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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–562 2007

MARKUP OF H.R. 811; CONSIDERATION OF FOUR 

ELECTION CONTESTS; AND CONSIDERATION OF 

A COMMITTEE FRANKING ALLOCATION 

RESOLUTION 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MEETING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILL PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(1) 

CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; CONSIDERATION OF FOUR ELECTION CONTESTS; AND 

CONSIDERATION OF A COMMITTEE FRANKING ALLOCATION RESOLUTION 

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in room 1310, 

Longworth House Office, Hon. Robert A. Brady (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez, 

Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and 

McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Charles Howell, 

Chief Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Tom Hicks, Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Kristin 

McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Robert Henline, Staff Assistant; 

Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Gineen Beach, Minority 

Counsel; and Peter Sloan, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the meeting to order. 

Good afternoon everyone. The first order of business today will 

be the consideration of H.R. 811. On May 2nd, 2007, I discharged 

the Subcommittee on Elections from further consideration of that 

bill pursuant to committee rule 17. 

This is a bill that was very important to Chairwoman MillenderMcDonald, as she cared deeply that every citizen of our great Nation should be able to vote, and that every vote should be counted. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today the Committee will mark up H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, which amends the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002, or HAVA. The bill will require electronic voting machines to produce a voter verified paper ballot for 

every voter. This paper ballot would become the ballot of record in 

the event of a recount or audit. The bill would also mandate routine random audits as prescribed by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, and preserve and enhance the accountability requirements of HAVA. Other requirements are also added 

for voting systems. 

The Lofgren substitute to be offered today addresses some of the 

concerns that have been raised by voting officials, technology companies and other advocates who have previously expressed concerns about this bill. I hope that by addressing their concerns 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

through this substitute, we can persuade these interests to support 

this vital piece of legislation. 

One of the biggest changes from the original bill is that this substitute increases the authorized appropriations from $300 million 

to $1 billion to help States pay for the implementation of the new 

requirements. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Ehlers for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I stated last 

week, following the decision to postpone the markup, the additional 

days between our last meeting and today’s proceeding have provided us with an opportunity to review this bill in greater detail. 

Unfortunately, the additional time for review has not changed my 

perception of this bill. As I have said in the past, I continue to have 

deep concerns about H.R. 811. Realizing that time is limited, I will 

summarize just a few of them here. Let me emphasize that from 

the first time Mr. Holt introduced this bill, I favored the concept 

of the bill. The difficulty is in the details. 

First the burden placed upon the States by this bill is unnecessary, and, by all accounts, unmanageable. Over the past several 

weeks, this committee has heard from Secretaries of State, election 

experts, concerned citizens and other groups urging us to reconsider passage of this bill and suggesting many amendments. 

Let me just show you what we have received. I don’t know what 

the majority has received. These are letters from State and county 

election officials from over 35 States objecting to the bill as it was 

originally introduced and are still objecting to the bill, even in spite 

of the few amendments that have been made. 

They are imploring us not to pass this legislation. The number 

has grown since our last meeting and the letters continue to come 

in from across the Nation. These are the people who are most familiar with our election systems, telling us that they simply cannot 

effectively administer the 2008 election if Congress ignores their 

pleas and forces this legislation upon them. 

There are other factors. One of the chief provisions in H.R. 811 

is the voter verified paper trail. As I have stated in the past, I am 

not generally opposed to the idea of a redundant method of capturing vote totals, but I believe all avenues should be explored to 

accomplish duplicate capture of this information—not just paper. 

As we all saw in the 2000 elections, in the days of hanging and 

pregnant chads, paper is far from foolproof. For example the punch 

card ballots are paper and that is what started this whole reform 

effort because people were not happy with that. We owe it to the 

American public to give thoughtful consideration to what method 

of duplicate capture votes would serve them best. I have not seen 

any effort by this committee to do that. To resort back to paper 

without additional research into alternative technologies that may 

be more reliable would be hasty and ill-advised. 

