U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

67–578 2011

MARKUP OF H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; H.R. 1934, TO 

IMPROVE CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; AND 

A COMMITTEE RESOLUTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE 

MEMBERSHIP 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director & General Counsel 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; H.R. 

1934, TO IMPROVE CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY OF 

CONGRESS; AND A COMMITTEE RESOLUTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Daniel E. Lungren 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Harper, Gingrey, Schock, 

Nugent, Brady, Lofgren, and Gonzalez. 

Staff Present: Phil Kiko, Staff Director and General Counsel; 

Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant 

Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Karin Moore, Elections Counsel; 

Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Kyle Anderson, Minority 

Press Secretary; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; and 

Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration for today’s committee markup. A quorum is now 

present. We will proceed. 

In today’s markup, we will consider a bill to terminate the Election Assistance Commission. Our Subcommittee on Elections has 

held two hearings and heard from numerous witnesses on the 

agency’s remaining operations and its diminished value to those 

who it was created to serve. We have heard and found a compelling 

case, I believe, as to why the EAC has outlived its usefulness and 

should be dissolved. Since 2005, the National Association of Secretaries of State have passed two resolutions calling for the EAC’s 

dissolution. 

We have also heard extensively from election administrators 

from around the country; we have heard their views, their ideas, 

and their suggestions. The feedback we received included where to 

relocate the few valuable functions currently performed by the 

EAC. I think these suggestions have improved H.R. 672 and will 

be offered, I believe, in a manager’s amendment by my colleague, 

Mr. Harper. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

H.R. 1934, a bill to improve operations at the Library of Congress, allows the Library to retain the proceeds from the sale or 

disposal of surplus property for the purpose of purchasing similar 

or like property in that current or subsequent fiscal year. This is 

an authority that has been granted to both the U.S. Capitol Police 

and the Architect of the Capitol in recent years and has been an 

asset to both entities. This is a sensible authorization. I hope my 

colleagues will support H.R. 1934. 

And, finally, we will consider a controversial resolution to designate Mr. Gonzalez as the ranking member on the Subcommittee 

on Elections. Mr. Gonzalez is a hardworking—— 

Mr. BRADY. Could we do that first before we—— 

The Chairman [continuing]. Member of this committee. And I 

look forward to passing it, even on a tough, close vote. 

I would like to thank each of my colleagues for being here today. 

I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his 

cooperation on many things and working, I think, to help us make 

this place a more efficient place so that Members might do their 

job for their constituents. 

Mr. Brady. 

[The statement of the chairman follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 67578A.001
4 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 67578A.002
5 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 67578A.003
6 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I think the Election Assistance Commission has performed an 

important role in supporting the American election system. The 

EAC was designed to be primarily a clearinghouse for information 

and best practices to support our local election officials who serve 

on the front line in our voting and registration systems. 

It continues to serve an invaluable support role for State and 

local election officials, as well as for civil rights organizations, who 

use it as a resource. While I agree that the agency has fallen short 

of its full potential, I join with the voter advocacy community, disability advocates, and many local elected officials in calling for reform at the agency, but not to terminate it. 

The EAC Testing and Certification Program holds voting systems 

manufacturers accountable both in testing and performance in the 

field through the EAC Quality Monitoring Program. The EAC continues to work with the Department of Defense and local election 

officials to improve the voting process for our men and women 

fighting in our military and living and working overseas. These and 

other functions should not be transferred to the FEC, as this bill 

would do, since the FEC has consistently deadlocked on even the 

most basic issues. 

This legislation appears to offer more occasions for paralysis instead of support to the American electoral system. The American 

people deserve to know, even at times of financial and economic difficulty, that their ability to have their voices heard remains a priority. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

I would now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 672, a bill 

to terminate the Election Assistance Commission. 

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open 

to amendment at any point. 

