[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF SEVERAL BILLS
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 10, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http: //www.access.gpo.gov /congress /senate /senate05sh.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2009
52-325
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (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 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Professional Staff
S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H.R. 1196, H.R. 2510, H.R. 1604, H.R. 512, H.R. 2728, H.R.
1752, H.R. 2185,
H. CON. RES. 135, H. CON. RES. 131, AND A RESOLUTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a.m., in Room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives, Brady, Lofgren, Capuano,
Gonzalez, Davis of California, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper.
Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Jamie Fleet,
Deputy Staff Director; Charlie Howell, Chief Counsel; Tom
Hicks, Senior Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional
Staff/Parliamentarian; Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff; Kyle
Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative
Clerk; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; Peter
Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin Moore, Minority
Legislative Counsel; Alec Hoppes, Minority Professional Staff;
and Salley Collins, Minority Press Secretary.
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration to order. I would like to thank everybody here
and ask for your indulgence. I am going to jump around a little
bit from the order. So if I appear confused, it is because I
am, and I have to blame the people behind me. And so we are
going to start with H.R. 2510.
I have no opening statement. And I would like to ask Mr.
McCarthy if he would like to say anything.
Mr. McCarthy. In the pursuit of time, no, I am good.
The Chairman. Okay. Good. H.R. 2510, the Absentee Ballot
Track, Receive, and Confirm Act.
This bill will give grants to States to establish absentee
ballot tracking systems. The program is completely voluntary.
It will improve transparency and voter confidence by allowing
voters to receive accurate and updated information on the
status of their ballot. Voters could determine whether ballots
were counted by checking on line or calling by a 1-800 phone
number. In fact, a few States, including California and Kansas,
have already set up an effective tracking system, with minimal
start-up costs.
In the long run, election officials can save time and money
as they field fewer phone calls from voters inquiring about
status of absentee ballots.
I would like to now recognize the bill's sponsor,
Representative Susan Davis, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Davis of California. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Lungren. I certainly
appreciate your including H.R. 2510, the Absentee Ballot Track,
Receive, and Confirm, or the TRAC Act, in today's markup. As
you know, Mr. McCarthy and I have really worked closely
together on H.R. 2510, and I certainly appreciate my California
colleague's input, additions, and support of this important
legislation.
As you, I think, initially alluded to, and to give a few
more details, the bill is modeled on a successful piece of
California legislation that allows voters to go on line or call
a phone number to easily find out whether an elections office
has sent out a ballot, whether a completed ballot has arrived
back at the registrar's office, and whether the registrar has
actually counted the ballot, and if not, why not.
In San Diego County, over 98,000 voters checked their
ballot status on line last November. A lot of people out there
want to know. And that is what this is all about. Tracking
gives voters more access and takes a burden off the phone lines
at election offices. And tracking is particularly useful for
men and women in uniform serving overseas.
The TRAC Act would allow the Federal Government to
reimburse States for establishing tracking systems. But I want
to be clear that it would not require any State to set up a
tracking system.
I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
join Mr. McCarthy and me in supporting this effort to
strengthen the democratic process and give American voters the
electoral certainly they deserve.
I have letters of support that I will be submitting for the
record from the Association of American Residents Overseas,
AARO, Common Cause, Postal Regulatory Commission, the Student
Association for Voter Empowerment, or SAVE, and the Federation
of American Women's Clubs Overseas.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.006
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look
forward to the discussion.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to recognize the
bill's cosponsor, Representative McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I just
want to thank my colleague, Susan Davis, for working on this
collaboratively. And I believe this will bring accountability
back in the process and will be very positive throughout the
Nation as well. I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Chairman. So ordered. Sure.
Ms. Lofgren. I will just be very brief. I think this is a
very good measure, obviously with bipartisan support. I would
just report to the committee that we did have a hearing that
included testimony about this concept, and there was universal
support for it among our witnesses. So I thought that the
committee would want to know that, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Anybody else?
I will now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2510.
Without objection, the first reading of this bill is dispensed
with, and the bill is considered as read, and open for
amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.011
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Are there any
amendments? If not, I now move to report H.R. 2510 favorably to
the House. The question is on the motion.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill
is reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to
reconsider is laid upon the table.
Our next order of business is H.R. 1752. This is a bill to
provide that the usual day of paying salaries in the House of
Representatives may be established by regulations of the
Committee on House Administration. The House Administration
currently pays the staff once a month, and I have been
contacted by many staff members that when they get paid once a
month, their third and fourth week they are always a little
short. They thought it would be better if this agency followed
every other Federal and State agency, and have them get paid--
and have them get paid twice a month instead of once a month.
It does not affect our pay, it does not affect the Congress
people's pay, it just affects our staff. Anybody have any
comments? Statements?
Mr. McCarthy. I have a statement.
The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we strive to
ensure that the House of Representatives operates in an
increasingly efficient and cost-effective manner, I am pleased
to support this bill, which will enable the committee to better
access and implement potentially cost-saving practices. My
understanding is that the preliminary financial assessment
suggests that shifting the present pay cycle to a biweekly pay
cycle with a lag time would allow the House to handle payroll
with a greater accuracy and ease.
However, I would like to ask that the Chair of this
committee seek the input of the nearly 10,000 House employees
that would be impacted before making any changes under
consideration. Thank you, and I reserve the balance of the
time.
The Chairman. Any other questions or any other statements?
Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. No. Just thank you for trying to accommodate
the schedule that I have today.
The Chairman. Okay. I now call up and lay before the
committee H.R. 1752. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read,
and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.013
The Chairman. I will now offer amendments for the members.
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.014
The Chairman. The amendment would make a permanent change
to the law affecting the House staff gym. Everyone in the
military services has officers working here in the House to
assist our offices. Last Congress we passed a resolution
letting these folks become members of the House Gym. Rather
than passing a similar resolution every Congress, this language
would make the gym membership permanently available to them.
Is there any debate on my amendment? Any questions? If
there is no further debate, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Any opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to. Are there any additional amendments?
If not, I move to report H.R. 1752, as amended, 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 bill
is amended, and it is ordered reported to the House. Without
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The next order of business is H. Con. Resolution 135, a
resolution that would place a marker in Emancipation Hall
acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of
the Capitol.
Last Congress we held a hearing in which we received the
final recommendations of the Slave Labor Task Force Working
Group, chaired by Congressman John Lewis. This task force spent
several years studying the role of slaves in the construction
of the Capitol. We can never make up for that treatment of
these laborers, or even thank them for their sacrifice. But the
task force final report recommended a number of steps be taken
to acknowledge the key contributions of the slave laborers.
Several of the recommendations, including the naming of
Emancipation Hall, have already been completed. However, the
placement of a new marker in Emancipation Hall requires further
legislative action.
This resolution would provide for the installation of such
a marker by the Architect, under the supervision of the
committee and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
As the resolution contemplates, we will make every effort to
use some of the original slave quarried stones that were
removed from the original walls of the Capitol during previous
renovations. I would now recognize Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased that the committee is taking up a bill that will
educate our visitors here to the Capitol Visitors Center on the
contributions of enslaved African Americans in the construction
of the U.S. Capitol. From the Slave Labor Task Force report, we
know that the annals of history often, unfortunately, overlook
the degree to which our Federal city rose from the labors of
enslaved peoples. The diligent work of the task force
highlights that slave laborers were critical in the areas of
carpentry, brick making, brick laying, timber sawing, and stone
quarrying, incorporating some of the most skilled elements of
building at that time, along with some of the most physically
demanding.
It is appropriate, considering the historical significance
of this longtime omission, that Emancipation Hall in the CVC
house a formal recognition of those critical laborers. The CVC
has attracted over 1 million visitors already. This bill will
further enrich the visitors' experience in our Nation's Capitol
by properly recognizing the vital contributions of the laborers
who helped to build it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge support
for this bill.
The Chairman. Thank you. I now call up and lay before the
committee H. Con. Resolution 135. Without objection, the first
reading of the concurrent resolution is dispensed with, and
without objection the current resolution is considered as read
and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.018
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Are there any
amendments? If not, I now move to report H. Con. Resolution 135
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
concurrent resolution will be placed on to the House. Without
objection, the motion was reconsidered and laid upon the table.
We are now on H. Con. Resolution 131, a concurrent
resolution introduced by Ranking Member Lungren. This is
another resolution affecting the Capitol Visitors Center. This
resolution will fulfill the commitment we made to several
members last fall to add to the CVC an engraved inscription,
the national motto In God We Trust, and the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag. Again, these additions require
legislative action.
We have received recommendations from the Architect of the
Capitol, and we are prepared to move forward on this commitment
once the resolution is passed.
I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to personally thank you for your support and leadership on this
bicameral, bipartisan resolution. We have worked with both
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol.
The opening of the Capitol Visitors Center of December 2,
2008 marked the end of a long process. And while the Capitol
Visitors Center did a good job of incorporating many elements
of the Nation's history, there were, I believe, two important
references that were absent: the Pledge of Allegiance and our
national motto In God We Trust. I am pleased that this
resolution remedies this oversight, incorporates those
important parts of our national heritage into the CVC.
As the Chairman has said, we worked with the Architect of
the Capitol in making sure that this is appropriate for both
where these are going to appear in the CVC and the
appropriateness of how they will be displayed. Both speak, that
is both of these references speak to the consciousness and
philosophical roots of our Founding Fathers, and serve as
expressions of will and the resolve of the American people.
Recognizing them at the CVC will be a testimony to our
Nation's history and to the history that exists on these
Capitol grounds.
Again I thank the Chairman for your efforts in bringing
this important matter before the committee and look forward to
its quick passage and incorporation into the CVC.
Thank you, and I would urge support for this bill.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay
before the committee House Concurrent Resolution 131. Without
objection, the first reading of the concurrent resolution is
dispensed with, and the resolution will be open to amendment at
any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.020
The Chairman. Are there any additional debates? Are there
any amendments?
If not, I now move to report H. Con. Resolution 131
favorably to the House.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Any opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
concurrent resolution will be reported to the House. Without
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I would ask unanimous consent--no, not yet. Page 1. We are
going back to page 1. We are on H.R. 1196. Authorizes the CAO
to carry out a series of demonstration projects to reduce
energy consumption and promote energy efficiency and cost
savings in the House of Representatives. I would like to
recognize the sponsor, Vice Chair Lofgren, for an opening
statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1196, a
bipartisan bill authored by myself and Congressman Zach Wamp,
authorizes CAO to carry out a series of demonstration projects
to promote the use of innovative technologies to reduce energy
consumption, promote energy efficiency, as well as cost savings
in the House. It authorizes the CAO to carry out these
demonstration projects and to enter into contracts that are
consistent with current House Administration regulations for
the CAO.
