    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    MARKUP OF H.R. 5803; H.R. 5893, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SOUND RECORDING AND
    FILM PRESERVATION PROGRAMS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 5972,
      U.S. CAPITOL POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2008

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                      HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 7, 2008

                                   __________

          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

    43-592 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2008

    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              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                     S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
                     Will Plaster, Minority Staff Director

                 MARKUP OF H.R. 5803, H.R. 5893, AND H.R. 5972

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:05 p.m., in room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez,
    Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy.
        Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Thomas Hicks,
    Senior Election Counsel; Michael Harrison, Professional Staff;
    Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff; Janelle Hu, Election
    Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus,
    Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press
    Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Daniel
    Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Gregory Abbott,
    Policy Analyst; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Gineen
    Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Ashley Stow, Minority
    Election Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional
    Staff.
        The Chairman.  I would like to call the Committee on House
    Administration to order.
        Before we move to the first order of business, I would like
    to announce I received a communication from Representative Vern
    Buchanan, relating to a request for reimbursement for expenses
    incurred in the recent election contest in the 13th District of
    Florida. I am referring that communication to the task force
    chaired by Representative Gonzalez. The text of that
    communication will appear at this point in the record.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman.  The first item of business is H.R. 5803,
    introduced by Vice Chairwoman Lofgren, a bill directing the
    Election Assistance Commission to establish a grant program to
    reimburse State and local elected officials for the cost of
    making backup paper ballots available in case of machine
    failure or other emergency situations.
        Rather than make an opening statement, I would like to
    recognize Ms. Lofgren to explain the bill.
        Ms. Lofgren.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I introduced H.R. 5803 at the request of election advocates
    and election officials as a simple solution to deal with some
    of the problems jurisdictions may face on Election Day. The
    bill provides reimbursement through grants to jurisdictions
    that choose to provide backup paper ballots in the event of
    voting machine failure or some other emergency situation for
    the November, 2008 election.
        The language in the legislation has been crafted, at the
    request of the State and locals, to allow them to decide what
    constitutes an emergency situation. This could mean anything
    from machine failure to long lines to problems with polling
    place staffing. It is fully up to the jurisdiction to determine
    what justifies the use of backup paper ballots and how to
    distribute them.
        As the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers stated on the floor
    several weeks back in reference to voting machines, ``As long
    as people are involved in operating, there are likely to be
    mistakes.'' All this bill does is allow jurisdictions to have a
    contingency plan, backup paper ballots, in case there are
    mistakes by poll workers or another cause, and to determine
    when and how to implement that plan.
        Another provision included in the legislation allows the
    jurisdiction to determine when and how the backup paper ballots
    are distributed to voters. It also allows them to decide how
    voters are notified that they could be voting on a backup paper
    ballot.
        The bill has been drafted in full cooperation with the
    National Conference of State Legislators and the National
    Association of County Officials. These organizations have
    submitted letters of support for H.R. 5803, as has Ohio
    Secretary of State Brunner, and she called it ``meaningful and
    respectful of State authority in election administration
    matters,'' and I would request unanimous consent to submit
    these letters for the record.
        The Chairman.  So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren.  The bill is supported by a myriad of election
    integrity groups, including People for the American Way, the
    Brennan Center, the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights, Verified
    Vote, and Counted as Cast. I would like to ask unanimous
    consent to submit their letters of support for the record as
    well.
        The Chairman.  Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren.  Additionally, input was provided by
    disability rights groups, who have told us that the bill has no
    impact on the disability community, and they have approved the
    language. As we have seen, broad support for election-related
    legislation is not easy to accomplish. However, backup paper
    ballots are a unifying factor between election officials and
    election advocates.
        On the floor during the debate of H.R. 5036, our colleague
    from Ohio, Mr. Regula, stated, ``The administration of
    elections is a State and local responsibility,'' and the
    minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri, said, ``The States have
    handled the responsibility of the mechanics of election
    administration well for a very long time.''
        H.R. 5803 is a direct reflection of these statements. It is
    100 percent optional, and the responsibility and mechanisms for
    implementation are left to the State and local officials. The
    bill is a measured and proactive step towards improving the
    system of election administration in November of 2008. If
    record turnouts in the primaries are an indication of turnout
    in November, providing State and local jurisdictions the option
    to have backup paper ballots could mitigate any challenges they
    may face on Election Day.
        The bill helps ensure election integrity and national
    electoral confidence and respects State and local
    jurisdictions' responsibility to administer elections, and I
    hope that we can have bipartisan support for this bill.
        I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Thank you.