[The bill follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 67578A.004
8 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 67578A.005
9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 67578A.006
10 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 67578A.007
11 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 67578A.008
12 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 67578A.009
13 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 67578A.010
14 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 67578A.011
15 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 67578A.012
16 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 67578A.013
17 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 67578A.014
18 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 67578A.015
19 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 67578A.016
20 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 67578A.017
21 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 67578A.018
22 

The CHAIRMAN. But I understand that Mr. Harper, the chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Elections that sponsored the bill, plans to 

offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to offer a manager’s amendment to H.R. 672. 

As the chairman noted in his opening remarks, this committee 

has listened extensively to the elections community—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute will be considered as read. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 67578A.062
24 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 67578A.063
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 67578A.064
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 67578A.065
27 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 67578A.066
28 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 67578A.067
29 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 67578A.068
30 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 67578A.069
31 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 67578A.070
32 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 67578A.071
33 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 67578A.072
34 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 67578A.073
35 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 67578A.074
36 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 67578A.075
37 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 67578A.076
38 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 67578A.077
39 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 67578A.078
40 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 67578A.079
41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 67578A.080
42 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 67578A.081
43 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 67578A.082
44 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 67578A.083
45 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 67578A.084
46 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 67578A.085
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 67578A.086
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 67578A.087
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 67578A.088
50 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 67578A.089
51 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would now recognize the gentleman for 5 

minutes to speak in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. I just was in such a hurry, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know that. 

Mr. HARPER. As the chairman noted in his opening remarks, this 

is something that we have sought input on in a great way. We have 

consulted with officials from across this country in an effort to do 

what we can to support the integrity of our elections more efficiently, recognizing the long-term budget limits we are also facing. 

The EAC initially had a 3-year mandate, but, as with most government programs, it found a way to maintain its existence. Unfortunately, it became a bloated bureaucracy that mismanaged taxpayer dollars and has been the subject of two discriminatory hiring 

lawsuits. Meanwhile, two of the EAC’s four functions are essentially complete, and the others can be performed more efficiently 

without an entire agency supporting them. 

The best course we can take, as the EAC’s committee of jurisdiction, is to dissolve the agency, end its wasteful spending, and 

transfer its remaining beneficial functions to another location. This 

manager’s amendment terminates the EAC and transfers the 

EAC’s Office of Voting System Testing and Certification to the Federal Election Commission. 

It also creates formal mechanisms for input into the development 

of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines by adding a guidelines 

review board composed of State and local election officials and 

other important stakeholders. It maintains the existing Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee in its current form. 

These changes to the bill came after listening to officials and administrators throughout the country who were very familiar with 

the voting and elections process. And I am very thankful and appreciative for their input. 

The manager’s amendment includes other changes based on suggestions we received. It transfers the testing and certification functions to the Federal Election Commission rather than to NIST. And 

it calls for two studies to look at the best way to provide a national 

voting machine testing and certification system that will be effective and beneficial. 

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that, as we sit here today, 

the Treasury Department is, in effect, using accounting gimmicks 

to delay facing the fact that we cannot cut our spending addiction. 

To sustain an agency that has done its assigned studies, dispersed 

its assigned grants, and fulfilled its mandate is the definition of irresponsibility. 

We haven’t rushed through this process. We have held hearings. 

We can go back to hearings that we held in the previous Congress. 

We have listened to numerous experts. We have kept and reassigned programs that provide true value for election administrators. 

And now is simply the time to end the EAC and save American 

taxpayers $14 million a year. It doesn’t get any easier to find an 

example of wasteful spending. If we can’t do this, we might as well 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

pack up and go home, because this is as obvious and clear as it 

gets. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Are there Members on the majority side who wish to be heard? 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I guess I need to start off by making an observation. And 

I understand that we have had witnesses and we have had the National Association, of course, of Secretaries of State. Their position 

that was taken way back in 2005, it is not a new position. I will 

say they have been very consistent, maybe incorrectly, but, nevertheless, very, very consistent. 

The other thing that I have pointed out was, to me, there was 

an obvious disconnect between the Secretaries of State, for some 

reason, in some States with the election officials on the ground. 