In addition, the VVPAT puts visually impaired voters at a greater advantage than those with other types disabilities creating an 

even larger disparity between segments of the disabled community 

and the general public. Intellectual property issues are also an area 

of concern, since this bill prescribes that electronic voting machine 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

vendors must reveal propriety source codes for inspection by outside entities. 

Not only will taking such steps compromise the integrity of this 

system and put it at high risk of malfeasance, but taking some 

drastic measures will also limit the desire of these companies to 

continue to develop new technologies and improve their existing 

systems. 

Common sense will tell you if a businessman is required to give 

away his product for free—in this case, the product being the 

source code—you have also taken away his motivation to continue 

enhancing that product. We would be, in effect, cutting off our collective nose to spite our face if we took away the desire of these 

vendors to continually improve their technologies. 

Let me also decry the fact that while under HAVA, we worked 

very hard between the House and the Senate, with both parties involved in constant meetings to try to work out differences. In this 

case, we are rushing this bill through without adequate consultation between the parties, without an opportunity to hear our concerns expressed and to work with the Senate on this bill. 

Another area of concern is the funding request in the legislation 

which a number of election experts have said will be inadequate, 

leaving taxpayers holding the bill. We have a duty to spend the 

public’s money wisely. Using it to implement legislation that the 

States have told us they can’t comply with in time for the next election, corporations have told us compromises their financial health 

and the disabled community has told us puts them at greater disadvantage, is reckless. 

Finally, we will propose several amendments today that address 

weaknesses of H.R. 811, and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of all the Members of this Committee when voting on these 

changes. HAVA effected meaningful change that met the shared 

goals of both the majority and minority parties to improve our Nation’s voting system. HAVA also worked very hard with the voting 

officials from all the States. I am hopeful we will be able to change 

course today and put aside partisanship to achieve our shared objectives with this bill and many other measures to come. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any other opening statements? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlelady from California Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

Congressman Rush Holt for introducing H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. As of this morning, 

H.R. 811 has 212 cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats. It 

is a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support. Politics and political affiliation should not keep us from making the changes needed to restore the confidence of our citizens in the electoral process. Our 

election process must be open and transparent to ensure public 

confidence. 

Over the past few months we have held hearings in the Election 

Subcommittee that I chair on issues dealing with H.R. 811. We 

have heard about problems faced by voters who need machines 

with disability access. We have listened to State and local election 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

officials with very differing points of view. Some have no problems 

with their current voting systems while a majority of others find 

that the path to a transparent electoral process is through a voter 

verifiable paper trail. 

We have also heard from the guys I represent, the geek squad, 

as I like to refer to them, about voting systems software. The technology behind these voting systems needs to be accessible to the 

Government entities, academic experts and parties to ligation. That 

technology must also be tested and certified by labs that are, in no 

way, connected to interested parties. 

We have also spent time going through the audit process and the 

best ways to count ballots to ensure voter confidence. In the hearings, we have heard many different points of view. I will offer, at 

the conclusion of my remarks, an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute and will discuss the merits of that during the debate on 

that motion, the substitute motion. We have received letters of support from voting rights activists and countless individuals, and 

when our colleague, Mr. Ehlers, held up his stack, I asked the staff 

to bring those boxes up and put those on the table because within 

those boxes are 185,000 signatures in support of the whole bill, one 

signature roughly for every precinct in the United States. Additionally, 20,497 signatures additionally sent in favor of this bill. 

We have groups in support of H.R. 811, Common Cause, the 

Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Vote Trust U.S.A., the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and on and on. I ask unanimous support to put the list in record. 

We have heard the concerns of State and local election officials 

and will try to address them in the substitute, but we cannot let 

a flawed voting system continue. I know there are members of this 

House who do not feel that we need to make changes in our voting 

system. 

There are Members who think the best way to go is to leave our 

voting system untouched or to provide very vague guidance for improvement. While I wish we can just ask that our voting system 

be improved and it would happen, history has taught us that this 

does not always work. We cannot be faced with more Federal elections that are fundamentally flawed. 