        I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        While I appreciate the effort of my colleague on this
    committee and I appreciate any effort to support States in
    carrying out the responsibilities to effectively administer
    Federal elections, I believe this bill provides a solution to a
    nonexistent problem.
        She was kind enough to quote me. I would point out that
    people not only make mistakes in the machines, they also make
    mistakes on paper ballots and I have backup evidence that would
    show that.
        Another problem: This bill would provide a staggering $75
    million in grants to States for offering backup ballots to
    voters during emergency situations when, in fact, most States
    already do this. That is my biggest problem with this. Once
    again, we are trying to tell local governments, city clerks,
    county clerks, township clerks that we want them to do
    something when, to the best of my knowledge, most of them are
    doing it. I think we are insulting them by saying, ``This is
    the way we want you to do it.'' In my experience in local
    government, they provided backup ballots in every precinct.
        There was a survey done just recently by the Election
    Center; 39 of the 42 States that responded currently provide
    paper backup ballots in the event of machine failures. So
    virtually all of them are already doing this. I am not sure why
    we have to specify just how they have to do it. Furthermore, I
    am not sure why we have to pay for it if they are already doing
    it out of their own pockets.
        The other factor that is striking here is that the $75
    million presupposes that every precinct would print backup
    ballots for every precinct. A much easier and certainly far
    cheaper solution would be just to require that every precinct
    has one backup ballot, as needed, and they simply make
    photocopies. If they have to have an enumeration scheme, the
    clerks or the poll workers can easily write the number in by
    hand, if necessary. That is certainly a thriftier and better
    way to do it than spending $75 million.
        Our recent hearings have revealed the need for more voter
    education and poll worker training. And Representative McCarthy
    also introduced the Military Voting Protection Act, which will
    help ensure timely delivery of overseas military absentee
    ballots. All of these are good ideas and certainly, I think,
    are a higher priority than this bill proposes in terms of money
    spent.
        Incidentally, I had hoped that the voting bill for the
    military personnel would be taken up today. I hope it will be
    taken up soon.
        We talk a lot here about the environment and greening of
    the Capitol, greening of the Nation. Clearly, it is better to
    not use more paper than we need, and I think simply having
    sample ballots and photocopying is better than printing
    multiple ballots, which in many cases would not be used.
        Mr. Chairman, I do ask that the survey I mentioned be
    entered into the record.
        The Chairman.  Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers.  The final point I want to make is, although I
    cannot support this bill, I remain committed to working across
    party lines to find solutions to the challenges our Nation's
    election administrators face. I look forward to continuing our
    discussions on this important topic.
        I really believe what we should do after the elections this
    year--and I think it is really too late to do anything, and I
    am not sure the Senate will entertain any further bills from
    us, but I really would like to see next year that we really
    start a series of hearings on HAVA, where it has worked well,
    where it has not worked, what changes we might have to make;
    and I think the very first witness we should invite on that
    would be Leader Hoyer because he was the driving force behind
    that bill and did a great deal of the work on preparing the
    bill. I am certain he would be interested in providing his
    input and also his evaluation of any of the things we are
    trying to do.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman.  I thank the gentleman.
        I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 5803.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman.  Without objection, the first reading of the
    bill will be dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will
    be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        Is there any debate on the bill?
        Are there any amendments to the bill?
        Mr. Ehlers.  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
        The Chairman.  You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ehlers.  I have several amendments, Mr. Chair.
        The first one, this amendment will limit the use of grants
    provided in this bill to the creation of a single copy of an
    original paper backup ballot per polling place to be used in
    the event of a failure of a voting system or voting equipment
    on Election Day and in accordance with predetermined
    contingency plans of the affected State or locality.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers.  My rationale is simply that it is not the
    proper role of the Federal Government to pay for preprinting
    backup ballots. Most units of government already do this. It is
    fiscally and environmentally irresponsible for us to pay for
    all the printing of paper ballots. We should say we would do
    the one and photocopy the rest. If necessary, we can pay for
    the photocopying.
        So I offer this amendment and urge its passage.
        The Chairman.  Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren.  I would urge the committee to reject this
    amendment. I think the amendment really defeats the purpose of
    the bill, which is to provide funding to localities to ensure
    enough backup ballots are on hand to allow voters the
    opportunity to cast ballots if machines malfunction or if there
    are other emergency situations.
        I would note, as for the cost that Mr. Ehlers referred to
    in his opening statement, there is an authorized amount of $75
    million in this bill. I would note, according to the
    Congressional Research Service, the United States is currently
    expending $14.1 million an hour in Iraq. $14.1 million an hour.