And I failed to make the right analogy. I kept saying the Secretaries of State, in many ways, were like the generals and the election officials were the troops on the ground. But then, on closer observation and reflection, Mr. Chairman, I actually came to the conclusion that that is not a good characterization. 

If you look at the election officials—and some of them have testified, and some of their comments have been made a part of the 

record—in their praise of what the Election Assistance Commission 

has done for them specifically, you will note that even the election 

official in Sacramento County in California probably takes care of 

the voting needs of a population greater than the Secretary of State 

of New Hampshire. I know that Jackie Callanen, the elections administrator in my county, has about 1.5 million to 1.7 million people, far in excess of some of the testimony from the Secretary of 

State from, let’s say, New Hampshire. 

So I think what is happening and the value of what the Election 

Assistance Commission brings to the election processes somehow 

has been reduced, diminished, and such by the Secretaries of State 

for whatever reason. But the real testimony, in my opinion, comes 

from those individuals that really carry out the functions of holding 

elections and have and see value in what the EAC does. 

I will say, it is addressing the point of cost. I remember reviewing letters from the Federal Elections Commission that said, ‘‘Yeah, 

maybe we will be able to do this’’—in essence, this is the way I interpreted the letter, and my colleague, the author of the bill, may 

have read it a little differently. But what they said is, We need 

more personnel, and we need more money. They put us on notice, 

You are going to have to give us more money. And, yeah, We think 

we can do it. But, again, what agency or department, you know, 

wouldn’t make a representation that they can handle just about 

anything you are going to throw at them as long as you plus-up 

personnel and funding? 

The only thing—I will conclude in my statement, as far as my 

opposition to my dear colleague’s—I guess it is well-intentioned, it 

is just not the best thing. You know, ‘‘off with the heads’’ has never 

been a good process. And I think what we will be discussing later 

in the way of amendments may address some of the concerns that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

you rightfully have. Because we agree with you; things can always 

be done more efficiently and economically. 

But at this time, though, I would like to be introducing into the 

record, if I have unanimous consent—what I have, Mr. Chairman, 

is a letter from the Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas, Incorporated. And they have written a letter in opposition. 

The problem that we have is that the letter has not arrived, 

which is kind of an irony in itself. We passed the MOVE Act to 

begin to eliminate some of the problems when it comes to voting, 

and I would hate for this same delay to prevent voices of thousands 

of overseas citizens represented by the Federation of American 

Women’s Clubs Overseas not to be heard. 

So I will be asking unanimous consent to introduce that letter 

into the record when I am able to do that. I know this is prospective, but I am just saying that we know it is there—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has asked permission to into the 

record a letter we don’t have when we get it—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And purports to say what the gentleman said it says. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Absolutely. You can trust me. You can take that 

to the bank. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Well—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But I do have other letters that I—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No. Without objection, the gentleman is allowed 

to introduce those into the record which he has and those which 

he thinks he has. 

[The letter follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 67578A.090
55 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. I will tell you this. I am willing to place 

a wager that we have it. 

But, at this point, I do have a couple of other letters that I would 

like to place in the record, asking unanimous consent. But I do 

want to point out that this comes from the National Association of 

Latino Elected and Appointed Officials describing their opposition 

to the elimination of EAC under Mr. Harper’s bill. 

The letter points out something which has not received sufficient 

discussion, which is EAC’s extensive language services. For communities across the country, it would be ruinously expensive to try 

to produce election materials in the many languages spoken in the 

American melting pot, but the Federal nature of EAC makes translation much more efficient and cost-effective. 

[The letter follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 67578A.091
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 67578A.092
58 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In addition, I would like to submit for the record 

letters of opposition to H.R. 672 from the Leadership Conference on 

Civil and Human Rights as well as from Demos, a nonpartisan 

public policy research and advocacy organization. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be entered into the 

record. 

[The letters follow:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 67578A.093
60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 67578A.094
61 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 67578A.095
62 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 67578A.096
63 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 67578A.097
64 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 67578A.098
65 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I appreciate it. 

And I would yield back at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Are there other Members who wish to be heard? 

