[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.]