    So the cost, even if we were to fully fund this--and this is
    just an authorization--is really an afternoon in Iraq and, I
    think, a small price to pay to defend the integrity of the
    American electoral system.
        So I would urge defeat of this bill, and I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Anybody else?
        Mr. Lungren.  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
    amendment, and basically, just to respond to some of the
    comments that were just made, the assumption is that only we,
    the Federal Government, somehow protect the rights of
    individuals in voting, as if no one else does.
        There has been no proven--no record that this bill is
    necessary. A survey of the States shows, I believe, all but
    three take care of this on their own. And this is, once again,
    a suggestion that if it is a serious or important problem, it
    therefore has to be a Federal problem, which is contrary,
    frankly, to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But we have
    forgotten that so very, very much. Once again, we are giving
    the answer to the locals.
        And you say you had the support of organizations. Well, of
    course; you are going to give them $75 million. I have rarely
    found a local jurisdiction, governor, or anybody else who is
    going to turn down what they consider to be free money. The
    only problem is, money isn't free. It comes from somewhere. It
    comes from our constituents.
        I guess we are going to hear the mantra now that any time
    we object to any spending whatsoever, we are going to compare
    it to an afternoon in Iraq. So I guess we are prepared. Maybe
    we can just say ``ditto'' from now on when that argument is
    going to come up.
        I would hope that we could support the gentleman's
    amendment, which seems to be just a reasonable and relatively
    small amendment to this bill that moves slightly in the
    direction of fiscal sanity.
        So I thank the gentleman for introducing the amendment, but
    I can count the number of people here so I think I know the
    outcome of the amendment.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman.  Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Mr. Chairman, I can count the number of people
    too, but I know many of them are extremely intelligent
    individuals and will vote their conscience on this.
        Mr. Lungren.  I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
        Mr. Ehlers.  I recognize that.
        My response to the point made is, this is simply a cost-
    saving item. The paper ballots will still be there if there is
    an emergency. They would have access to a Xerox machine or copy
    machine. There would be very little cost other than the cost of
    paper.
        The main thing is, you do it only in those cases where you
    need it. You wouldn't print ballots nationwide for all these
    different races and have them on hand, and at the end throw
    them in the recycling bin at considerable expense. So it is
    really a cost-saving amendment. It is not intended to dilute
    the purpose of the bill at all.
        Yield back.
        The Chairman.  Now it is my turn to count them.
        The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment to H.R. 5803. All
    those in favor, say aye.
        Any opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        I recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment No. 2.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This amendment simply establishes a population-based
    formula for the distribution of any and all funds appropriated
    for the implementation of the grant program established under
    this legislation, and this just makes certain that the Election
    Assistance Commission exercises proper discretion in the
    administration of the program without getting into a type of
    system that might select winners and losers among the States.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers.  So it simply deals with the allocation formula
    and trying to ensure a population-based formula as developed by
    the Election Assistance Commission.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Would anybody like to be recognized?
        Ms. Lofgren.  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on
    the proposed amendment. In addition to the population-based
    grant allocation, the amendment would provide funding to States
    only and not to local jurisdictions.
        States actually may decide to initiate a backup paper
    ballot program statewide. But if a State does not, local
    jurisdictions under the bill would still be able to opt into
    the program.
        States and local jurisdictions under the bill should be
    able to independently determine how to administer the backup
    paper ballot program, and the authorized funding should provide
    sufficient funding for the opt-in program.
        The bill has been carefully negotiated with both State and
    local government organizations, and I think this amendment
    would do damage to the balance that has been struck.
        So I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers.  If I may just respond, Mr. Chairman, the
    actual intent of the bill is to make sure that the local units
    get the money and that it is not just all given to the State,
    and they allocate it as they wish.
        So if you read the language carefully, it talks about the
    participating units of local government that expect to have the
    amount of the reasonable costs which all participating units of
    local government expect to incur in carrying out such programs.
        So it is not intended to do as the gentlewoman suggested.
    And I urge adoption of the amendment.
        The Chairman.  Anybody else want to be heard on the
    amendment?
        The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment No. 2 to H.R.
    5803. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Ehlers amendment No. 3. I recognize the gentleman.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
    directs the Election Assistance Commission's Standards Board to
    determine ``reasonable cost,'' as used in this legislation.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers.  The rationale is very straightforward. This
    amendment ensures that experienced election administrators with
    representation from all States promote uniformity among the
    reasonable costs for which reimbursement is sought under this
    program.