It requires a report to be submitted to the House
Administration and Appropriations Committee analyzing the
project and the extent that it reduced energy consumption,
promoted energy efficiency, and saved costs for the House.
It authorizes 25 million for fiscal year 2010 to carry out
the projects until expended. It is a bipartisan measure, as I
noted. It is very limited in scope. It will help the House
determine which technologies are best-suited to its needs. Not
only would this further prove our commitment to environmentally
sustainable practices, but it could also lower the cost of
House operations.
Last April I hosted a discussion and meeting in Silicon
Valley, titled ``How Going Green Saves Money, Jobs, and
Improves Lives,'' and asked the Chief Administrative Officer to
attend. It was a wonderful meeting, and we issued a report
subsequent to it. But one of the things that we learned is that
big money can be saved in some of these energy efficiency
measures or energy measures.
For example, Applied Materials installed 23,000 sensors in
their office towers, and was able to reduce energy consumption
by nearly half. The sensors paid for themselves in 8 weeks.
Applied Materials has estimated that by installing solar panels
it will create 900 jobs in addition to the energy.
So we believe that this bill will help our environment, it
will help our bottom line, and will set an example. I would
note that the Appropriations Committee has already included
such a provision in the appropriations bill with bipartisan
support. Obviously, we are authorizing a substantial sum, but
they appropriated only 2.5 million. And that was done, as I
understand, on a voice vote with bipartisan support. So I hope
that we can authorize what the appropriators are marching
forward to do. And I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now call up and lay
before the committee H.R. 1196. Without objection, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is
considered as read, open for amendment at any point.
Is there any----
Mr. McCarthy. Are we going to do a statement on the bill,
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Sure. I recognize Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. I know Mr. Lungren had to depart, but we have
a statement here on the bill as well.
I want to thank Chairman Brady. While I strongly disagree
with the measure before us, I believe it is important that the
committee engage on these important matters within our
jurisdiction. As the entity responsible for the Capitol Complex
energy infrastructure, the Architect of the Capitol is
responsible for meeting mandatory energy efficiency
requirements and specific statutory mandates for the use of
renewable energy. The AOC's effort has successfully reduced
Capitol Complex energy consumption by more than 13 percent in
the past 2 fiscal years. And the AOC has identified projects
capable of meeting its 30 percent energy reduction mandate by
2015.
However, the AOC estimates that it will cost $300 million
to carry out these projects. And most of these projects remain
unfunded. The authority granted to the Chief Administrative
Officer in H.R. 1196 conflicts with the Architect of the
Capitol's clear responsibility for energy infrastructure in the
Capitol Complex. The Chief Administrative Officer has neither
the statutory responsibility nor the organizational capability
to manage the Capitol Complex energy infrastructure.
Given the nature of the business in the House of
Representatives, it is essential that the energy services are
reliable and operate without unscheduled disruptions. While the
Architect of the Capitol has demonstrated a capacity to
properly identify, document and measure energy-saving projects
based upon the best value for the taxpayer, the Chief
Administrative Officer has demonstrated no such capacity.
In the CAO's lone foray into executing a project to
increase energy efficiency, the House spent nearly $700,000 to
study the relighting of the Dome of the Capitol. A Washington
Post analysis revealed that when factoring in the costs of the
construction and installation, the CAO's project is likely to
have a payback period of well over a century. As such, our
confidence in the CAO's ability to deliver value to the
taxpayer is justifiably weak.
H.R. 1196 is deeply flawed in its structure and in its
spending authorization. Its enactment would result in
organizational confusion and implementation risks that would
undermine the collective goal of reducing energy consumption in
the House. The CAO's demonstrated record on engaging in high-
profile but poor-value projects undermines the credibility of
the Congress, and should not continue to be encouraged.
Thank you, and I reserve the balance of the time.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay
before the committee H.R. 1196. Without objection, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.023
The Chairman. Is there any debate?
Mr. McCarthy. We have amendments.
The Chairman. Are there any amendments?
Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.024
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Harper. I recognize that the Majority is intent on
moving this deeply flawed bill through the committee and that
the votes exist to do so. However, I want to bring forward an
amendment that I hope would find some bipartisan support, as it
strengthens the authority of this committee to ensure proper
controls are in place to avoid abusing this $25 million
authorization.
This amendment serves two primary purposes. The first is to
require that any action taken under this authority be formally
approved by the committee, regardless of the dollar threshold.
This brings an essential accountability to the process and
mitigates concerns that the committee Republicans have about a
repeat of past procurement activities that circumvented the
committee's rightful authority.
The second objection is to ensure that the contracts
awarded under this authority result from an open and
competitive process. It would be an unacceptable outcome were
the CAO to award $25 million worth of sole-source contracts
under this authority, selecting contracts without the benefit
of any competition or determination of best value for the
House, and most importantly, the taxpayer.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit with
which this amendment has been offered, but I would urge the
committee not to agree to the amendment. The amendment is
really duplicative I think of language already in the bill on
page 2, line 18, which requires the CAO to enter into contracts
consistent with House Administration regulations. And in fact,
that does include competitive bids.
So I think the net result of the amendment would be to add
a layer of delay, and really no net value to the process. This
is a pilot process. And I hope that we can avoid delay. Part of
the reason for having the pilot is to have an ability to move
quickly and not to bog down in bureaucratic delays. So I
appreciate Mr. Harper's intent, but I would hope that the
committee would reject the amendment.
