[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 111-6, COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION 111-7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 4, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-018 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California, DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California,
Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Jamie Fleet, Staff Director
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 111-6, COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION 111-7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489
---------- --
--------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of
California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Tom Hicks,
Senior Elections Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Elections Counsel;
Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
Press Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Daniel
Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Shervan Sebastian,
Staff Assistant; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director;
Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin Moore, Minority
Legislative Counsel; Salley Collins, Minority Press Secretary;
and Mary Sue Englund, Minority Professional Staff.
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration to order.
We have a number of items on today's agenda. But before we
begin, I would like to let members know that we have a
completed calendar for the committee for the 110th Congress,
and it is available for your review.
I plan to take up H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, Committee
Resolution 111-6, and Committee Resolution 111-7 en bloc.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Does anyone have anything to say on these
items?
If there is no objection we order the two bills favorably
reported and pass the two committee resolutions.
With regard to Committee Resolution 111-6 regarding Voucher
Documentation Standards, I agree that we will take up the
security and printing documentation requirement on the next
markup. So we are adopting the committee resolution excluding
those two provisions, and we will work with all and any to
resolve the differences between now and then.
And members may insert for the record on all these matters.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Lungren, I would like to recognize you
for any comments.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You have accurately reflected the agreement we have entered
into, with respect to the various bills we are talking about
today. I appreciate the comity, and I thank you for working so
well with us.
The Chairman. Thank you.
So, without objection, H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843 are ordered
reported favorably to the House, and then Committee Resolutions
111-6 and 111-7 are adopted.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
None opposed.
So ordered; they are adopted.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3542, the ``State
Admission Day Recognition Act of 2009.''
This bill, which was introduced by Ranking Member Lungren
would commemorate each State's admission to the Union by
directing the Architect to fly a State's flag over the Capitol
on the anniversary date of its admission, beginning with
Delaware, the first State.
I understand that the ranking member has concerns about the
disposition of the flags. And I commit to working with him to
word the regulations to provide that, during the first year of
commemorating, the flags would be delivered to the Governor of
each State or territory and that, in the future years, the
Governors will have the option to deliver these flags to
universities, high schools, and elementary schools.
I now would like to recognize the sponsor of this
legislation, the ranking member, Mr. Lungren, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
bringing this bill to the committee. I am pleased to have
authored this legislation, brought to me by one of my
constituents, at least the suggestion was.
It instructs the Architect of the Capitol to fly flags of
each individual State of these United States over the Capitol
Building on the anniversary of the admission of that State into
the Union. As the embodiment of the phrase which appears on the
seal of the United States, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' meaning, ``Out
of Many, One,'' the flying of the States' flags will honor each
State for their contribution to our country.
Additionally, this legislation supports the concept that
our Nation was created to be a Federal system as opposed to a
centrally based system of government and will serve as a
reminder of the unique ideas incorporated by our Founding
Fathers in drafting the Constitution and the charge we carry
forward as stewards of our Nation.
And I urge support of my colleagues and thank the chairman
for bringing the bill before our committee.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3542.
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
with, and the bill is considered as read and open for amendment
at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The Chair now would like to offer an
amendment, which is in the members' packet and which would
provide greater specifics about how the bill would operate and
authorize the issuance of regulations.
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And I now would like to again ask the ranking
member for any comments.
Mr. Lungren. I support the chairman's amendment and ask for
its adoption.
The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Any opposed?
So ordered. The ayes have it, in the opinion of the Chair,
and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any additional amendments?
If not, I now move to report H.R. 3542 favorably to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Any opposed, ``No.''
So ordered. The ayes have it, in opinion of the Chair. And
the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the House.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3489, a bill to amend
the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
This bill will protect persons residing in a house subject
to foreclosure proceedings or in an area which has been
affected by a natural disaster from challenges by election
officials to their eligibility to register to vote.
Because our voter registration system is based on people's
residence, the current foreclosure crisis has the potential to
do considerable damage to the integrity of the Nation's
elections.