Is there anybody who has an amendment? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think Mr. Gingrey may want to be heard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gingrey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Yeah, thank you. And, really, in support of the 

manager’s amendment. 

I know my colleague from Texas, when he used the phrase, ‘‘ ‘off 

with the head’ is never a good policy,’’ I am sure he was referring 

to a long time ago in 1789 in Paris, but, certainly, in recent news, 

off with the head of the snake, I am sure a squadron of SEALS, 

United States SEALS, would say that was a very good policy in regard to one Osama bin Laden. 

Obviously, this is cutting off the head here. There is a big snake 

behind the head, and maybe this is a small head. But I really think 

that this is a step in the right direction in regard to reducing unnecessary spending. As the subcommittee chair and the author of 

the manager’s amendment and author of the bill has pointed out, 

you know, a $14 million savings a year. It doesn’t seem like much, 

but I think it is significant. And we need to take this approach step 

by step by step, and pretty soon we get the whole snake. And to retain $4 million worth of spending for the parts of the 

EAC and transfer it to the Federal Election Commission where 

that good work, the work that my friend from Texas is talking 

about, that many of the local election supervisors in areas of large 

States that are even larger population that they serve than maybe 

the Secretary of State of a small State. I think he makes a good 

point. But I believe that the retention of that part of the EAC and 

putting it in the right place under the Federal Election Commission 

is the right thing to do. 

So I do support the manager’s amendment, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Other Members to be heard? 

Anybody have an amendment? 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

And I will offer a substitute to the Harper amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is in the Members’ packets. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 67578A.099
67 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 67578A.100
68 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 67578A.101
69 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 67578A.102
70 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 67578A.103
71 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 67578A.104
72 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 67578A.105
73 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 67578A.106
74 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 67578A.107
75 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 67578A.108
76 

The CHAIRMAN. And I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes 

to speak in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over the past 5 years, during my time on this committee, we 

have spent a great deal of time looking into the EAC. When she 

was chair of the Elections Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren worked very 

hard to improve how EAC was run and to highlight areas where 

they needed to improve. 

The result has been a series of changes and improvements, including the hiring of a chief financial officer who could help bring 

EAC’s accounts into better shape, instituting monthly reviews of 

their funds and improving auditing procedures. At a hearing earlier this year, Mr. Harper criticized expenditures that we trust Ms. 

Lafferty would have caught but which, of course, predated and, indeed, inspired those changes. That kind of progress is welcome, but 

no one would deny that EAC needs to do more. 

Of course, the Commission has been hampered for much of the 

past 2 years by its shortage of commissioners, though I hope that 

we will see the two vacancies filled very soon. The fully staffed 

Commission can better exercise its authority to improve its operations and to fulfill its mandate. 

But some of the problems aren’t EAC’s fault at all. We can improve their operations through legislation, and that is what my 

substitute would do. 

First, it reauthorizes EAC, an action long overdue. One of the 

great ironies of the Help America Vote Act was that it had a 3-year 

authorization while allowing commissioners to serve up to 8 years, 

two 4-year terms. 

More fundamentally, my substitute would create an entirely new 

process for paying for and conducting testing of voting equipment. 

This certification is too vital to do without, as Mr. Harper has recognized by trying to ensure that the process would continue under 

his bill. Unfortunately, we have seen how hard it is for FEC to 

meet even its current responsibilities, let alone new ones, whereas 

EAC certification has done wonders for districts across the country. 

Mr. Harper has spoken to the sizable amount of its budget EAC 

spends on personnel costs. I won’t go back over how those fixed 

costs are faced by every agency and how rapidly they would fall as 

a proportion of the whole were EAC’s budget larger, but this is a 

real problem. It is also one that EAC has long recognized. They 

tried using GAO staff to perform some of those roles and are currently working with other small agencies on ways to reduce their 

administrative costs. But EAC is staffed primarily and appropriately with election experts. 

My substitute would call on the GAO to provide a proper analysis of how EAC can reduce its administrative costs, allowing the 

agency to focus on its true mission: election assistance. 