The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
amendment?
Mr. McCarthy. If I could speak to the amendment.
The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. I would hope we would pass this amendment of
a little accountability, because as I go through and as I
analyze when I read the former CAO's report, February 2007, I
find here a lot of details of what it is working on, from
audiovisual cabling. I mean, it goes into 50-some pages. When I
read the current CAO's annual report, I get a lot of nice big
pictures about staff, and I do not get the accountability of
what we are actually working upon. So this amendment does not
stop the bill. This amendment just brings the accountability
that if this committee has the jurisdiction, this committee
should actually see what is transpiring, especially at the
dollar figure we are talking about; because I think everybody
on this committee believes in the ability for greater energy
efficiency here and would gladly support it. I would just
believe that accountability is a greater opportunity here and
ask for an aye vote.
The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes
have it, and----
Mr. McCarthy. Could I ask for a recorded vote?
The Chairman. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
The Chairman. No.
The vote is two ayes, four noes. And the amendment fails.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.025
The Chairman. Are there any additional amendments?
Mr. McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCarthy. I apologize for being a little delayed here.
I am trying to help out Mr. Lungren too. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk. I believe it was under Mr. Lungren's
name. Does everyone have it?
The Chairman. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.026
Ms. Lofgren. Which one is it?
Mr. McCarthy. Page 2, insert after line 21 the following:
Role of Architect of the Capitol.
The Chairman. Number two.
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that I disagree
with this bill. Given its underlying flaws, this amendment
seeks only to provide modest changes designed to simply prevent
a bad bill from becoming an operational calamity. The Architect
is clearly responsible for the infrastructure of the buildings
and providing the heating, cooling, and electrical systems as
part of this infrastructure.
This amendment ensures that any activities pursued under
this authorization are coordinated through the AOC so that we
can avoid disrupting the essential services provided by the
AOC. The process outlined in this amendment will avoid the type
of scenario that the members and staff experienced last fall
when the CAO failed to properly coordinate with the AOC,
overloaded a circuit in the House computing facility, and
caused a lengthy disruption in the access to e-mail and Web
services.
When dealing with our essential heating, cooling, and
electrical system, such a disruption could severely impact
members and committee officers to function. As I stated
earlier, this is just an amendment seeking only modest changes,
asking that the CAO coordinate with the AOC so we do not have
disruptions as we make fundamental changes.
The Chairman. Are there any additional debate on the
amendment?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. I would note that as with the prior amendment,
this is actually not a necessary amendment. It would require
the CAO to get permission from the AOC before modifications to
buildings or grounds. That is not necessary. The CAO already
works with the AOC if there are any changes made to buildings
or grounds. And so I would urge that the amendment be declined.
The Chairman. Thank the lady. Any other additional debate
on the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. McCarthy. May I ask for a roll call vote?
The Chairman. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
The Chairman. No.
The ayes are two, the noes are four. And the amendment
fails. Are there any additional amendments?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.027
Mr. McCarthy. There are no additional amendments.
The Chairman. If there are no additional amendments, the
Chair now moves to report H.R. 1196 favorably to the House.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill
is ordered reported to the House. Without objection, the motion
to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The next item of business is H.R. 1604. H.R. 1604, the
Universal Right to Vote By Mail Act of 2009, introduced by our
colleague, Representative Mrs. Davis from California. H.R. 1604
would give all the voters the option to vote by mail in Federal
elections for any reason.
The bill removes restrictions like notary signatures and
doctors' notes requiring imposed by some States on voters
requesting absentee ballots. Some States do not allow travel,
work, school, illness, or jury duty to count as valid excuses
to request an absentee ballot. This bill does not require
anyone to vote by mail. It just gives voters an option to vote
by absentee ballot free from pointless hassles.
Making voters jump through unnecessary hoops to vote
absentee does nothing to increase security. It only decreases
participation and convenience in voting.
I would now like to recognize Ms. Davis for an opening
statement.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much. And thank
you very much for bringing the bill forward.
My interest in improving our elections goes back to the
first major political experience that I had, which was serving
as president of the San Diego League of Women Voters. I was
active in the League because I believed our democracy is
furthered through increased participation in the voting
process. Democracy flourishes, we all know, when all Americans
have an equal opportunity to participate in elections.
Historically, the Federal Government has opened the doors
to those shut out of the voting process, and our country has
been much the better for it. So we should be proud of our
Nation's history of removing obstacles for voters who have been
left out of the voting process intentionally or
unintentionally, whether they be women, racial minorities,
members of the military, Americans living overseas, 18- to 21-
year-olds fighting for their country, or voters with
disabilities.
But we know that there are hardworking Americans that are
still unable to vote for any number of reasons. And the next
step is to give those who choose to participate and plan to
vote the best chance to vote, no matter what comes up on
Election Day. And we should remove unnecessary impediments to
their participation by freeing them from such burdensome
obstacles--and Chairman, you have noted this--to voting as
notary requirements, doctors' notes, and invasive public record
questions about vacation location, illnesses, pregnancies,
religious obligations.
Over half the States have no-excuse absentee voting. And
millions of votes have proven it to be secure, successful, and
popular. As Members of Congress and of this committee, we have
a constitutional calling to allow States to administer
elections, but to step in when there is a need, as there is
here.