Reports surfaced during the 2008 presidential election that
political operatives planned to use lists of foreclosed
properties in Michigan and Ohio to challenge voters' residency.
Election officials around the country reportedly received
numerous questions from foreclosed homeowners regarding their
voting status.
But there is no rational basis for using foreclosure lists
to challenge a voter's eligibility. Otherwise-eligible voters
may be renting a foreclosed home or working with a bank to
refinance. And voters displaced by hurricanes and other natural
disasters should have the right to vote in communities in which
they intend to return.
H.R. 3489 is an important bill that will help ensure the
integrity of our elections. It has been a long time since there
were property requirements for voting. We should act now to
ensure that voters do not lose their civil right to vote
because they have lost or may lose their homes. I strongly urge
support of this bill.
And I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I knew that, despite the comity and our agreement on most
everything, there would be times in which we would disagree.
Whenever this committee deals with something as sensitive
as an individual's constitutional right to vote and to not have
that vote diluted by fraudulent votes, I think we must act
carefully and deliberately. And when it comes to fundamental
rights, I would hope that we would not tinker with the law
based on mere accusations or mere possibilities.
Yet, as I examine this legislation, I fear that is exactly
where we are headed. Far from being just unnecessary, I feel
the legislation could be dangerous to the health of our
electoral system.
The two separate prongs of the bill, dealing with the
victims of natural disasters and individuals facing
foreclosure, both carry their own set of concerns.
The most staggering implication of the provision
prohibiting the challenge of voters in areas that have been
declared a natural disasters is its breadth. The wording of the
bill suggests that it would be impossible to challenge anyone
for any reason if they happen to be in a disaster area.
For example, in the event that someone attempted to vote
fraudulently under the name of a person known to be deceased or
an individual who is known to not be a citizen of the United
States, it would not be possible to challenge that individual,
the person attempting to vote, if they live in an area that has
been declared a disaster area. There is no limiting language to
suggest that the challenge has to be one based solely on
residency.
In addition, there is zero language in the bill that would
limit how long the prohibition against challenges would last in
disaster areas. Under the current language of the bill, any
area that has been declared by the President to be a disaster
area at any time--no limit--would be subject to a complete ban
on challenges of any kind. A disaster may have happened and
recovery completed decades ago, yet the wording of this bill
would permit no challenges to be brought in these areas. So the
scope of the provision is truly staggering.
Presumably, this portion of the bill was drafted to cover
situations like that which occurred to the victims in Hurricane
Katrina. Yet the two States affected most by that disaster,
Mississippi and Louisiana, have both filed letters of
opposition with the committee.
In their letters, both secretaries of State's offices--that
is, of the States most directly affected--detailed the ways in
which they have already made provisions for displaced voters
under State law. I would like unanimous consent to enter both
of those letters into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lungren. Regarding the foreclosure provision, I can
understand my colleagues' concerns, given the high number of
foreclosures. And this particularly affects my State. In fact,
it particularly affects my district. We do have a large number
of foreclosures. We have had people who have left our area
after their house has been foreclosed.
At times, when they have left, we found that, not only were
they living there, but we have had some major marijuana growing
going on in houses in my district that have been foreclosed.
But to thus my knowledge--and we have not held a hearing on
this bill, so I can't say for certain--the only basis for the
foreclosures provision in this bill is a posting on one blog
citing statements by party representatives that were vehemently
denied by those who purportedly uttered them. Both parties even
signed court documents stating they would not use foreclosure
lists. I have certainly not seen any evidence that foreclosure
lists were used to challenge voters.
In my last election, as I mentioned, I was the subject of
suppression calls to try and limit the number of people voting
in my district at a crucial time, on the afternoon of the
election. But I haven't seen any evidence nor do I know
anything about people being denied their right to vote because
people used foreclosure lists.
But even if this were an actual problem, I believe this
committee could find a more prudent way to protect the affected
voters. Rather than narrowly focusing on voters affected by
foreclosure lists as was written, the bill now goes far beyond
that and establishes a new Federal, quote/unquote, ``good
cause'' standard by which all voter challenges would be
measured.