        I believe it is, again, a worthwhile amendment and will
    help with the efficiency.
        Let me emphasize, these are not amendments intended to harm
    the base bill--I have already expressed my opinion on that--but
    simply trying to make it better and more readily administered.
        So I yield back.
        The Chairman.  I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren.  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the amendment
    be defeated. The language in the bill currently allows State
    and local jurisdictions to receive funds based on their
    expectations of reasonable costs.
        The EAC Standards Board is made up of 110 people; 55 of
    those 110 are State and local officials. The commissioners
    typically draw upon the expertise of the Standards Board
    anyway, and I don't think this amendment really serves any
    purpose or improves the bill.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Anybody else want to be heard on the
    amendment?
        The question is Mr. Ehlers' amendment No. 3 on H.R. 5803.
    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.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Mr. Chairman, I may have to withdraw my
    statement earlier about the obvious intelligence of the members
    of the panel, but I won't. I still believe it to be true.
        The Chairman.  With that, I recognize Mr. Lungren for
    amendment No. 1.
        Mr. Lungren.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        My amendment is a simple amendment that tries to maintain
    the balance that was established in HAVA; and in HAVA, the
    right of action is with the DOJ, rather than private rights of
    action, and it is unclear under this bill whether that would be
    retained without my amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren.  My amendment simply says nothing in the act,
    including any triggering events such as a failure of a voting
    system or voting equipment or some other emergency situation,
    shall be construed to create a private right of action for any
    individual or create the right for any other class of
    individuals.
        I presume we are not trying to change the basic structure
    that was established under HAVA, and for that reason I have
    included this amendment. I hope it is noncontroversial.
        Ms. Lofgren.  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on
    the proposed amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. There is
    no private right of action created by this bill. It is simply a
    grant program to permit States to have the option of providing
    emergency paper ballots and then to receive reimbursement.
        There is no requirement that emergency ballots be provided,
    there is no requirement that States and locals opt in, and
    there is no need for this amendment.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Any other discussion on the amendment?
        The question is on Mr. Lungren's amendment to H.R. 5803.
    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.
        Mr. McCarthy, do you have an amendment?
        Mr. McCarthy.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess we will
    stick with tradition here.
        My amendment would restrict the eligibility for funds
    provided under this legislation to those jurisdictions that
    require a voter to provide a photo identification or HAVA form
    of identification as a condition of casting the ballot in an
    election for Federal office. It will only apply to those that
    are going after the money.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. One clarification, Mr. McCarthy. Were
    you offering your voter ID amendment or the second amendment
    first?
        Mr. McCarthy. I apologize because on mine it says McCarthy
    amendment No. 1. We might have different numbers.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I wanted to speak to the voter ID
    one, but that is not the one you just referenced.
        Mr. McCarthy. No, this is the voter ID, 2-page amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama.  Thank you.
        The only reason, Mr. McCarthy, I wanted to speak to this is
    because I do think that, frankly, this is the most substantive
    of the amendments that deals with an issue which obviously is
    very timely right now. I am opposed to the amendment, but I
    will tell you at the outset, I have, maybe, a little bit of a
    different perspective on the issue than some people do on my
    side of the aisle.
        My election to Congress, as you may know, was against an
    incumbent Democrat whom I defeated in the primary; and he won
    his seat because he achieved the remarkable feat of going from
    160 votes in a primary to 16,000 votes in a runoff in one
    county. He received 160 in Lowndes County, Alabama, and then in
    the runoff. I doubt that was attributable solely to effective
    voter turnout on his part.
        I do recognize the problem of absentee ballot fraud, or
    fraud that occurs at the polls. But I would go back to
    something Mr. Lungren I thought, said, very eloquently when he
    was referring to one of Mr. Ehlers' earlier amendments; and he
    said something to the effect that we ought to be mindful of the
    proposition that if something is a problem, that it
    automatically means it has to have a Federal solution. It is a
    reasonably good instinct.
        Because that is a reasonably good instinct, I don't know
    that we need to federalize voter ID standards in the limited
    context of this bill or, frankly, in any other context. If
    States want to follow the Supreme Court's ruling last week,
    that is up to them, their political prerogative's to do so.
        I will give you one example of how I think the process
    should work. In Alabama, we actually have a strong voter ID
    law. The way we got it, though, wasn't through Federal dictates
    or even through the courts. We got it because of a compromise
    between the legislators.
        One group of legislators very strongly wanted to liberalize
    standards for convicted felons voting. Another group, on the
    other political divide, wanted to strengthen voter ID
    standards. So they reached a compromise. Because of that, many
    people who were previously disenfranchised because of their
    previous convictions for nonviolent crimes can now vote in
    Alabama. But as the tradeoff for that, we have a stronger voter
    ID law.
