Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2596-H2599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H2596]]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3295, HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2001

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table 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 for States and
units of local government with responsibility for the administration of
Federal elections, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the amendments, and agree to the conference asked
by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hoyer

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoyer 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
to insist upon--
(1) the provisions contained in title I of the House bill
(relating to a program to provide payments to States and
units of local government for replacing and enhancing punch
card voting systems); and
(2) the provisions contained in section 232 of the House
bill (relating to the formula used to determine the amount of
other payments made to States under the bill for carrying out
activities to improve the administration of elections).

Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to continue to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the
chairman of the Committee on House Administration, who has been so
incredibly important in getting us to this point. We passed a very good
bill through the House. The Senate has now passed a bill which also, in
my opinion, has some very good aspects. It will now be necessary to put
those two bills together so that we might in a timely fashion enact
election reform.
The effort to correct the problems that surfaced in the 2000 election
has been in some respects a long, lean one and often a difficult one;
but then, of course, Mr. Speaker, most worthwhile efforts are.
Today, as this House prepares to go to the conference with the other
body, I am pleased to say that we are closer than ever to enacting the
most comprehensive voting reform legislation since the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
The motion that I am offering today is intended to ensure that as
Congress enters this final critical stage of election reform we do not
forget to correct the very problem that sparked us to recognize the
need for reform in the first place. I am referring, of course, to the
infamous punch card machines and their accompanying chads, which were
used by approximately one-third of all voters in this country in 2000,
more than any other voting system.
My motion would instruct House conferees to insist on title I of the
House-passed version of H.R. 3295, which authorizes $400 million for
the buyout of punch card voting machines. Numerous authoritative
studies issued in the past year, including one by MIT and CalTech have
only confirmed what we all knew was the truth in November 2000, that
punch card machines must be retired and replaced by a new generation of
more accurate, more accessible and more user-friendly voting
technology.
H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act, which this House passed last
December by an overwhelming vote, recognizes that obsolete, poorly
maintained punch card machines are a prime threat to our democratic
process. Recognizing this threat, title I authorizes a $400 million
punch card buyout program that will be available to those States and
political subdivisions that used punch card machines in 2000. For
States like Florida and Georgia, they have already begun replacing
their punch card machines. Title I authorizes assistance in that
effort.

{time} 1630

Under title I, States or their political subdivisions will receive
conditional grants of up to $6,000 for each voting precinct in which
punch card machines were used in 2000. The motion also instructs the
House conferees to insist on section 232 of the Help America Vote Act,
which creates a simple, common sense formula for distribution of funds.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a motion which has been agreed on
by the chairman and myself. It does not obviously deal with all aspects
on which there is some controversy. I expect us to discuss that in the
conference, but I am expecting, as our relationship has been, where not
only has the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I worked closely
together, but our staffs have worked closely together, that we will
reach an historic reform piece of legislation to ensure that every
American not only has the right to vote, not only is facilitated in
that vote, not only is encouraged and educated as to how to vote, but
is assured that their vote will count.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
I rise in strong support of this motion to appoint and the motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001.
An American citizen's right to vote is our Nation's symbolic
cornerstone providing us with the solid foundation on which we built
this country. When a person casts his or her vote at the polls on
election day, there must be no question that it is counted properly and
accurately and that no one is left behind.
As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I want to
commend the working relationship that began from day one when our
ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), approached me
about doing a bill. Of course, following a series of hearings, the
ranking member and our chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Blunt), and members of the committee set out on a path together to
craft a common sense solution to reforming the way Americans vote.
From the very beginning of the process, the ranking member and I, and
the members of the committee and the staff, recognized that any
legislative solutions must be bipartisan. The gentleman from Maryland
set that tone, we agreed with it, and we all worked together, and that
is what enabled what could have been an extremely horrific process to
be something that had its give and take of debate but came out in a
fair manner because the best interests of citizens in this country was
the question that rose to the front of the table.
We worked with State and local officials, listened to experts,
reviewed the work of commissions, including the National Commission on
Election Reform, chaired by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy
Carter. We then developed a legislative solution that included minimum
Federal standards that each State must meet to ensure the integrity of
our national election process. We also made certain that States be
given time, flexibility and resources, which was a very important
element in the discussion, so it did not become an unfunded mandate, to
meet these standards. Last December, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 3295 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 362 to 63.
I would like to thank the National Association of Secretaries of
State, the National Council of State Legislators, the National
Association of Counties, the National Federation for the Blind, the
Election Center, and the Ford-Carter Commission on Election Reform for
their guidance support and endorsements during this process. The bill
provides for $2.65 billion to implement provisional voting, statewide
registration lists, new technical standards, and assurances that our
overseas military

