
  This motion would instruct House conferees to insist on section 
504(A) of the House-passed version of H.R. 3295, which requires States 
to be in compliance with commonsense minimum standards for the 
administration of elections no later than November 2004.
  Americans do not want a repeat of the election of 2000. I do not mean 
the result; I mean the process. Every American believes, President Bush 
has said correctly, every American has the right to vote; but that is 
an empty right, a specious right, an ineffective right, if that vote is 
not counted and counted accurately.
  The motion also instructs the House conferees to disagree to the safe 
harbor provision of section 104(B) of the Senate amendment to the House 
bill. I believe that section undermines election reform. I am opposed 
to it, and I will oppose it in conference. I would hope that the Senate 
conferees upon reflection would support us in that effort. That 
provision would delay enforcement of the minimum standards until as 
late as 2010, three Presidential elections away. In my view, that is 
unacceptable.
  Can States meet the 2004 deadline? Yes, they can. The gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) said States need to be anticipating. In fact, my 
State, Florida, Ohio, whose Secretary of State has been extraordinarily 
helpful in getting us to this point, are all looking at what we expect 
and what this law will require. If they are sitting on their hands, 
twiddling their thumbs, they are not acting on behalf of the American 
people. They ought to be getting right now ready to implement this 
legislation, as they expect it to be passed.
  Will there be compromises along the way? Of course. That is the 
nature of legislation. That is the nature of a conference. But if there 
is a Secretary of State, if there is an election official, if there is 
a registrar who is not moving towards the reforms that this bill will 
require, that passed with some 363 votes out of 435, and passed 99 to 
one in the United States Senate, then those election officials are 
derelict in their duty.
  So I say to them this day, through all my colleagues and through, Mr. 
Speaker, you, I say to them, through the Speaker of this House, start 
working now, if you are not far along in the process already, so that 
when we pass this legislation, hopefully within the next 30 days, you 
will be ready; you will be ready to vindicate the most important right 
of every citizen in democracy, and that is the right to vote, the right 
to have that vote counted, so that voter will participate in making 
policy and vision for America.
  We must provide that Congress delays no more. We in Congress must 
complete our work on election reform soon, soon, and give States 
sufficient lead time to meet their obligations. I urge my fellow 
conferees on election reform to immediately begin the important work of 
reconciling the House and Senate bills.

[[Page 10708]]

  My chairman and I do not disagree on substance. This day we disagree 
on the process of the expectation. But I want to reiterate as I close, 
without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), this legislation would not 
be where it is today. Without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), we 
would not have gotten it the floor as we did. Without the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the House bill would not have been as good as it 
was and is. And, frankly, it looks better than it looked before the 
Senate passed its bill, he says with some degree of pride and 
vindication.
  Although much work remains, both the House and Senate bills are 
nearly identical in their basic goals, to give States the resources to 
improve their election systems and establish minimum standards, 
assuring ease of voting and accurate tabulation of results and, yes, 
that there are not cheats. No one wants fraud. No one wants fraud in 
the election system; no one, on either side of the aisle.
  So we must address that issue, but we must address that issue in the 
context of what the purpose of this bill is, to facilitate the 
exercising of the democratic franchise; to facilitate people being 
recognized as eligible voters; to facilitate the accurate counting of 
those votes; and to facilitate the will of the majority maintaining in 
this, the greatest democracy the world has ever known. If we do not, we 
will lose a historic opportunity to strengthen our democratic system at 
home, while, Mr. Speaker, in lockstep 435 Members of the House, 100 
Members of the Senate and every American works to defend this democracy 
against foreign enemies and those who would undermine it from without 
by terror and violence.