        In other words, there was bargaining. There was political
    discussion back and forth. Frankly, that kind of federalism is
    something we ought to promote instead of, in this context or
    any other, dictating voter ID standard.
        I yield back my time. I will yield to Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren.  Like you, I think this amendment should be
    defeated. This is a simple bill that provides for a need, but I
    would just like to note that subsequent to this bill moving
    forward legislatively, I would like to discuss with Mr.
    McCarthy--I mean, he is essentially suggesting that we should
    require States to comply with HAVA in their Federal ID efforts,
    and I think that is something worth exploring in the future,
    not as part of this simple bill. But it may be that we can find
    some common ground on that as we continue this hearing.
        Mr. McCarthy.  Would you yield for 1 second? Who controls
    the time?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama.  I will yield.
        Mr. McCarthy.  I appreciate both your comments because what
    I think this amendment does is, it actually does a little of
    what you are both saying because this is not mandating to every
    State. You have had a Supreme Court decision already, so we no
    longer have that question.
        This is saying, if the State wants to go after this grant,
    which you are going to hold Federal elections in, you are
    eligible to have it. The only thing we say, since this is
    Federal money we are providing, these are Federal offices, we
    want to strengthen even what HAVA has already said, or actually
    do what HAVA says to do.
        So I am not mandating in all the States. The State has the
    choice, pay for it themselves; but if they would like to, apply
    for a grant. Before here, I belonged to a lot of nonprofits,
    and when we applied for a grant, there was requirement of what
    you had to do with that money.
        So I don't think it is too far for us, when we have already
    laid out what HAVA is, to say, Here's grant money, take it if
    you would like it; but if you like it, we are going to stick to
    our requirements of what we have said earlier that this body
    would do. Because, yes, you do go in and you vote in Federal
    offices; and yes, the Supreme Court has already ruled and made
    that it was constitutional. So I am not mandating on every
    State.
        So I agree with what Mr. Lungren said earlier, but I do
    believe this is a small step, and at times you can look at this
    from maybe a position of you, Mr. Davis, this could actually be
    a little test pattern, and it would engage States to have that
    discussion.
        In your State, you had the discussion about felons being
    able to vote. Other States may not even have taken that up, so
    they may not have the ability to have that discussion. This may
    actually bring the individuals together to start having the
    debate, without mandating it.
        So I think, from all perspectives, looking at all our
    different ideas, that this actually starts that and could move
    it forward.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Lofgren.  If Mr. Davis would just yield briefly,
    further, I would ask unanimous consent that an Associated Press
    article be submitted into the record. I just think the Supreme
    Court noted there has been no evidence of fraud to justify the
    ID requirement, although they did not intervene at that point
    in the case.
        Apparently, the big losers in terms of not being able to
    vote because of the ID requirement in Indiana were the Catholic
    nuns at St. Mary's Convent in South Bend, Indiana.
        The Chairman.  Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCarthy.  If you would just yield for 1 second, I did
    read that article, but the only thing I would say, my son is 14
    years old, and I had to take my Pacific Gas and Energy bill, my
    electric bill, down to the high school to sign him up.
        To get on an airplane every day, I show an ID as well.
    Having been a part of this committee prior to a member, where I
    went to Lumberton, North Carolina, I went out to California on
    these contested races, I can show you time and time again where
    voter fraud has taken place.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. If the gentleman would yield for 1
    second. We, in different interest groups, can argue back and
    forth. My proposition is that it does take place.
        But where I disagree with you I think is, the entity and
    the jurisdiction in the best position to determine how big a
    problem it is, is almost certainly the State. It is not the
    Federal Government.
        I take your broader point, but as we all know, in effect,
    the jurisdictional hook for this committee doing anything in
    this area is the fact that they are getting Federal money. I
    would necessarily add to that a substantive argument that it is
    a good thing for them to do it and a constraint we ought to put
    on them.
        If States want to have voter ID laws, actually I think
    Alabama's voter ID law is a good one, and I support it. But if
    States want to have these laws, that ought to be their
    political choice and ought to flow out of their bargaining as a
    result of federalism. And I absolutely agree with Ms. Lofgren's
    point that there is very little evidence that would allow
    Congress to make a finding of fact that this is a national
    problem that entitles us to act, when States have chosen not to
    act.