[[Page H2597]]

personnel have access to the polls, which they so greatly deserve.
Let me say something about the money. Some people at the beginning of
the process would come to us and talk about the cost. I really do not
think that $2.65 billion, or the $3.2 billion in the Senate version, is
too much to ask for confidence in our democracy. I think, in fact, it
is a small price to pay. And as I have traveled around different parts
of the country, a lot of American citizens want to feel that their vote
counts, they want to feel that they are not left behind or
disenfranchised.
We have also spent more money, frankly, overseas in promoting
democracy in the election process, and that is fine, I do not quibble
with that, but we can spend the money here.
Now, the bill goes beyond just a money expenditure. It is a well
thought out and crafted bill, but the money is an important part of it,
and I think it is an amount of money that the American people will feel
very good about to have this process work.
The other body passed their version of election reform. Although
there remains some differences between the two bills, I am totally
optimistic that we will be able to resolve those differences. At the
conclusion of this process, I can assure everyone that there will be
provisions to guarantee every eligible citizen the right to vote and
that only eligible citizens will be able to vote.
I look forward to the conference committee. I think that with the
principals involved we are going to be able to work together in the
best interests of the people of this country.
I want to again thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), members of the Committee on House
Administration on both sides of the aisle, also the staff from both
sides of the aisle, and the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his unwavering support of the issue. We
also met with the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), concerning the economic side of the language and also
appreciate that cooperation.
As this bill moves through the legislative process, and I hope it
moves quickly through the process, I look forward to working with every
member of the general assembly to receive their input.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), one of the very senior Members
of this House, a Member who has risked literally life and limb on
behalf of the right of Americans to vote. This is a Member who, long
before I got to this House but throughout the years I have been in this
House, for over 2 decades, has been one of the strongest voices for the
civil rights of all Americans, the ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for yielding me this time, and I am
delighted to join both the chairman and the ranking member in thanking
both of them for this process.
My colleagues, we have come a long way. It has been a long road, many
issues, many hearings, many ideas, lots of witnesses, and 17 months
have gone by. But the Congress has worked its will in a very important
and remarkable way, and I am honored to be named a conferee.
I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who was working on this
with me all the way, and the committee that did so much, under the
leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to not only deal with standards and equipment and
technical issues, but to determine that we needed resources and
standards as well to go into this.
So what we are doing now is adding to the confidence that the
American people, I think, were lacking in terms of the electoral
process. It is important that we realize that a lot of people were
disappointed and disgruntled, and that what we are doing now is adding
to the constitutional basis for this very most singular voting right
that a citizen has.
We are also filling in the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and a number of
statutes that all complement it. What we have done is taken a problem
and improved the process, and to that extent I am in complete agreement
with Chairman Ney, who observed that the tone and objectives of the
conferees make us all confident that we will be able to work this out
and get it back to both bodies as soon as possible.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman for his comments and to tell him that I look
forward to working closely with him for the strongest possible bill we
can report back to the House and the Senate in a very short period of
time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me give strong commendation to the
chairman and the ranking member, but particularly to Chairman Ney, who
came to Congress with me in 1994. I am proud of his leadership of this
committee and particularly of this bill.
As a Floridian and a Palm Beach County resident, we were embarrassed
during the election. We were embarrassed because people felt that their
ballots did not count. Whatever side of the coin a person was on,
whether an Al Gore supporter or a George Bush supporter, no one's vote
should have been called into question. No one should ever feel that
their vote has been manipulated or denied. This bill brings us light-
years forward in hoping to never revisit that time and that place
again.
We are very proud that one of our own Floridians, a member of the
delegation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), was a proud working
member and a participant in this product. Florida is thankful for his
leadership. We are also particularly delighted that the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
provided the $450 million provided under the supplemental bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought that up,
because I want to share that not only the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) but the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker, both
committed to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I over 6 months ago
that they understood the importance of this issue and they committed to
put $650 million into the supplemental subject to the passage of this
legislation.
There was only $450 million in this bill, but that was because we
were so late in passing this bill. And I think $450 million is going to
be sufficient certainly for certain portions of this bill. But I want
to share the gentleman's view in thanking both Speaker Hastert and
Chairman Young for their leadership and their support of getting that
money in the supplemental. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's underscoring that, because as all of us know, it is easy to
come up with an idea, but it is tough to come up with the money. And
the gentleman just mentioned who was able to deliver for us: The
appropriations process.
This is an important bill. It is a milestone effort in trying to
create the inequities that were caused in the election. Florida felt
put upon, but we were not the only State. There were many other
jurisdictions that had similar voting irregularities. But because of
the closeness in our State, all eyes and all attention were upon us.
This bill has the support of a wide bipartisan array of Members; 362
to 63 this bill passed in December. That is phenomenal in this process.
National Association of Secretaries of States, Conference of State
Legislators, National Association of Counties, I do not think there is
a group that is involved with the recordation of votes that did not
weigh in affirmatively on this unique product.
We also want to stress that it improves the integrity of the election
process. It ensures voter lists are kept accurate and up to date. It
ensures voters can correct errors in privacy. It ensures voters are not
pressured by election officials. It requires every State to