                              {time}  1130

  But let us not here at home undermine democracy by failing to act and 
acting quickly to vindicate the vote for every American.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to make a couple of comments here to just restress the 
importance of getting this monumental piece of legislation concluded. I 
cannot stress that enough. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and also the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings). It was a two-way street working with the 
gentleman from Maryland in being able to do something that, frankly, 
some people on either side on the aisle said maybe we ought not do 
this, but we knew it was the right thing to do. We had people that 
joined us in crafting a bipartisan piece of legislation that is well 
thought out.
  I also want to restress, too, that I am sympathetic to the spirit of 
what is being done here today by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings). We need maybe some flexibility going into it, from my point 
of view. But I do want to stress that the spirit of what he is 
attempting to do is something that I fully understand. I appreciate 
both of the gentlemen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the 
gentleman's comments.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Ney), and he has done an extraordinary job and, I think, leads our 
committee the way every American would want him to lead the committee, 
and that is in an open and constructive way, and I thank him for that.
  I also wanted to focus on the sponsor of this particular motion to 
instruct. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is an extraordinary 
Member of this House. He is probably as well grounded in the law as any 
Member of this House. He is also a colleague of mine in participating 
in the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. He is a vice 
president of that international organization of 55 countries, respected 
internationally for his fairness and for his focus.
  I want to thank him for his leadership, not only in the State of 
Florida, but I want to thank him for his leadership in this Congress. 
He was the one who raised most pointedly the issue of funding for 2002. 
It was his leadership that allowed some of us to work with him and, I 
might say, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of 
the House, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), to get the 
funding. So much of the year is gone, but the $450 million which is in 
the supplemental is now subject to authorization, and that is the key. 
We have to pass this legislation so that we can get that money to the 
States.
  So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for the 
leadership and the strong voice he has been on behalf of election 
reform in America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek), my good 
friend and colleague, who has been a leader in this fight from November 
2000, and even before then when we recognized that there would be 
significant problems.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), with whom I have worked very closely over the years and 
who has been a paragon of justice and fairness not only in Florida, but 
throughout the world. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and also the sponsor of the House's bill on the Republican side. 
I commend the gentleman for offering this piece of legislation.
  While the Senate amendment to H.R. 3295 has many provisions that are 
stronger than the bill we passed last December in the Senate, this safe 
harbor provision which they have in the Senate bill is a significant 
exception that will delete and, thus, materially weaken election 
reform.
  Now, I am from Florida and my colleagues can understand why I would 
not like to see any safe harbor provision that would delay the 
implementation of election reform. If you have ever been in another 
kind of ground zero for election reform, you should have been in 
Florida in the last election.
  If the House provision is adopted by the conferees and the Congress 
passes the conference report and the President signs the bill, we get 
real election reform by November 2004. People have told us to let it 
pass. We cannot. We have to do it now. We cannot delay this any longer. 
We cannot go through many of the political shenanigans we go through 
when we want to delay something. This has to happen now. Too many 
people have suffered. We die for the right to vote and we demand it 
now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time, which I shall not use, again to thank my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), and I especially am indebted to the gentleman from Maryland not 
only for his gracious comments, but for his mentoring with reference to 
matters that he and I are working on overseas; and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) for agreeing with me in spirit with reference to this 
matter. We appreciate that spirit. Perhaps had the gentleman from Ohio 
been with me in Florida, you would understand how spirited I am with 
reference to all of these matters.
  Speaking of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
that the gentleman from Maryland is leader par excellence in, and I 
happen to, because of him, be an elected officer in that organization, 
immediately following the election just passed, I went to a meeting in 
Europe, and many of our colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland was 
unable to attend that particular meeting, but many of our colleagues in 
Europe were waiting for me to walk into the room so that they could ask 
me about those free, fair and transparent elections that took place in 
the State of Florida. In many instances, including good friends from 
England, they found it amusing that we had these problems and I know 
are going to find it equally amusing that we have not settled this 
controversy with reference to the legislation federally that we should 
have passed.

[[Page 10709]]

  This place continues to amaze me on a day-to-day basis. I come in 
here and we have these knee-jerks on what is going on now. Now, we have 
had some serious interventions in this country: 9-11, to be sure; the 
economy overall is something that all of us are concerned about. 
Today's flavor is prescription drugs. Next week it will be fast track. 
And during all of that time, election reform has been sitting around 
here. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), other people; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chair of the Black Caucus, and 
I, all of us waiting and yelling that we need to do something, and yet 
we find ourselves in the position of asking no more in this particular 
motion to instruct the conferees than what we already passed in the 
House of Representatives and insisting that that language, which was 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and those of us that cosponsored it, be included 
in the ultimate bill.
  Quite honestly, the House measure, in my judgment, is the more 
enlightened of the two, but our failure to undertake it is a lack of 
enlightenment on all of our behalfs.
  All of us ought to find this noncontroversial, and I would ask our 
colleagues who are listening back in their offices to support this 
motion to instruct conferees.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my 
colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings for offering this 
motion to instruct conferees.
  The two instructions that Congressman Hastings is offering are 
crucial to getting our election system in order.
  First, it is important that conferees make any effective date for 
election reform be in time for the next Presidential election in 2004.
  Actually, it should have been in time for our congressional 
elections, but we will go forward unfortunately with the same system 
that tore America apart in the November 2000 election.
  And for the second instruction, it is important that the government 
have the ability as soon as is it feasible, to legally check to see if 
States are in fact making the necessary changes that the final election 
reform bill stimulates.
  Election Reform is the number one legislative priority for the 
Congressional Black Caucus, and I sincerely hope that it is a top 
priority for every Member of the 107th Congress.
  As a national legislative body, the Congress has the power, authority 
and absolute obligation to assure that the apparent disenfranchisement, 
which occurred in several places throughout the United States in our 
last Presidential election, does not ever happen again.
  Allegations of voter intimidation; inaccurate voter registration 
lists; subjective, vague or non-existent ballot counting standards; and 
flawed ballot designs, all led to confusion before, during and after 
the election.
  What happened is no way to elect the President of the United States 
of America--the most powerful position in the world.
  This is not a black, white, or brown issue. It is an American issue. 
It is a red, white and blue issue. It should be of great concern to 
each of us if any one of us is improperly denied access to the ballot 
box or if every ballot cast is not counted. The survival of our 
democracy depends on the accuracy and integrity of our election system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________