H.R. 1604, the Universal Right to Vote By Mail Act, will
correct what I believe is a glaring inequity, and I look
forward to our discussion as we markup this bill today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the lady.
Mrs. Davis of California. I have letters in support here,
and I will submit those for the record. Do you want me to read
them all?
The Chairman. No, no, just submit them. That would be fine.
Mrs. Davis of California. Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.040
The Chairman. I would like to recognize Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. For an opening statement?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am figuring out
this microphone.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the committee has failed
to hold a hearing on this legislation, H.R. 1604, that makes
significant changes to voting procedures in 22 States. Each of
these States likely enact their absentee voting requirements
with a particular goal in mind, possibly preventing absentee
voting fraud of the nature for which two individuals were
arrested last week in New Jersey, or promoting civic engagement
through in-person voting. Yet this committee is making a
determination that any possible reasoning for justified
absentee voting is inadequate and baseless, without even taking
the time to consult those who would be affected.
We know that last year the National Conference of State
Legislatures expressed grave concerns in a letter commenting on
the legislative predecessor, H.R. 281. In addition to asking
this committee to consider the many financial costs this
unfunded mandate would bring to the already overburdened
election official, the NCSL stressed that there has been no
showing that the State system utilizing procedures other than
no-excuse absentee voting are dysfunctional or broken.
In their letter they ask this committee to reconsider its
decision to move this bill without consulting those who would
bear the burden of implementing this legislation. At a time
when so many State budgets are strained, we all know that
election officers, most already operating on shoestring
budgets, are one of the first agencies under the knife. It is
highly doubtful that adequate resources would be allocated on
the State level to accommodate the new Federal mandate created
by this legislation.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that before we jump in and
start telling local governments how they should run their
elections, we should probably let them tell us what they think
about our ideas.
Currently, H.R. 1604 looks like a solution in search of a
problem. And I would hope that before this committee takes any
action on this legislation, we would undertake our due
diligence and hold a hearing on this issue.
Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay
before the committee H.R. 1604. Without objection, the first
reading of this bill is dispensed with, and the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.045
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Are there any
amendments?
Mr. Harper. Yes, sir, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.046
The Chairman. Recognize Mr. Harper for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. In the findings section of this
legislation there are a number of assertions of fact that I
think are simply wrong and that suggest States are creating
rules without any reason. Finding number eight states that no
evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud in absentee
balloting is greater than the potential for fraud by any other
method of voting. Yet much of the vote fraud that we see
prosecuted in this Nation comes from fraudulently requested or
returned absentee ballots.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an
Associated Press article from Friday, June 5, 2009, just 5 days
ago.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.048
Mr. Harper. The article states that two former campaign
workers were charged with absentee voting fraud in a recent
mayoral race in Atlantic City. I would like to quote to the
committee a pertinent section of the article which states the
claims of absentee voting fraud, quote, increased in recent
years when friends and relatives of Craig Callaway, the former
city council president, now serving a Federal prison term for
bribery, perfected the art of collecting and delivering
hundreds of absentee ballots, close quote.
I believe logic and common sense tell us that it is easier
to vote fraudulently when voters do not have to show up in
person. And the evidence backs that theory up.
Finding number nine states that the excuses that many
States require in order to request an absentee, do nothing to
prevent voter fraud, yet we have not had a single hearing on
this bill. We know the Supreme Court takes congressional
findings seriously, and I believe we should take them seriously
enough to have hearings before we make them.
This amendment would remove these objectionable findings
and other findings that make conclusory statements without
offering proof to support them. I urge the committee to adopt
this amendment.
Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Any other--I would like
to recognize Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
just like to respond for a second, because I think that if my
colleagues read that statement, I mean it basically says that
there is potential for fraud. We have not been able to--we have
zero tolerance for it, but at the same time we have not had
zero accounts of it.
However, it says there is no greater possibility than from
other methods. And I think clearly, as we look at registrars,
if we look at States, there is far greater fraud that we have
discovered in those situations.
The case quoted here is from Atlantic City. This is not a
Federal election. And the possibility of suppression of votes
is so far greater than the possibility of fraud in this
instance. And that is why that statement is there. You may not
agree with the statement, but I think in fact there is nothing
that is not factual about the statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that there were two hearings
held on this subject in the last Congress as well. And I yield
back.
Mrs. Davis of California. That is true. And Mr. Chairman, I
know we are going to be hearing a bill today which has not had
a hearing as well. And I think sometimes we have that
opportunity. We also had another hearing earlier this year, and
the issues of absentee voting were also brought up at that
time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any
additional debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor by signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Any other
amendments to the bill?
Mr. McCarthy. Yes, I have one amendment. Amendment number
two.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.050
The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Everybody have it? This one is pretty
straightforward. In essence, it does two things. It would
require the State to have the voter's signature on file before
they send out the ballot. And it would require that the State
verify the signature matches when they receive the returned
ballot. Again, a verification process that is already common
practice for most States.
I know in California, when you go to my election office,
they will pull up, as the absentee ballot comes in, your actual
signature of your voter registration. So it is just making sure
that we have accountability as we go forward.
And just to repeat again, it does two simple things. It
requires the State to have a voter's signature on file before
they send out the ballot, and it requires the State verify the
signature match when they receive the returned ballot.
Thank you. I would ask for support.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I
could say, I certainly appreciate the concern of my colleague,
and California has that. And I think that what he is stating is
that the use of a signature is a very valid way of telling
whether or not the person is in fact that individual.