The integrity of our voting system and voter confidence must be 

ensured for 2008 and beyond. And H.R. 811 is the first step in 

gaining the trust of the American voters and to get that trust back. 

So Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to offer my substitute for consideration and do offer my substitute for H.R. 811 for consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other opening statements? 

Hearing no opening statements, the Chair now calls up and lays 

before the Committee H.R. 811, a bill to amend the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002, to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot 

under title III of such Act, and for other purposes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 36562.001
6 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 36562.002
7 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 36562.003
8 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 36562.004
9 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 36562.005
10 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 36562.006
11 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 36562.007
12 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 36562.008
13 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 36562.009
14 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 36562.010
15 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 36562.011
16 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 36562.012
17 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 36562.013
18 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 36562.014
19 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 36562.015
20 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 36562.016
21 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 36562.017
22 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 36562.018
23 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 36562.019
24 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 36562.020
25 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 36562.021
26 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 36562.022
27 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 36562.023
28 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 36562.024
29 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 36562.025
30 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 36562.026
31 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 36562.027
32 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 36562.028
33 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 36562.029
34 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 36562.030
35 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 36562.031
36 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 36562.032
37 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 36562.033
38 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 36562.034
39 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 36562.035
40 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 36562.036
41 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 36562.037
42 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 36562.038
43 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 36562.039
44 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 36562.040
45 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 36562.041
46 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 36562.042
47 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 36562.043
48 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 36562.044
49 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 36562.045
50 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 36562.046
51 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 36562.047
52 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman I offer my substitute as an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill 

will be dispensed with and without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Maybe before 

I recognize you, we should recess to go vote and come back and I 

will recognize you for your statement. Thank you all. We are recessed until after the vote. I think we have three votes on the floor. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the meeting of the Committee 

on House Administration back to order. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentlewoman from California. Ms. Lofgren, Chairwoman of the 

Subcommittee on Elections, held three hearings on this bill in preparation for today’s markup. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am chomping at the bit to offer 

my substitute to the amendment, and I do so at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has been distributed to the 

Members. Without objection, the reading of the amendment will be 

dispensed with. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 

five minutes in support of her amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
53 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 36562.048
54 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 36562.049
55 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 36562.050
56 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 36562.051
57 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 36562.052
58 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 36562.053
59 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 36562.054
60 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 36562.055
61 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 36562.056
62 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 36562.057
63 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 36562.058
64 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 36562.059
65 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 36562.060
66 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 36562.061
67 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 36562.062
68 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 36562.063
69 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 36562.064
70 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 36562.065
71 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 36562.066
72 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 36562.067
73 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 36562.068
74 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 36562.069
75 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 36562.070
76 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 36562.071
77 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 36562.072
78 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 36562.073
79 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 36562.074
80 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 36562.075
81 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 36562.076
82 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 36562.077
83 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 36562.078
84 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 36562.079
85 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 36562.080
86 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 36562.081
87 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 36562.082
88 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 36562.083
89 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 36562.084
90 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 36562.085
91 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 36562.086
92 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 36562.087
93 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 36562.088
94 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 36562.089
95 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 36562.090
96 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 36562.091
97 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 36562.092
98 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 36562.093
99 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 36562.094
100 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 36562.095
101 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 36562.096
102 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 36562.097
103 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 36562.098
104 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 36562.099
105 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 36562.100
106 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 36562.101
107 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 36562.102
108 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 36562.103
109 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 36562.104
110 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 36562.105
111 

Ms. LOFGREN. My amendment is an attempt to meet the concerns or many of the concerns that were raised by various parties 

during the hearings and subsequent to them. 

There is no systematic auditing in place to catch the problems in 

Federal elections. The substitute language modifies the audit section by allowing States to create their own audit entity which is 

independent and nonpartisan. It also allows State and locals to 

choose to use the tiered audit formula outlined in the bill or to develop an audit that is deemed statistically equivalent by NIST. 

We have also clarified language, providing definitions for terms 

such as durable paper and language explaining that clearly readable by a voter now includes a reference to eye glasses or corrective 

lenses, a suggestion made by the minority. This is language actually in their amendment. 