My substitute includes several other provisions focusing on ways 

that government can save money at all levels—Federal, State, and 

local—and ensuring that the rights of disabled Americans are truly 

protected. That is what helping America vote means, and that is 

what EAC can and should be doing. 

I would like to end with a brief summary of what a troubled election can look like: Phony absentee ballots were mailed out to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:07 Aug 18, 2011 Jkt 067578 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B578.XXX B578

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

fuse voters. Robocalls spread misinformation about how, when, and 

where to vote. Judicial orders prohibiting voter intimidation at the 

polls were willfully ignored. Charges of suppression and intimidation were leveled by and at both parties. Voting rights groups received 15,000 calls at their hotline describing problems. That election was last year. 

We need EAC in this country. States are slashing their election 

divisions’ already-slender budgets, making EAC’s resources even 

more valuable to our local election officials. 

Mr. Chairman, none of my colleagues on the Republican side of 

the aisle were here in 2002, as I recall, to vote for the Help America Vote Act. I actually voted against this act, not because I didn’t 

believe that the Commission was necessary and its role would be 

vital, but I had a fundamental difference of opinion, even on the 

Democratic side, with a certain provision, and I voted against the 

Commission. But I was gratified it still passed, it was created, and 

I think has, under the circumstances and with the hand its been 

dealt, has actually been very, very effective if you talk to local officials. 

I am hoping that my substitute is, I think, the more measured 

and deliberative way of trying to improve an entity that can’t be 

substituted by simply folding or being subsumed by the Federal 

Election Commission. Every Member in this committee deals with 

the Federal Election Commission, and you know what that means. 

There is no way that I believe that you think wholeheartedly in 

good faith that we can simply transfer the tremendous responsibilities of the EAC, which are different from the FEC, and assume 

that FEC is going to be able to do the job. So I would ask for your 

consideration and for your vote on my substitute. 

And I would yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

And does the gentleman, Mr. Harper, wish to respond? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. And I certainly appreciate the attempt to reform 

EAC. I think it is just too little and too late of where we are. 

If you look at what we have right now, continuing the agency 

until 2016 without any real structural change is just enabling, in 

effect, the inefficiency we have seen and bad behavior that we have 

also seen and experienced. 

You know, even if we were to give the Federal Election Commission all of the money that EAC uses to run testing and certification, that is still less than 15 percent of the EAC operating budget. You know, of that $4 million—$18 million now, $4 million of 

that that would go, $1 million to FEC, $3 million would go to NIST; 

six employees would be transferred to FEC to handle those responsibilities. But we have had this agency grow, double in size in 3 

years, with no new assigned responsibilities. We could go through 

a number of the issues that we have dealt with. 

The fact is that elections are going to be primarily dealt by the 

local officials using the Secretaries of State in those respective 

States. The resources we have here, many of them certainly have 

not been utilized, when it has been seen here, too, that when EAC 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

has had responsibilities for studies, they haven’t always fulfilled 

those responsibilities. 

So this still doesn’t address—your amendment doesn’t address 

the fact that more than 50 percent of this agency’s budget goes basically for overhead. And they have outlived their usefulness, their 

responsibilities. They had a 3-year mandate. We are now in the 9th 

year. 

And when you look at where we are, I think this is not an agency 

that needs to be reformed. I think we are in a situation where— 

the late President Reagan said, there is nothing closer on Earth to 

eternal life than a temporary government program. Well, that is 

where we are. If we can’t eliminate the EAC, then we really can’t 

eliminate anything here in Washington. 

Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yield’s back. 

The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes to 

speak on the amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t consume 5 minutes. I just wanted to thank my colleague from Texas for this 

amendment. 

As he mentioned, we had a series of hearings when I chaired the 

Elections Subcommittee on the EAC. And we all know that there 

were some deficiencies in its operation. I think we have made solid 

progress with the Commission. Mr. Gonzalez has mentioned some 

of the improvements, and I think the measure he has put forward 

would enhance those improvements. 

Why does this matter? We have said often here that it is fundamental, it is a fundamental part of our democracy that we have 

free and fair elections, that every vote be counted, that every 

American be permitted to vote. And that is what this commission 

is about. It is an important element of that fundamental principle. 