        I think both you and Mr. Lungren are principled
    conservatives. I would hope you would agree with me that if
    there is no strong congressional finding of a pervasiveness of
    a problem, we ought to let the States act.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman.  Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just one clarification: There are two means of becoming
    eligible for the funds, one is a photo identification, which
    everyone has been discussing, but it also says ``or other HAVA-
    compliant form of identification.''
        So this amendment does not in any way require a photo ID.
    It simply says that is one of the two methods of satisfying the
    requirement.
        I urge adoption of the amendment, and yield back.
        The Chairman.  Any more debate on the amendment?
        Mr. Lungren.  Move to strike the last word.
        First of all, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman
    from Alabama. I just wish, in addition to agreeing with me, he
    might vote with me occasionally. That would be appreciated.
        The gentlelady caused me to respond because she referred to
    South Bend, Indiana, the home of my sainted alma mater, Notre
    Dame, and the Catholic nuns there.
        Look, I hear this argument all the time, that there is no
    proof that fraud takes place that would require us to require
    IDs. As attorney general of the State of California, I
    established a task force to deal with the problems of voter
    fraud. The problem is, it is so difficult to prove after the
    fact.
        Some of the steps that have been taken in the past to try
    and alert people to the fact that they shouldn't vote if they
    don't have a right to vote have been abused such that they
    appear to be efforts to suppress voter turnout of people who
    otherwise would be eligible.
        Given the fact that you have those two problems, we need to
    do something to establish a means by which we can deter illegal
    conduct, because if someone votes who doesn't have a right to
    vote, they are taking your vote away as surely as if they do
    not allow you to go to the polling place.
        Having gone through this for a number of years and having
    tried to see what we could do to get at the problem of voter
    fraud, I can just tell you, without additional means that allow
    us to somehow deter that illegal conduct and then to prosecute
    it, we will never get at that problem. And so while it is easy
    to say that there is no proof of fraud, it is, in fact, part of
    the problem that proof is so difficult.
        And yet, as the gentleman from Alabama has said, I think it
    stretches credulity to believe that there aren't people out
    there who would take advantage of a system in an illegal way
    for their own benefit, when they know it is so difficult under
    current standards and current laws to prove when they have
    acted in that illegal fashion.
        So I just would relate that because I keep hearing this
    statement at this committee and in other places that there is
    no proof. We have had dogs and cats voting in California, or
    registered to vote; we have had dead people registered to vote.
    The problem is, it is so difficult to prove it after the fact.
        Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Ehlers. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is a
    considerable amount of fraud that takes place. It is not only
    hard to prove, it is hard to detect.
        But at the same time, it is very important to take whatever
    means we can to deal with the problem. I have always said, if
    any State requires a photo ID, or if we would ever require one
    federally, we should be certain to provide the funds for anyone
    who has difficulty proving their citizenship or proving their
    birth in this country or whatever, that that should be the
    responsibility of the government in establishing the photo ID,
    to help them in that and pay for it so that we don't
    inadvertently exclude anyone.
        I was at the Lumberton, North Carolina, hearing, as was Mr.
    McCarthy; and it was very clear from the testimony that there
    was considerable fraud in that particular election. It does
    take place, and it won't disappear just by naming it. But you
    do have to specifically identify it as it is occurring.
        What particularly bothered me in another contested case I
    was on is that the people voting illegally did not know they
    were voting illegally. These were undocumented aliens who had
    been told by certain groups that, Yes, it is fine; if you are
    living in this country, all you have to do is sign this card,
    you will be registered to vote and you can legally vote. It is
    a terrible risk to the individuals who voted because they could
    be deported immediately for doing that.
        So it is not so much the individual voters I worry about,
    it is the groups who manipulate voters and persuade them to do
    something improperly.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
        I don't want to unduly delay this, but I will just note
    that the Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberality, noted
    that there is virtually no evidence of fraud in voting in the
    United States. They noted further that the motivations for
    these voter ID laws were, in all likelihood, partisan. They
    declined to intervene in the Indiana case at that stage of the
    proceedings.
        I am disappointed by the decision, although I do understand
    it. I just can't leave these statements out there unrefuted,
    because they are so preposterous.
        I would yield to my colleague, Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren.
        I guess the response is, you keep hearing there is no
    evidence of fraud, and I know you seized on that particular
    thing; but I know that there is evidence of disenfranchisement.
    We know that for certain.
        And I know there's reports about nuns not being able to
    vote in the Indiana primary yesterday and so on. I know that in
    Texas there are certain difficulties regarding producing
    certain documentation. So we do know that occurs.
        So the question will always be--there is no doubt that
    there has to be instances of fraud in any human endeavor; the
    question really is, Do those benefits really outweigh the
    costs? And it's not just potential costs. We know it's out
    there.