In California, in addition to the fact that people are
hired for this purpose alone, there are cameras, it is really a
very secure way of checking to see if that is an accurate
signature.
And I think I said this before. My husband had a call from
the registrar because his signature is not quite the same as it
used to be, and so they asked him to give them a new signature.
So I know that this is important. And I am happy to accept this
amendment.
But I also want to share with my colleague that in fact it
is a tougher mandate for some States than the process without
that signature. Many States that have no-excuse voting use a
signature, some do not. Some have chosen not to do that. So we
are putting some additional--what you would consider a mandate
I think; although I will share in my comments, if it does
arise, that this is not considered a mandate, it is a voting
right, and so therefore it is not considered a cost mandate by
our government.
But the signature issue is one that I happen to think is
important, so I would support it.
The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady. Any additional debate
on the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. And for the
record, my signature is getting shorter and shorter the older I
get. Any other additional amendments?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.051
The Chairman. Mr. Harper is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. It is of great concern to me that at
a time when our States are facing millions, sometimes billions
of dollars in budget deficits, this committee is considering
adding another unfunded Federal mandate for them to have to
absorb. This amendment would help allay these concerns by
allowing States to opt out of the new requirements of this
legislation if they, A, make a showing that implementing this
legislation would increase their costs of election
administration, and B, they are not able to pay for those costs
out of existing grant funding or other money provided by the
Federal Government in support of this bill. I think this is a
reasonable and responsible amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Is there any additional
debate on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CBO
has determined that this bill is not an unfunded mandate. And
in fact, it wrote last year the following about H.R., at that
time, 281: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 281 would have
no impact on the Federal budget. Section 4 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes from the application of that act
any legislative provisions that enforce the constitutional
rights of individuals. CBO has determined that H.R. 281 would
fall within that exclusion because it would protect
individuals' voting rights.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to cost, the
Virginia Registrar, Rokey Suleman's letter--and he spoke here
just a few months ago about the fact that he has got a drawer
full of applications from individuals because of the
restrictions in their absentee voting. And it takes thousands
of dollars, he said, out of his budget for the increase in man-
hours, postage, and supplies needed to process these
applications. There is a tremendous waste of valuable tax
dollars. And no-excuse access to a ballot through the mail will
save my office thousands of dollars in processing and overtime
costs. I submit that it is not a factor in this case.
The Chairman. Thank the lady. Is there any additional
debate on the amendment?
Mr. Harper. May I be recognized, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Harper. If I may ask a question of the author of this
bill, you argued this bill is not an unfunded mandate because
it would enforce a constitutional right. And I see that you
have a CBO statement which backs that up. But I am wondering
where you find this right to an absentee ballot in the
Constitution. And I say that because the U.S. Supreme Court has
not been able to find it. In fact, in 1973 in Prigmore versus
Renfro, the opinion stated the right to vote is unquestionably
basic to a democracy, but the right to an absentee ballot is
not. Historically, the absentee ballot has always been viewed
as a privilege, not an absolute right.
Mrs. Davis of California. Well, thank you. I appreciate my
colleague bringing that forward, because it has said there is
no fundamental right to vote by absentee except to the extent
that Congress has created such a right in Presidential and
other Federal elections. And in fact, that is why we are here.
I mean that is the obligation that we have; that when we see
inconsistencies, when we see disenfranchisement of voters, when
we see that there is no longer a rational basis for allowing
some people to vote and others not to, then I think it is
important for the Congress to step forward. And that is what we
are doing, we are trying to create that right.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
Any other additional debate on the amendment? If not, the
question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any
additional amendments?
If not, I now move to report H.R. 1604, as amended,
favorably to the House. The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, vote aye.
Any opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
bill, as amended, will be reported to the House without
objection.
Mr. McCarthy. I would ask for a roll call vote.
The Chairman. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
The Chairman. Aye.
The ayes have it. Four ayes, two noes. In the opinion of
the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill, as amended, will be
reported to the House.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.052
The Chairman. Pursuant to request, the members have two
additional days provided by the House rules to file. We are
going to recess now. We have a vote on. We have no time left,
so we have to scurry on down. And we will recess for hopefully
about a half hour. We will be back. And the committee is now in
recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration back to order. And the first order of business
will be H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity Act introduced
by Mrs. Davis.
H.R. 512 will prohibit chief State election officials from
actively participating in electoral campaigns. Across the
country, recent elections have exposed some State-elected
officials with disturbing conflicts of interest. Certain State-
elected officials have participated in partisan political
activities or have held positions on campaign committees of
Federal candidates even as those State officials administer
elections. This has damaged America's faith and the integrity
of our electoral system.
H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity Act, is a
straight-forward good government bill that will prohibit chief
State election officers from taking an active part in
campaigning for or managing a Federal candidate's political
campaign in any election of which the official is supervising
the authority. It does not prohibit State election officials
from overseeing elections in which they are candidates. It
simply prevents the State election official from unfairly
acting like a coach and a referee in the same game.
I understand that Representative Davis has been working
with interested stakeholders and will be offering a substitute
for this bill. And I would now like to recognize Representative
Davis for an opening statement.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. And thank you again for bringing this forward.
Democracy flourishes, we know, when voters have confidence
that the electoral process is fair and their chief election
officials are above reproach. Public confidence in elections is
undermined when election officials are accused of favoring
their political party or playing politics with election
administration.