So I think it would be a mistake just to throw this effort out. 

I commend Mr. Gonzalez for his very useful amendment and congratulate him on his new position as ranking member on the subcommittee. 

And yield back. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Did that already pass, by the way? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, we haven’t voted on that yet. 

The gentlelady yields back. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Look, we are in unprecedented times in terms of what the budget 

concerns issue. If people think this is a difficult decision, you 

haven’t seen anything yet to what we are going to have to consider 

in this committee with respect to legislative appropriations going 

down the line. 

If consolidation is not appropriate here, I don’t know what is. 

The good parts of consolidation are that you take already-existing 

programs, you ferret out those which don’t work, and you put that 

together with lower-overhead, effective, functioning elements. I am 

unaware of any other agency, temporary or permanent, that has as 

high an overhead percentage of their overall budget as this. I 

mean, it is staggering when you realize what their overhead costs, 

administrative costs, in the EAC is. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

So this is one of the simpler things to do, I would think. You take 

and you identify those functions that actually still have a reason 

to exist, and you try and find a place where they could fit in without expanding overhead. So you are saving overhead, you have 

tried to determine what the essential functions are, you try to put 

them in a legitimate place, and you try to eliminate excessive cost. 

It is not a lot of money, but it is one of things that we have to 

do, I think, in this committee with respect to our jurisdiction. So 

I would hope that we would look at it that way. We are not attempting in any way whatsoever, as far as I can see, by the gentleman from Mississippi’s amendment in the nature of a substitute, 

his own amendment, trying to disregard the importance of the vote. 

But we are trying to also not disregard the taxpayer, and try and 

give them some evidence that when we see something outlive its 

usefulness we are willing at least to admit to that and attempt to 

see if there is anything that is still useful and fit it in somewhere 

else where we save money and still allow it to be done. 

So I yield back the balance of my time. And if there are no more 

comments, we will vote on the gentleman from Texas’s amendment 

to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded 

vote on my amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is requested, and the clerk will 

call the roll. 

Those who are in favor of the amendment will signify by saying, 

‘‘Aye,’’ and those who are opposed will signify by saying, ‘‘Nay.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schock. 

Mr. SCHOCK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rokita. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The ayes are three, the nays are five. The gentleman’s amendment fails. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 67578A.109
81 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a perfecting amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And 

though I regret that my substitute, which was perfect in its own 

nature, I am offering a perfecting amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read—or 

the perfecting amendment will be considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 67578A.110
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 67578A.111
84 

The CHAIRMAN. And I recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes to 

speak in favor of this amendment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I do not think that Mr. Harper’s bill will do what he and those 

that will be supporting it hope that it will do. I fear that the result 

will be the disenfranchisement of many thousands of voters. I 

worry that its cost savings won’t materialize, as FEC has to staff 

up to handle the new duties you would assign them. Other costs, 

I fear, would simply be pushed onto our already-strapped States. 

But I haven’t succeeded in convincing you of this, but maybe the 

GAO would. 

My amendment, then, would call on the GAO to study the potential impact of the Harper bill and report to Congress on whether 

it would do what it is supposed to be doing. Can FEC fulfill these 

functions? Would voters be disenfranchised? Would there really be 

savings of money? 

GAO would report back on this Congress. And, if they confirm 

Mr. Harper’s analysis, the EAC would be eliminated as he desires. 

But, if not, GAO, if they confirm my theories, we would have a 

chance to change our minds. 

That is what my amendment does. It wouldn’t stop the elimination of EAC; it just gives us a second opinion, a chance to reconsider before we take the drastic step of eliminating an agency 

which I believe remains the most viable entity to meet the demands and challenges of conducting modern-day elections. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

The EAC was first established with four program areas: grants 

management, voting systems testing and certification, communications clearinghouse, and research. Those were the four areas. 