        The other thing I will say, I think we do have to have a
    good-faith debate on identifying how difficult it is to obtain
    the required documentation that the different ID laws require.
    We really are not certain about that percentage of the
    population that would find it very hard.
        I know--my mother never drove a car. And until she went to
    the retirement home--I guess, my father passed away 7 years
    ago, and that is when she went--she really did not have an ID.
        Now, she does not have a utility bill. She doesn't pay
    utilities. I am not even sure if she has the phone bill in her
    name or whatever. If it wasn't for my sister that took her down
    to the Department of Public Safety and got her a photo ID--she
    now has a photo ID.
        So it is possible, and I understand that; but there are
    many, many individuals, maybe not as fortunate as my mother,
    residing in the community that she does, and in having children
    that have the time and such to do what they did with mom.
        So it is out there. I think we can enter that debate at a
    future date.
        I will say this, though, for the lawyers that are here
    today. The Supreme Court decision is not the last time it is
    going to be looking at voter ID laws. We know that the very
    basis for that lawsuit and the way it went up, but I venture to
    guess, when you do have the disenfranchised voter population in
    specific cases, you will go back up for review. I think it even
    hints at that. So I don't think the debate is totally over.
        I don't believe this is the time. I don't think the
    amendment is the vehicle. And of course, I would intend on
    opposing the amendment.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Lofgren. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The question is on the amendment. All those
    in favor of Mr. McCarthy's amendment No. 1 to H.R. 5803,
    signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed, signify by no.
        Mr. Ehlers. Recorded vote.
        The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
    it.
        A recorded voted is requested. Would the Clerk please call
    the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [no response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. No.
        The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes are 3,
    the noes are 5, and the amendment fails.
        Mr. McCarthy, amendment No. 2.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This amendment is actually pretty simple. It simply states
    that it puts the jurisdictions on notice that this program has
    not been funded.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCarthy. In essence what it says is, this amendment
    conditions the creation of this grant program when the funds
    are appropriate. So no one goes out and spends the effort if
    the funds are not there.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
    The grant program is completely optional and therefore might
    not require the full $75 million that is authorized.
        We almost never, and we should not in this case, have a
    program that States and locals are interested in be contingent
    upon appropriations. Congress often appropriates less than the
    full amount that is authorized. If funding is made available,
    States and locals should be able to apply for reimbursement.
        I think that the amendment does nothing to assist.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Would you yield, Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. I would yield.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I would be happy to apply the
    standards in No Child Left Behind, if you want to extend it.
        Mr. McCarthy. I would be glad. I wasn't here during No
    Child Left Behind. But knowing the study of what has gone on
    with HAVA and knowing where States are, I think this is a very
    good standard to have.
        And lots of times they see a bill out there, and these
    States think there is going to be money for it. I just believe
    in making sure we have the money there before someone puts up
    the work, because I hate to see people do work and not get the
    money.
        The Chairman. The question is on the amendment No. 2 to
    H.R. 5803. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
          Mr. Ehlers. Recorded vote.
        The Chairman. A recorded vote is requested.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [no response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. No.
        The Chairman. The noes are 5, the ayes are 3; the amendment
    fails.
        The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman for the purpose
    of offering a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 5803
    favorably to the House.
        The Chairman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
          Mr. Ehlers. Recorded vote.
        The Chairman. Ask the Clerk for a recorded vote.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [no response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Aye.
        The Chairman. The ayes are 5, the nays are 3, and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion is considered laid upon the
    table and the bill, reported to the House. Members will have
    two additional days provided by the House to file views if
    requested. Without objection, the staff are authorized to make
    technical and conforming changes to H.R. 5803.
        Mr. Ehlers. Minority views?
        The Chairman. Members will have two additional days
    provided by the House rules for minority views.
        Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make
    technical and conforming changes to H.R. 5803.
        The next bill on the agenda the committee will consider
    today is H.R. 5893, to reauthorize the sound recording and film
    preservation programs of the Library of Congress.
        This important bill, the Library of Congress Sound
    Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of
    2008, would reauthorize through 2017 the Library of Congress
    Sound and Film Preservation Board. I introduced this bill after
    discussions with the Library of Congress and other interested
    parties regarding the need for reauthorization of these
    programs.
        The National Film Preservation Board was created in 1988 to
    address the rapid deterioration of important films. The Film
    Preservation Board is responsible for identifying and
    preserving films that are ``culturally, historically, or
    aesthetically significant.'' Up to 25 films per year are then
    preserved for future viewing. Along with the National Film
    Preservation Foundation, the Film Preservation Board ensures
    that all generations from all over the world will be able to
    view these remarkable films and feel their power firsthand.