So we are told that this bill deals with the question of
foreclosure and deals with the other problem of people in
natural disaster areas, but it goes far beyond that and creates
this new standard, good faith standard, to which all voter
challenges would be measured. And this is without the benefit
of defining what ``good cause'' would be, even having a hearing
on what we are talking about.
I think it would be of great benefit to both the intended
beneficiaries of the bill and those who would be charged with
its implementation if the bill were referred to the
Subcommittee on Elections for a hearing.
Yet, if the committee proceeds in considering the
legislation, I would hope, at a minimum, the chairman and my
colleagues would adopt the amendments we plan to offer to
address a number of these issues, not to getting rid of the
final import of this bill but trying to limit its application
because of the concerns that I have expressed.
And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And I would like to recognize the chairwoman of the
Elections Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, for the purpose of a
statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, first, I would ask unanimous
consent that documents related to the bill be made a part of
the record. That would be articles from The New York Times, the
Michigan Messenger, The Columbus Dispatch; the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund memo and court order on the case of Herring v.
Marion County; advisories and press releases from Maryland,
Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and Minnesota on challenges related to
home foreclosure; information regarding the home foreclosure
and voting bill that passed the Michigan House of
Representatives last year; as well as letters from the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights regarding challenges
related to home foreclosures.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, it is important that--and we all
agree on this--that eligible voters be permitted to vote. And
the use of foreclosure lists to challenge voters has, actually,
nothing to do with a voter's eligibility.
Placement of a house on public foreclosure notice doesn't
say anything about a voter's eligibility. Foreclosure notices
reflect ownership, not residence, as, for example, eligible
voters may be renting a foreclosed home. In addition, a
foreclosure notice does not require anyone to leave his or her
home, and many homeowners, in fact, do remain in their homes
well after foreclosure proceedings begin, as they negotiate
with lenders in an attempt to refinance.
I would add that the other element to this is that
individuals who are in foreclosure proceedings are often very
distraught and sometimes even ashamed of what has happened to
them financially. And to have the humiliation of being
challenged off a foreclosure list in front of your neighbors at
your polling place is something that I think is to be avoided.
As to the natural disaster element, I think it is worth
noting, in the case, for example, of the Katrina hurricane,
that people who maintain their residence, their lawful
residence, in the zone in some cases took a very long time to
return. And it is important that those people who maintain
their legal residence but were displaced have an opportunity to
continue to vote once in their legal residence.
So I think this is an important step forward. I hope that
we can adopt the bill.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the lady.
Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like unanimous consent to submit for the record a
USA Today article in which the Macomb Republican county
chairman named in the MichiganMessenger blog post denies he
ever intended to use foreclosure lists and demands a
retraction.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Thank you.
I would like to take just a minute to expand on a point
that my colleague from California brought up in his opening
statement.
After Hurricane Katrina, one of the many problems facing my
home State of Mississippi was how to deal with displaced
voters. The secretary of State, along with our State
legislature, saw that challenge and met it with legislation
addressing the problem.
I find it both presumptive and perhaps somewhat arrogant
that this committee is considering legislation today having not
consulted with the States this legislation would affect the
most.
In a letter opposing the legislation we are considering
today, Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann offered
a frank assessment of H.R. 3489, declaring it to be unwise and
an attempt to Federalize challenges to voter qualifications.
Secretary Hosemann further explained in his letter that
this bill poses a serious threat to the integrity of our
election system by undermining legitimate challenges to voter
qualification. As an example, he detailed circumstances in
which a registered voter may be protected from challenge due to
the locale in the case of a disaster area, despite failing to
meet the most basic requirement of election law: citizenship.
When States are responding to their citizens' needs in the
wake of a natural disaster, what they need is flexibility, not
a blanket Federal mandate that will handcuff them to one course
of action. I hope the committee will consider moving this
misguided and unnecessary legislation and encourage you to vote
``no.''
Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other statements?