[[Page H2598]]

improve its election procedures by providing provisional voting, fully
accessible voting machines for the disabled, and this was a very
important point to reconcile. That was a great effort on behalf of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney). I want to salute them for recognizing that different people have
different needs when it comes to the ballot box.
The legislation also safeguards and protects the voting rights of
military voters and overseas citizens. This was another point of
contention. We all, Democrats and Republicans, respect and revere those
serving in our military and we equally share in wanting to see that
every one of their votes counts. No party has a greater fundamental
responsibility to ensure that, both parties do, and we have accepted
that responsibility together.
We also have uniform standards for what constitutes a vote. That is a
tremendous step forward. No longer will we assume a dimple, a hanging
chad, a three-hanger, a two-hanger. There will be a standard so no one
can question the validity of the outcome.
So again my high praise to both gentlemen, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), to all the
members of the committee, particularly the Members of Congress who
allowed us to pursue this dream of making voting rights and voting
responsibility synonymous. This bill, the Help America Vote Act of
2002, will ensure integrity, responsibility and the utmost accuracy in
the process.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has done
such an outstanding job in working on election reform, recognizing the
problem and working to solve it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me offer the compliment to
both the chairman and the ranking member on this very momentous
occasion.
Truly, I have seen in the efforts of this committee on election
reform, from the chairman and the ranking member, the finest work
product of bipartisanship, recognizing that out of great pain we had to
plunge forward.