        Building on the success of the Film Preservation Board, the
    National Recording Preservation Board, created by the National
    Recording Preservation Act of 2000, is one piece of a three-
    tiered system that ensures the preservation of culturally
    significant sound recordings. There are currently 225 entries
    in the National Recording Registry, and that number will only
    continue to grow. From music to historical speeches, the
    Recording Preservation Board makes certain that future
    generations can experience these historically important and
    powerful sounds.
        It is necessary that we reauthorize the Recording and Film
    Boards to allow them to continue their vital mission and to see
    to it that all those who come after us will be able to listen
    and witness those sounds and sights that are essential to our
    national heritage.
        I would now like to recognize our ranking member for an
    opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I totally agree with the bill and I have a written
    statement here which, in the interest of time, I will enter
    into the record.
        Just let me say I am very pleased with the Library of
    Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation Program. It
    certainly has to be reauthorized, and they are doing a great
    service to the Nation.
        Frankly, I am worried about the expense. I would love to
    have the movie industry contribute substantially to the
    preservation of the films that they have made a lot of money
    on.
        But that is a separate issue. I just wanted to get that
    comment on the record.
        With that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay
    before the committee the bill H.R. 5893. Without objection, the
    bill is considered as having been read and without objection
    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. I have a minor amendment to correct a
    drafting error to ensure that both programs are reauthorized
    for the same period of time. Without objection, the amendment
    is considered and read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any debate?
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment. It brings
    everything into conformity. I urge the adoption of the
    amendment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
    Thank you.
        Is there any additional debate? Any additional amendments?
        If not, I move that the committee report H.R. 5893, as
    amended, favorably to the House. The question is on the motion.
    All those in favor, signify by saying ``aye.''
        Those opposed ``no.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, The motion
    is agreed to. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table
    and the bill will be reported to the House. Without objection,
    the staff are authorized to make such technical and conforming
    changes to H.R. 5893 as may be required to reflect the actions
    of the committee.
        The Chairman. The last item on today's agenda is H.R. 5972,
    the U.S. Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections
    Act of 2008. This bill was introduced by me, with Ranking
    Member Mr. Ehlers and the chairman of the Capitol Security
    Subcommittee as original cosponsors.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. As the title suggests, H.R. 5972 does not
    make substantive policy changes for the Capitol Police, but
    rather, the bill corrects drafting errors, modernizes outdated
    terminology, and repeals duplicated and inconsistent provisions
    already on the books.
        My favorite is the long-overdue repeal of an 1868 law
    requiring Capitol Police officers to pay for their own
    uniforms. Congress decided years ago to provide uniforms, but
    failed to repeal the 1868 law.
        Chief Morse requested most of these corrections, and the
    committee staff found a few others. We have amended language to
    address key concerns of the ranking member, the gentleman from
    Michigan; and I understand the ranking member is interested in
    further legislation affecting the Police Board, and I would be
    happy to work with him, and in the future, on all matters
    before us.
        I am aware of no other controversy, and urge the committee
    to support the bill.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, it is a good bill and I appreciate your support of
    an effort to continue to look at the governance of the police,
    and particularly the board; and I look forward to working with
    you on that.
        Again, to save time, I will move that my complete statement
    be entered into the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Ehlers. I just have one other comment. I think the fact
    that we had to do this points out part of the problem we have
    had historically, that the appropriations subcommittee dealing
    with responsibilities of this committee has too often
    introduced laws and passed them without referring them through
    this committee, and that has resulted in a lot of the
    discrepancies that we are trying to straighten out in this
    bill.
        I think we would do much better if all the legislation
    governing it came through the authorizing committee and not
    through the appropriating committee. So I just wanted to say
    that on the record, too.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any further opening remarks on the measure?
        If not, the Chair now lays before the committee the bill
    H.R. 5972 to make technical corrections to the laws affecting
    certain administrative authorities of the United States Capitol
    Police, and for other purposes, which is now before the
    members.
        Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and
    open to amendment at any point. Is there any debate? Are there
    any amendments?
        There are no amendments. I move that the Committee report
    H.R. 5972 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
    motion is agreed to. Without objection, a motion to reconsider
    is laid upon the table.
        Members will have the 2 additional days to provided under
    the rules of the House to file views.
        Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make
    such technical and conforming changes as may be required to
    reflect the actions of the committee.
        There being no further business, the committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]