We do have four votes on the floor. I was hoping we could
probably get through before that, but it doesn't look like it
can happen because there are other amendments to this bill. So
what I would like to do is just recess until the last vote and
come back and reconvene and just finish this bill up. Okay?
Thank you all. We are now in recess until the last vote on
the floor.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration back to order.
And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3489.
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
with, and the bill is considered as read and open to amendments
at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Is there any debate?
Yes, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Lungren. In fact, I have three amendments.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. This will be the first amendment.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Amendment No. 1. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses
fundamental ambiguity in the bill as written and, as I see it,
a danger in the language of the bill. And it attempts to
address it by striking the amorphous new standard merely
defined as ``good cause.''
Right now, the bill would override all States' laws on
voter challenges and say that challenges cannot be made except
for, quote/unquote, ``good cause,'' which is not defined in
this bill. It then provides a nonexclusive list of two things
that are not good cause, leaving it to creative lawyers in
every State and local court in the Nation to decide what else
might not be good cause.
Mr. Chairman, rather than creating a broad new threshold
that will undoubtedly lead to conflicting interpretations, I
would hope that the bill would be narrowly and clearly drafted
to approach this issue. This is achieved by explicitly
addressing the two targets of the bill: foreclosure proceedings
and natural disaster areas.
Additionally, the original wording of the bill is so broad
that it may inadvertently prevent valid challenges. For
example, if hard evidence exists demonstrating that an
individual is registered and voting in another jurisdiction,
the bill might block a challenge just because the person also
claims to reside in a natural disaster area or to have had a
foreclosure.
The amendment would make it clear that only challenges
based solely on those factors and not challenges based on other
evidence where those factors might be present. It is an attempt
to try and refine the bill and hopefully not override all of
the law that currently exists, having been developed over the
years with all of the States dealing with challenges in their
jurisdictions.
And I would hope I could get the support of my colleagues.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because
I know that you want to move us to the other amendments, but
two observations.
First of all, I think everyone understands, especially my
friend, the former attorney general of California, that
forfeiture is a process--or foreclosure, rather, is a process.
A notice of foreclosure is no more the termination or the end
of a process than an arrest or an indictment is the end of a
criminal process.
I don't think that anyone on the other side of the aisle
would propose that if someone were arrested that we go through
and we comb the list of people who have been arrested and try
to use that to challenge their capacity to vote. The legal or
the technical capacity is there to do that, but I don't think
anyone believes that would be a good thing to do from the
standpoint of public policy.
It strikes me that, if we use a foreclosure proceeding, or
the initiation of a foreclosure proceeding, as the basis to
challenge a voter's suffrage, that is not fundamentally
different from using an arrest record as the basis to do it,
that obviously do not result in convictions.
Second observation: Several years ago, I introduced a bill
that would have dealt with the problem of displaced voters
after a natural disaster. The bill was not marked up in
committee, but I thought that it was an important way to
resolve the clear ambiguities that exist and that occurred
after Katrina, when someone is knocked out of their home, they
don't have a permanent place to live.
But since that approach wasn't adopted, frankly the bill
that we have today seems to me to be the next best thing. It
provides some safe haven for people who may have been affected
by a natural disaster. And, again, not having acted on the bill
I proposed several years ago, I think that this is a good
alternative. So I would certainly urge the rejection of this
amendment on those grounds.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr.
Lungren.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Those opposed, say, ``No.''
In opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment. This
is Amendment No. 3. It is the 18-month expiration.
The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a
sunset for the application of the restrictions on challenges
involved in a disaster area.
Right now, there is absolutely no limitation whatsoever. It
could be decades later, a year later, or years later. By
providing an 18-month timeline for the disaster--that is, a
limit of 18 months after the disaster declaration--we would
protect against the application of the provisions to an event
many years past. For example, without a sunset on the
eligibility of an event, one might be able to argue that a
natural disaster from the 1980s prevented a voter eligibility
challenge today.