The passage of H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity
Act, would serve to remove the threat of such political
posturing by limiting partisan activity by chief State election
administrators. Since its introduction, I have made some
changes to improve the bill in response to recommendations from
election officials and the Federal Election Commission, and I
will be introducing a substitute shortly. And I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
The Chairman. I thank the lady. Mr. McCarthy, opening
statement.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, an opening statement
for Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am troubled by the
suggestion and implication that this bill, that Congress should
restrict a citizen's First Amendment right to participate in
the political process where there has been no showing of
malfeasance or nonfeasance to warrant such a sweeping
restriction on speech. I am suspicious anytime that Congress
seeks to deny a citizen the right to actively support a
candidate of his or her choosing.
However, even more troubling is the underlining tenor of
this bill, which seems to presuppose that the State's election
officials are incapable of demonstrating impartiality and
fulfilling their oath of office. If it is accepted, then we set
the stage for excluding a whole host of election officials from
Secretary of State down to the Registrar of voters and poll
workers. If we cannot trust Secretaries of State, why should we
trust anyone to show impartiality in the administration of
elections when they have shown a political predisposition?
However, if we accept as fundamental the lack of
impartiality that this bill suggests, why should we believe
that an absence from formal participation in campaign
activities would do anything to lessen election officials'
propensity for misconduct. We must be vigilant protectors of
both the integrity of Federal elections and the rights of our
citizens to participate in the election of their Federal
officials.
I am concerned that this bill endangers both those
fundamental principles, while at the same time trampling on the
civil liberties of our elected officials without cause. For
these reasons, I hope the committee will join me in opposing
the legislation. Thank you and I reserve the balance.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay
before the committee H.R. 512. Without objection, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill is
considered as read and open for an amendment in a point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.057
The Chairman. And I would now like to recognize the
gentlelady from California to offer an amendment.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment in the nature of a substitute which is in the
members; packets and ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered as read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.061
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any
additional debate on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, I think that the
manager's amendments will really help to sway any of the
concerns that my colleagues have on this bill because it is
very specific about prohibiting campaign activities by chief
State election and administration officials. This is not
sweeping. We have worked with the FCC on this, and I think we
would all agree that when it comes to Federal elections and the
chief election official of that State, that there needs to be
utmost integrity and perception that this is a fair process. I
ask for members' support on this amendment.
The Chairman. I thank the lady. Any additional debate on
the amendment? Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. If I may ask the author just a question.
Knowing that it says the chief State officer, what about if
your county election officer, which is elected countywide, what
was the rationale for excluding them in the process as well?
Mrs. Davis of California. In working with the FCC on this,
that is the determination that we made; that that is our
authority, that is our jurisdiction. So that is why we wanted
to do it in this fashion. This is the jurisdiction that we
have.
Mr. McCarthy. Did you think, originally writing the bill,
that you would include county election officers as well?
Mrs. Davis of California. The original bill was not as
specific, and that is why when we started working with them, we
felt that we wanted to stay within our jurisdiction on this
bill.
Mr. McCarthy. And then what if the election officer is
going to run for office but run for a different office? They
are fine--
Mrs. Davis of California. This does not exclude in any way
that individual from running for State office, for an office
themselves. And, in fact, we have seen that. They are allowed
to do that. While they are still holding that office, they can
still file for a different office.
Mr. McCarthy. Okay. So if I am Secretary of State of my
State and I have a family member running for Governor or
something else, I can help with that one?
Mrs. Davis of California. The bill actually does have an
exclusion for family members.
Mr. McCarthy. Even though that family member is running for
Governor or running for any office, it is okay for family, but
not to participate in any other.
Mrs. Davis of California. Right.
Mr. McCarthy. Okay. I just wanted clarification. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment? No
further debate. The question is on the amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
All those in favor, signal by saying aye.
Any opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
I now move to report H.R. 512, as amended, favorably to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill,
as amended, will be reported to the House. Without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
We will now consider H.R. 2393, the Military Voter
Protection Act.
I share in Mr. McCarthy's commitment to ensure that all
ballots sent from the military and overseas voters abroad
arrive on time and that their votes are counted. In fact, we
met with the United States Postal Service and the Military
Postal Service this week to discuss the process they have in
place to expedite these ballots. We have learned that over the
past few election cycles, the postal service had been offering
free express mail and tracking service to all voters who send
their ballots back to the U.S. Within one week of election day.
I would like to recognize now the sponsor of this bill, Mr.
McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. First, I just want to thank the Chairman for
working with us on this bill, and I appreciate his wisdom as we
move forward. For over a year, I have been working with our
colleagues here in the House, as well as those in other
Chambers, to pass legislation that would help make those votes
count of our heroes serving and protecting our Nation abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful you scheduled my bill, H.R.
2393, the Military Voting Protection Act, to be marked up
today. Since the enactment of UOCAVA in 1986, which provides
overseas voters backup Federal write-in absentee ballots, there
has been report after report detailing the disenfranchisement
of military personnel to inadequate ballot delivery methods.
The most recent in 2007 by the EAC reported that out of 992,000
ballots sent to military and overseas voters for the 2006
election, over 660,000 were never returned to election
officials to be counted.
We don't need another report, nor can we stand idly by as
we watch more of our troops' votes go uncounted. We must take
action.