Well, the idea of a 3-year mandate was to fulfill those responsibilities that we had. And I think it is really a far stretch to say 

that eliminating an inept government agency is going to disenfranchise voters. Everybody on this panel, in this committee, have the 

desire to make sure that everybody that should vote, wants to vote, 

has the opportunity to vote. And I think that that is quite a 

stretch. 

And I don’t know, if we do another study—after we have had reports on the condition of the EAC in the last Congress when I first 

came in and now in this Congress, it is clear that they cannot manage themselves, in the things that have taken place. If we look at— 

we can go back to a little over 2 years ago, and we find out that 

they have spent almost $7,000 for employee shirts for morale and 

messed that order up and there were 200-plus shirts over-ordered. 

And you look at their conditions on the audit. They couldn’t even 

complete the audit process. They have had years to work out the 

differences with a study with the Social Security Administration 

that hasn’t been completed, that they keep punting on. 

So I think it is really a stretch to say that this is going to disenfranchise voters. I mean, this is supposed to be a nonpartisan 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

agency, the EAC. And so what happens is they get sued for political discrimination, and we pay out a substantial settlement as a 

result of that. And, again, there is another issue, another incident 

of discrimination that is ongoing in this agency. 

So let’s take what we need to take out of EAC, the best part, the 

essential part of EAC, and let’s transfer—let’s show that we can do 

something in this place that is truly trying to reduce the size of 

government and the cost of government. You know, we would have 

a hard time saying that more than 10 percent of what this agency 

does would be essential. So let’s transfer it on over. Let’s move 

those things there. Let’s do things to make sure that people do 

have the opportunity to vote, and let’s not reward an agency that 

has been sued for political discrimination. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just don’t think that, number 

one, everything that has been said is accurate, but, number two, 

this is not about rewarding an agency. This is about having a system in place that will make sure that all the Americans who want 

to vote have a chance to do that. 

And I would yield time to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. 

I guess in response to Mr. Harper’s comments, the nature of the 

complaints and issues relative to the EAC, can anyone tell me if 

the FEC has had any similar issues? Lawsuits? How much of the 

FEC, the Federal Election Commission, as far as their budget, in 

comparison to the EAC, is there a disproportionate amount of 

money on personnel? I don’t know if they spent $7,000 on T-shirts 

or not. I really doubt it. Who would want to go around with an 

FEC T-shirt? 

But it really is the question. And I mean this in good faith. I 

think we are rushing to judgment. And so, all my perfecting 

amendment does is simply say, get the GAO, which is the gold 

standard. We have got to admit. Whenever we have a problem, we 

look to GAO. Even this committee, in the contested election of Florida 13, it really is GAO that determined that those machines did 

not malfunction. And Mr. Lungren was here for that; Ms. Lofgren 

was part of that task force. And I just don’t see, if we had that kind 

of faith in GAO, to determine whether this Congress was going to 

sit a Member from Florida 13, that we wouldn’t have the same degree of faith to affirm what we are trying to do here today, and 

that is get rid of an agency. 

And, as the chairman pointed out, there is nothing wrong with 

consolidation and saving money. I think we are all for that. But everything is not a simple math problem. And I think that was 

brought out by certain individuals that were testifying in Congress 

recently on the budget. There are consequences to the cuts. So I 

think we have to be very wise where we cut, where we consolidate. 

What is the consequence to us? What is the consequence to elections? To the rights of citizens in this country? 

When I say that individuals are going to be disenfranchised, I 

know you may doubt me, but I am very sincere about that. Because 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

I know how efficient elections have been held with the assistance 

of the EAC in my own jurisdiction, in District 20. I know what it 

means there. Now, maybe that doesn’t translate to everyone’s districts, but I would venture to guess a majority of the districts are 

better today for the work of the EAC. 

All I am asking is—it will be eliminated. If GAO comes back and 

says, ‘‘Mr. Harper, you and everybody that is on your side, you are 

absolutely right; FEC can do it, they can do it cheaper, they can 

be just as effective, and there is no need to have it’’—and I always 

believed that the 3 years really was. We were going to revisit it, 

which is what we are doing now, sort of a sunset provision. But I 

never anticipated that you just would basically do away with the 

agency without conducting something that would be in-depth. I 

don’t think that we have conducted that. 