The amendment is simply clarifying to ensure that the
purpose of the remedy is appropriately applied, and the 18-
month period is the same period that FEMA provides temporary
housing for disaster victims. So I would hope we would get
support for this limiting amendment.
And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think in some ways the amendment actually points to the
reason that we should have the legislation before us. And I
think that the 18 months--I mean, we just have to think about
the number of people in Katrina that were affected and how long
it took for them to get back. I think about some of the fires
in San Diego, where people had to wait, you know, a good 2
years before they even got their insurance to okay their
development plans.
And so I think that trying to put a time limit on this, I
think, is really too limiting. It may be that, you know, 10
years out would be reasonable, but someone could argue that
that is not necessarily appropriate either.
So I think trying to have it--personal responsibility here
is really important, and people have a number of reasons that
they have to leave the area in which they choose to vote. And I
think that we need to be open on this one.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief again.
Just 1 month ago, there was a group of folks who came to my
office who were previously residents of New Orleans. This is,
by my count, approximately 4 years after Katrina, a little bit
more than 4 years. These individuals, who I think right now are
living in the Mobile/Baldwin County area, would love to return
to New Orleans. They never got the assistance the government
promised them 4 years ago. And they are exactly in that gray
area that my bill several years ago sought to address: people
who were displaced because of Katrina, individuals who have not
gotten the assistance that was promised them, who have every
desire and intent to return to their original domicile.
The problem with the amendment is natural disasters can
have a long-running consequence. Katrina may be a worst case,
but it is a worst case that many individuals are living with.
So, again, I agree with my friend from California that
there is surely some reasonable time period that we could agree
on. But it absolutely is not 18 months if people are coming to
see me 4 years later, much less what would have happened in the
time frame 18 months from Katrina.
I will yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Any other discussion on the amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by
Mr. Lungren, No. 3.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Those opposed, say, ``No.''
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have a last amendment.
The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lungren. This amendment goes to the point that Mr.
Davis made just a moment ago about the initiation of
foreclosure. It is also a point that was made by Ms. Lofgren
when we were here earlier.
So, while we can all agree that simply having a foreclosure
proceeding initiated would not be enough to indicate the person
no longer lives there and therefore is not an eligible voter,
when a foreclosure is completed and individuals have left the
residence in question, I think we can agree that this should be
eligible evidence to challenge a voter. It is not conclusive
evidence, but it is evidence that would allow the challenge.
This legislation should not preclude challenges based on
concrete evidence that an individual no longer resides in the
home. And the amendment makes clear that this legislation
applies only to--that this legislation would apply to completed
foreclosures and not just pending foreclosures, as was the
complaint raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
And so I am attempting to try and deal with the issue that
he mentioned, and hope that this would gain his support and the
support of others on the committee.
And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Alabama. If I understand the gentleman's
amendment correctly, there is still a problem with scope. The
fact that a foreclosure may be affected still doesn't
necessarily speak to who actually owns the property and who
actually may be voting.
For example, I think someone mentioned earlier that someone
could be a resident of a foreclosed home, but, again, the fact
that there is a foreclosure notice doesn't necessarily goes to
their status, in terms of whether or not they are still in that
jurisdiction.
So I am concerned that, once again, the gentleman's
amendment is going to sweep in a group of people--and whether
it is a narrow group or a large group, we don't know; whether
people have a right to exercise the capacity to vote--that it
is going to sweep in a group of people who were, frankly, not
intended to be reached by the amendment. And that is why I
would urge its rejection.
The Chairman. Any other question on the amendment? Any
other speakers?
The question of the amendment is over Mr. Lungren.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Those opposed, ``No.''
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
I now move to report H.R. 3489 favorably to the House.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
Any opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill
is ordered.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, on that I would ask for a
recorded vote.
The Chairman. The clerk would call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Capuano?
Mr. Capuano. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Harper?
Mr. Harper. No.
The Clerk. Chairman Brady?
The Chairman. Aye.
The vote is four ayes, two against. The bill passes.
And, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the floor.
Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes to the matters
considered today.
And the committee meeting on House Administration now
stands adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]