I am pleased that this bipartisan commonsense legislation
that I introduced, along with our colleague from Oklahoma, Dan
Boren, will establish procedures for the collection, return
transportation and tracking of marked absentee ballots of our
troops serving overseas. This bill will use express mail
delivery services of the postal service to help ensure those
who fight for our freedoms can have their votes counted.
This will help our troops, and I am pleased that the MVP
has been endorsed by the Military Coalition, a consortium of 31
military and veterans organizations. With that, I urge an
``aye'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2393.
Without objection, the first reading of the concurrent
resolution is dispensed with. And without objection, the
concurrent resolution is considered as read and open for
amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.071
The Chairman. Is there any debate? Mrs. Davis from
California.
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, just for the
record, did we have a hearing on this bill?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I appreciate the question. If I can
answer for the Chairman. In March, we had a hearing on the 2008
elections where the military votes were prominent. Last month
we did have a hearing specifically devoted to military and
overseas voting where H.R. 2393 was discussed. The committee
explored the issue, and I am pleased we are acting today. And
in the last Congress we did have a hearing before the committee
as well on the bill itself. And the only changes from the past
bill to present were the ideas that it was going to be the
postal service with the help of the Chairman advice on that.
The Chairman. Any other debate? Are there any amendments to
the bill?
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, if I will, I just
wanted to ask that question really for the record, but also to
represent to the author that I am in support of this bill. I
think it makes it easier and quicker for us to process those
absentee ballots and that having more standardized absentee
ballots throughout the country also would be an assist to our
military. So I hope that we can continue to work on this issue
in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the lady. I now move to report H.R.
2393 favorably to the House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Any opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the bill
will be reported to the House, without objection. The motion to
reconsider is laid upon the table.
I don't want to bring this bill up, especially when the
sponsor is on her way, right down the hall. So if we could just
hold off for a moment or two, hopefully for like about a 1-
minute recess, and Ms. Lofgren will be here. And I appreciate
your indulgence. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I would like to call our committee back to
order again. The next item on the agenda is H.R. 2728, the
William Orton Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act,
sponsored by Vice Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Lungren.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.079
The Chairman. The law library of the Library of Congress,
established in 1832 with a collection of over 30 million
volumes, is the largest law library in the world. The books
housed in the Library cover almost every adjudication in the
world. I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the
record for brevity because I know we have a lot of other things
to be doing.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.080
The Chairman. And I will now recognize Mr. McCarthy for an
opening statement.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in light of your
last statement, I would like to just submit for the record Mr.
Lungren's comments on this bill which he is very supportive and
a co-author of.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.082
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren, would you
like to make an opening statement?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
committee's pausing so I could get over here from chairing the
California delegation meeting. And I am pleased to have
authored this bill with our colleague, Mr. Lungren.
The bill is named after William Orton, a Member of the U.S.
House of Representatives in Utah's Third District from 1991 to
1997, who passed away in April of this year. Bill was a
tireless advocate for the law library and we think this
legislation is a fitting way to honor his memory.
The law Library of Congress maintains a unique and world-
renowned collection. This bill will help ensure that the law
library will have the resources needed to maintain and expand
its collections while at the same time modernizing its system.
The act includes authorizing 3.5 million for maintaining
and administering the operations of the law library, including
the cataloging of the collections--without the catalogs, the
collections are not accessible; a line item for the law library
to ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the law library
and creation of the William Orton program.
The donations are provided for in-kind contributions in
support of the program, and the bill also requires an annual
report. It authorizes to be appropriated for the program an
amount--this is the Orton program--of 40 percent of the amount
of the donations accepted by the Library of Congress Trust Fund
Board. In support of this legislation is the American Bar
Association, the American Association of Law Libraries and the
Northern California Association of Law Libraries.
And the American Association of Law Libraries and the
Northern California Association of Law Libraries have letters
that I would ask unanimous consent be----
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Submitted to the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.084
Ms. Lofgren. I do have one amendment that I believe Mr.
Lungren concurs in. It is a minor matter of when that is
appropriate.
And with that, I would yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2728.
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
with and the bill is considered as read and open for amendment
at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.092
The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the Vice Chair, Ms.
Lofgren, to offer an amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.
I think it is before the House.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2325A.093
Ms. Lofgren. Basically the amendment changes the name of
the law Library of Congress to the National Law Library. It is
a simple change, but, coupled with a full bill, would do much
to increase the role and status of the law library. I believe
that the library has no objection to this name change and that
Mr. Lungren concurs.
The bill and this amendment are a great step forward in
making the National Law Library a first-class library that
Congress, legal researchers, and members of the public deserve.
And I would just like to note this is an issue that I think is
enormously important for the country, but it is not one that
everybody pays attention to. Certainly the Bar Association and
the advocates, the law librarians, and the late Bill Orton
spent a lot of time in promoting this. And I really am grateful
to them for putting in the volunteer time to get us to this
point today. And I would yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any
additional debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor say, aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there any additional amendments? If not, I now move to
report H.R. 2728 favorably to the House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill,
as amended, is ordered reported to the House without objection.
The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I now ask unanimous consent to include in the record
various correspondence relating to the legislation we
considered today.
Without objection, the staff is authorized to make
technical and conforming changes to the various measures
considered today.
We had also anticipated a committee resolution to implement
recommendations from the House Inspector General, but staff is
still working to clear the language with all the interested
parties. We will take that up at our next meeting.
The Committee on House Administration stands adjourned.
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]