[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.

                          ____________________