And it is not that we have provided you with a lot of information 

either, to be honest with you. We don’t have the resources. Now, 

Members of Congress may spend 60 percent or more on personnel, 

and we still don’t have enough to meet all the needs of our constituents. So sometimes you can look at budgets and draw certain 

conclusions. But we have to see, what is the value for that dollar? 

Can they do a better job? We are saying yes. All I am saying is, 

can we slow down the process? 

If you are right, it will be eliminated. And if GAO comes and 

tells us, ‘‘Hey, guys, you got it wrong,’’ guess what? We are going 

to have to look at it. That is all that my perfecting amendment 

does. 

And I would yield the time back to Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

So the question will be on the gentleman’s amendment to ask the 

GAO to give the A-okay to the FEC or the EAC. 

All those in favor, say, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Those opposed, ‘‘No.’’ 

The chair believes that the noes have it. The noes have it. 

Does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. A recorded vote is requested. 

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Those in favor will 

reply by saying, ‘‘Aye’’; those opposed, ‘‘Nay.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Nay. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Nay. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schock. 

Mr. SCHOCK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rokita. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Nay. 

According to the clerk’s roll, there are three ayes and five nays, 

and the amendment fails. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 67578A.112
89 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments? 

If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

All opposed, signify by saying, ‘‘Nay.’’ 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, 

and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. 

Now I move that the—— 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes? 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that the minority will request 2 additional days to provide by clause 2, rule 

XI of House rules to file additional views. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now I move the committee report H.R. 672 favorably to the House with an amendment. 

The question is on the motion. 

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

All those opposed, ‘‘Nay.’’ 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is 

agreed to. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, Members are entitled to 2 additional calendar days to file such views in writing and as signed by 

the Member with the clerk of the committee, if any Member indicates an intention to file such views. 

I ask unanimous consent that committee staff be authorized to 

make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the measure the committee has just considered. And, without objection, it is 

ordered. 

Now we will move to this one, H.R. 1934. I would like to call up 

and lay before the committee H.R. 1934, to improve certain administrative operations at the Library of Congress. The bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The bill follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 67578A.113
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 67578A.114
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here 67578A.115
93 

The CHAIRMAN. All Members have copies of this. Does any Member wish to be heard on this bill? 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The ranking member is recognized. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, this bill would authorize the Library 

of Congress to dispose of surplus or obsolete properties of the Library through interagency transfers, trades, sales, and other appropriate methods. 

In the 111th Congress, our committee marked up H.R. 5681, 

which provided for this authority and others. That bill passed the 

House but unfortunately stalled in the Senate in the final days of 

the session and did not become law. 

This new, simplified bill omits two of these provisions that were 

passed last year and retains bipartisan support. It would provide 

a useful funding tool for the Library of Congress, and I urge an 

‘‘aye’’ vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Anybody else wish to be heard? 

If not, I will move that the committee report H.R. 1934 favorably 

to the House. 

The question is on the motion. 

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

All those opposed, signify by saying, ‘‘No.’’ 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is 

agreed to. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Does any Member wish to file supplemental minority additional 

views for inclusion in the committee report? 

All right. 

I ask unanimous consent the committee staff be authorized to 

make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the measure that the committee has just considered. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

Now for the controversial item on the agenda, consideration of a 

committee resolution to adjust the Democratic membership on the 

Subcommittee of Elections. 

I now recognize the ranking member to offer the resolution. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I call up the committee resolution, 

which is in the Members’ packet, and ask unanimous consent that 

the committee resolution be considered as read. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. 

[The resolution follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 67578A.116
95 

The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the resolution? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I seek recognition. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The only request is that we have a secret vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s request is denied. 

All those in favor of agreeing to the committee resolution, say, 

‘‘Aye.’’ 

All opposed, say, ‘‘No.’’ 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, 

and Committee Resolution 112–8 is agreed to. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

And we have concluded our markup today. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING