Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we arrive at a point where I think we will be considering the election reform bill, the Help America Vote Act. I believe this bill is one of the most important bills that we will vote on and pass this year. I am disappointed that the rule did not allow a substitute to be offered. I asked for that in the Committee on Rules. I urged that that be allowed. Frankly, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who is the sponsor of a very significant bill that is pending in the House Committee on the Judiciary, had wanted to offer his substitute, I would have been even more adamant. Having said that, I want to see this bill move forward. I regret this rule did not allow a substitute, but I believe it is important that we pass this bill and pass it today. It provides, as I will say in the general debate later today, very substantial resources for States to get us to a point where votes will not only be cast, but will be accurately counted; where votes will be counted, having made sure that every American was able to cast their vote properly; that state-wide registration would make sure that we knew who was registered; that provisional ballots would make sure that, even if we made a mistake in the system, that people would be allowed to vote; where, if the technology allows in 2002, citizens will be told they made a mistake, and if they want to change it, voters have an opportunity to do so. This bill brings some very significant reforms. It answers many of the questions raised by last year's extraordinarily difficult election. So although I am very deeply distressed, as expressed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), that we did not have the ability to offer a substitute, I know that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will be offering a motion to recommit. If we pass this rule, I will speak strongly on behalf of this bill and hope to see its passage. The reason that I say that I think it should pass today, I am hopeful that the earliest possible date to both appropriate funds for the funding of the reforms, doing away with the punch cards, upgrading technology, educating voters, educating and training election officials, all to enhance the election process for our citizens, I am hopeful that we can do this as quickly as possible so that 2002 and certainly 2004 will not be a repeat of 2000. That election in 2000 ended 37 days after it began. It ended on this day exactly 1 year ago. It is appropriate that we act today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to Charles County public schools. The Charles County public schools received the Daisy Bates National School District Award for its minority achievement program. Under the direction of Superintendent James E. Richmond, Charles County public schools have made the success of all students a major priority, and addressing the performance of minority students is a major component of this effort. Charles County public schools has developed a 5-year plan for academic achievement, personal responsibility, and career readiness. In this plan, everyone is responsible for successful attainment of the objectives. The superintendent, board members, instructional staff, principals, certificated and support staff, all play major roles in addressing the ``success for all'' approach. Designing programs that best meet the needs of the students is a major key of their success. In order to make programs like these work, systems must first look at the needs of the students and then develop the programs. Charles County public schools sought to fit the program to the students, not the students to the program. Their programs are successful because of the dedication and commitment of their teachers. They truly believe that all children can and will learn to read if given instruction and additional time to read and write in an environment that supports and challenges them. This system provides continuous training for teachers and assistants, limits class size, and provides current, appealing, and appropriate materials for their schools. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join with me in wishing the Charles County public schools continued success and congratulations on their achievements toward the academic success of their students.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I would say to my colleagues that I am very concerned about provisional voting. It needs to be real. That is why I took such care to make sure that the National Voter Registration Act, known as motor voter, was not adversely affected in any way. I appreciate the chairman's assertion. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), I might say at the request of my distinguished chairman. I am pleased to accede to his request.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). Mr. Speaker, I have heard from some individuals who are concerned, as I am, that the section in this bill that clarifies the National Voter Registration Act, section 902(a), does not make reference to subsection (e) of 1973gg-6 of that act. Is it the gentleman's understanding that this subsection (e) will remain in full force and effect with the passage of this bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the distinguished former Mayor of Patterson, who has been involved in elections for a long time and worked very hard on election reform.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), who has been as strong a voice on behalf of election reform as we have in this country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on House Administration who has worked very hard on this bill for the last 8 months.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has been involved since the very first day of this session and we introduced a bill that was not as comprehensive as this. The gentleman was a sponsor and has worked with us ever since. I thank him for his involvement.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that the objectives of this motion to recommit I think are worthwhile and good, but I want to make the record clear. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have had a colloquy on section 3 of the National Voter Registration Act. It is the committee's view that nothing in this bill changes or diminishes in any way any provision, including provisional voting, of the National Voter Registration Act. In fact, I made it a condition to my participation in the bipartisan bill that that be the case. In addition to that understanding with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and all of us on the committee and the staff, we have contacted the Attorney General's Office and I would include at this point in time in the Record a letter that was received by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and myself on December 10, 2001 from the Assistant Attorney General. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, December 10, 2001. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hoyer: This letter responds to your letter of November 29, 2001 regarding the effect of H.R. 3295. the ``Help America Vote Act,'' upon the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (``NVRA''). Although several provisions in the bill affect the list maintenance provisions in section 8 of the NVRA, it is evident that the bill is not designed to modify the NVRA and, in fact, it does not alter or undermine the NVRA's requirements. Section 903 of the bill itself specifically provides that nothing in H.R. 3295 ``shall supercede, restrict or limit the application of . . . NVRA,'' that nothing in the bill ``authorizes or requires any conduct which is prohibited by the NVRA,'' and that nothing in the bill ``may be construed to affect the application of the . . . NVRA . . . to any State'' (except as specifically provided in the bill). These provisions would guide the Department's enforcement efforts if the bill becomes law. Various parts of the bill reference the NVRA and appear designed to clarify and strengthen enforcement of the NVRA's list maintenance provisions. Section 502(2) would require all 50 States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands to adopt a system of list maintenance ensuring that voter registration lists are accurate and updated regularly, and that removes registrants who are ineligible to vote. Under this system, ``consistent with the [NVRA],'' registrants who have not voted in 2 or more consecutive Federal general elections and who have not responded to a notice would be required to be removed from the list of eligible voters, except that no registrant could be removed solely by reason of failure to vote. This system also would have to have safeguards to ensure that eligible voters were not removed in error. Section 501(a)-(b) would require all States to enact legislation to adopt such a list maintenance system, but properly would leave States discretion as to the specific methods of implementing such a system. Secton 902(a) entitled ``Clarification of ability of election officials to remove registrants . . . on grounds of change of residence,'' would amend the NVRA's existing requirement (at 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(b)(2)) that any general program not result in removal of voters' names due to their ``failure to vote.'' However, the amendment in section 902(a) merely would clarify that nothing in section 19733gg-6(b)(2) was intended to prohibit a State from using the procedures already in sections 1973gg-6(c)-(d) to remove the names of voters who have not voted or have not appeared to vote in two or more consecutive Federal general elections and who have not notified the registrar, or responded to a notice sent by the registrar, that they intend to remain registered in the jurisdiction. As an amendment to the NVRA, this provision would apply only in the 45 jurisdictions covered by the NVRA (44 States and the District of Columbia). In view of the bill's several affirmations that removal of names from voter rolls should be carried out in a manner consistent with the NVRA and in view of the general affirmations in section 903 that the bill will not restrict or limit the NVRA, the bill's list maintenance provisions can and should be read consistently with the NVRA's existing list maintenance procedures, which basically are: section 1973gg- 6(c) suggests the Postal Service National Change of Address program as one example of a means of identifying voters who have become ineligible because they have moved outside the jurisdiction. Section 1973gg-6(d) them provides a confirmation process that States must follow before removing voters identified as potentially ineligible due to having moved. As above, voters may be removed if: (1) they do not respond to the registrar's notice and do not vote or appear to vote in two Federal general elections; or (2) they confirm in writing that they have moved outside the jurisdiction. Many States, following guidance from the Federal Election Commission, legislatively adopted or legislatively revised list maintenance provisions after passage of the NVRA. See, e.g., Ak. Stat. 15.07.130; Fl. Stat. 98.065, 98.075, 98.093; Ga. Stat. 21-2-231 to 21-2-235; Va. Stat. 24.2-427 to 24.2- 428.2. To the extent that the 45 jurisdictions covered by the NVRA have adopted list maintenance programs consistent with 42 U.S.C.. 1973gg-6, we conclude that the new clarifying provisions of section 902(a) of the bill would not require those States to amend their programs. Likewise, State legislation consistent with the NVRA probably would meet the new, less specific, minimum standards for list maintenance required in section 502(2) of H.R. 3295. If this interpretation differs with that of the drafters of the bill, some clarification may be warranted. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no objection to submission of this letter. Sincerely, Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General. Identical letter sent to the Honorable Bob Ney, Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a clarification concerning Section 502(7) on line 16 of H.R. 3295, Union Calendar 201, regarding the term ``error.'' In using the term ``error'', the Committee on House Administration referred to the findings of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, also known as the ``Ford-Carter Commission.'' The Commission's definition of ``error'' is set forth in the accompanying letter from Philip Zelikow, executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, to me and dated November 16, 2001. It responds to a letter sent by me dated November 14, 2001. In complying with the Minimum Standard, the Committee on House Administration expects states and jurisdictions to buy voting machines that detect errors of the kind described in the letter, commonly referred to as ``overvotes,'' ``undervotes,'' and ``residual votes.'' The two letters follow: House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, November 14, 2001. Mr. Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director, The National Commission on Election Reform, Charlottesville, VA. Dear Director Zelikow: In an effort to craft Federal policy addressing electoral reform recommendations contained in the Commission's report, the Commission's use of the word ``error'' has sparked much attention and debate. I would very much appreciate a response containing a definition of what the Commission contemplated in using the word ``error'' in the context of the Ford--Carter Commission report. I will use your letter to establish the legislative record regarding electoral reform legislation. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Steny H. Hoyer.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have come to a time after 11\1/2\ months of work on a bill which, although there is still controversy attached to it, has created, I think, great consensus. That consensus has been articulated on this floor, and that consensus is a conviction that every American ought to be assured the right to vote, full access to the polls and education so they know what they are voting for or against, and assistance in making sure that their vote is accurately cast. In addition, we dedicate resources to ensure that the technology, once that citizen has voted, to make sure that that citizen's vote is correctly counted. As has been said on both sides of the aisle, it is central to democracy that that happen. The former Governor of Delaware, one of our most respected colleagues, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), said it best, that when on election day we vote and Americans go to the polls, both Presidents and paupers go to the polling place, and each will have his or her vote counted, and it will count equally. That is the majesty of America; that is the general use of our democracy. That is central to our philosophy, and it must be our continuing commitment. For when one American's vote is not counted, when one American is prohibited by whatever means from coming to the polls, from casting their ballot, from participating in democracy, we lessen that democracy, and we lessen the promise of our Founding Fathers. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) said it best I think on this floor: ``This bill perhaps is not perfect, but it is,'' as she said, ``a perfect beginning.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Help America Vote Act.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), one of the members of the Committee on House Administration who, as a freshman, was the Democratic leader with the Republican leader that worked together on election reform. He has been one of the most tenacious and effective advocates of meaningful election reform.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield 1 minute to one of my very good friends in this House, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who represents so ably South Florida, a former member of the State Senate.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), one of our most distinguished members, a professor of political science, the author of many books on politics, who probably understands the election system as well as any of us. (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's request for clarification. I want to say emphatically, nothing in this bill defines anyone's home, nor do we interpret in any way a home as being included as a polling place with the intention of stopping or curbing absentee and at-home voting. In recognition of Oregon's all-mail voting law, the bill exempted Oregon and other States with all-mail voting from the provisional voting requirements applicable to polling places. So nothing in this bill should be of concern to your State's all-mail voting process.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the former Speaker of the House in Maryland. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).