{time} 1645

Many of us watched the results that might have generated this
emphasis. I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who
indicated no matter what position a person took, there was a degree of
embarrassment and also a degree of hurt.
That is because we believe in this country we believe one person, one
vote. We saw things from a different perspective. We view things
differently, from the people in Florida; but in our encounters with
individuals, the greatest point they wanted to make was they wanted to
be heard.
Mr. Speaker, this opportunity we have to go to conference is
particularly important because it says to the American people, we have
heard them; and this legislation offers an opportunity to improve the
communication vehicle, the vote, that will then emphasize one person,
one vote.
Let me also commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his
motion to instruct, a very important motion to instruct that asks that
we hold to the provision, the buy-out provision, the punch card buy-out
provision of $400 million, an extremely important aspect of what we are
doing here today, to get rid of what made us ill, and to begin to move
us into the 21st century in voting technology. This is an important
instruction that I hope we will not step aside from.
This legislation, as we go to conference, creates standards,
evenhanded standards, so there are some guidelines to be able to
formulate the structures to reinforce or rebuild our voting system.
Also, participating on the Democratic Caucus Election Reform Task
Force in hearings around the Nation, I actually heard people crying
that they went to the polls with good faith and good intentions to
vote. They had voted in years past. They had no intention to commit
fraud or vote without documentation; but when they got there, their
names were not written. Those of us who adhere to the Christian
principles, we know there is something important to having your name on
the roll. It was not there.
As we go to conference, I hope we will be concerned about the
question of purging, and ask our Secretaries of State in those election
offices of the States to find a way to notify individuals that their
name may not be on the roll because they have missed a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member, who knows that I have
raised this issue with him, and I have also mentioned it to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). I would like to inquire regarding the
interest of the committee on this question of purging of voters.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, of course the Voting Rights Act, obviously,
and the Motor Voter Act provides for the removal of people who have
died or are not otherwise eligible.
On the other hand, the gentlewoman raises an absolutely critical
issue. The committee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I were
very concerned about that. There are a number of provisions in this
bill that deal with that issue. First of all, while we provide under
Motor Voter removal of voters who are ineligible under State law, we
have a provision that says that the States must take care not to remove
persons who are in fact eligible.
Number two, there is a provision in the bill which provides for the
adoption of a state-wide registration system so that we have a uniform
system of keeping people on the roll and/or removing them. Obviously,
some smaller jurisdictions have great difficulty having the
technological capability to keep current, and they make mistakes. We
hope to move them in that direction.
The third critical provision included in our bill and the Senate bill
is the providing of an opportunity for a provisional balloting. That is
a critical provision so when someone goes into the polling place, as
happens in every voting jurisdiction in America, and their name does
not appear, but they say to the election official, we should be
registered, we are supposed to be registered, the election official
will provide them with a provisional ballot that they will fill out. It
will be kept separate and apart, and then in the succeeding days they
will check to see whether that person is an eligible voter. If so, they
will count that vote.
In all of those different ways we are trying to deal with that, but
the gentlewoman raises an area of great concern to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ney), to myself, and to the Senate conferees as well. I thank
the gentlewoman for focusing on that point.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the
chairman, because he was certainly open to my concerns as I expressed
them. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for enunciating
those three points.
In conclusion, as we move to conference, if there is an opportunity
to additionally talk about some form of a media campaign or
announcement by our election officers to put people on notice as
elections move forward for them to check, whether we say check to see
whether you have been purged or check to see whether or not you are
still on the roll, we may not get individual notice, and notice is so
important so that people will not be surprised even though they have
the right to provisional voting, which I think is excellent.
I will conclude by saying if the conferees will look to this whole
question of notice as we move to conference, I think that will enhance
the whole concept of the Voter Rights Act of 1965; and I will say, life
is being added to that legislation through the process which has been
made today.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). The gentleman
is a delight to work with. He is open, fair, and wants to achieve the
same objective that all of us do of having a system that works well,
and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) said, of every American's
confidence that they have the right to vote, and their vote is counted
accurately.

[[Page H2599]]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good motion, and I am looking forward
to going to conference as quickly as possible so we can pass this
legislation, which I think will be one of the hallmarks of the 107th
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
From the Committee on House Administration, for consideration of the
House bill and the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Ney, Ehlers, Doolittle, Reynolds, Hoyer, Fattah and Davis of
Florida.
From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of sections
601 and 606 of the House bill, and section 404 of the Senate
amendments, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Stump, McHugh and Skelton.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections
216, 221, title IV, sections 502, and 503 of the House bill, and
sections 101, 102, 104, subtitles A, B and C of title II, sections 311,
501, and 502 of the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Chabot and Conyers.
From the Committee on Science for consideration of sections 221-5,
241-3, 251-3, and 261 of the House bill, and section 101 of the Senate
amendments, and modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Barcia, and Mrs. Morella.
Provided that Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas is appointed in lieu of Mr.
Barcia for consideration of sections 251-3 of the House bill, and
modifications committed to conference.
From the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of sections
103 and 503 of the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Thomas, Shaw and Rangel.
For consideration of the House bill and Senate amendments, and
modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Blunt.
There was no objection.

____________________