Recognizing that the software issue has been a key concern for 

many who vote, the tech sector and the media, we have also modified the disclosure and security requirements to make them more 

practicable, and I will say that in extensive meetings with the software community, and specifically the business software alliance, I 

am advised that the business software alliance does not oppose the 

language that we have in this substitute. 

Their concerns about protecting intellectual property rights of 

voting systems and the like, we have modified the disclosure language to recognize these rights, while at the same time, allowing 

parties to litigation and experts access to information necessary to 

ensure the integrity of the voting system. The substitute also recognizes the need for more time, but balances the concerns of voters 

by providing waivers for some State and locals to move to paper 

ballots. 

All paper-based systems including thermal reel to reel systems 

and accessible systems that used or produced a paper ballot in 

2006 can be used until 2010 and the waiver for thermal reel to reel 

is the new addition to the bill, since last week as a result of us having time to read the minority amendments. 

Only six States will be required to replace all voting machines 

by 2008. Those States would be Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Maryland, South Carolina, and Tennessee. A total of only 13 States 

will be required to place some of their voting machines by 2008. 

The time factor is also the reason we have made provisions to allow 

for States with legislatures that don’t meet every year. We recognize that these changes are not going to be inexpensive. The substitute also includes the authorization of $1 billion and a formula 

to the allocation of these funds. 

We believe that this substitute deals with all of the issues that 

can be dealt with. I will note, I know that Mr. Ehlers will be offering a substitute to the substitute with the timeline that is not aggressive enough. A 2014 deadline delaying the implementation beyond 2008 will just cause further problems and distrust, and we 

also cannot place NIST in a position to set standards that are impossible. The Association For Computing Machinery, having reviewed the minority substitute, believes their amendment has some 

impractical computer security provisions as well. 

So in short, I think the substitute deals with the issues that can 

be dealt with. It has dealt with the technology issues, which is why 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
112 

the business software alliance does not oppose it. And I believe it 

will restore integrity to our voting systems and also confidence in 

our electoral process. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move to yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize Mr. Ehlers, 

the Ranking Member. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that. 

The gentlewoman commented that her substitute deals with all 

the questions that can be dealt with. My question is: Do they deal 

with all the questions raised by election officials as contained by 

this stack of letters that we have? 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, and you can see I am about out the door 

because I have a roomful of people waiting for me and I will be 

back to the markup—I think—in answer, if the gentleman will 

yield—some of the issues cannot be dealt with because they are offered by people who do not want change. I believe that the country 

wants change. And so we have dealt with those issues that can be 

dealt with while still proceeding with change for those who do not 

want change, we are saying we are sorry, but the country needs 

change and I yield back. 

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time. I don’t think we need change 

for the sake of change, but we certainly need improvement. I am 

willing to support and vote for improvement. What I see in this 

substitute is not improvement but more problems, more difficulties, 

and more than we have had in HAVA so far. I am very concerned 

about that. I would be happy to sit down with the majority and try 

to hammer out an agreement. That hasn’t occurred. It has all been 

just take it or leave it, and so we will be offering amendments. We 

will offer a different substitute. 

Let me just say, I am concerned about the workability. Certainly, 

we cannot meet the 2008 deadline. That is clear in all the communications we have had from State and local people. Given that, 

then, how can we improve the bill? 

Let me just ask a few questions. States like Maryland and Georgia—I don’t know who is going to answer this since the sponsor has 

left. But States like Maryland and Georgia have to acquire a paperbased system under this bill because they use paperless DREs as 

primary and accessible voting machines. What voting systems 

could these States get that allows a blind person to verify their 

vote? I don’t know if there is an answer from anyone on the minority side or not. In HAVA, we worked very hard——

Mr. LUNGREN. Majority side. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am sorry. I wish you wouldn’t keep reminding me 

of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed one of your own reminded you. We 

know where we are at, and we are still trying to handle it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am afraid you do. Anyone have any response to 

that question? 

Another question, does this bill outlaw lever systems, the old 

stand-by voting machines, which, incidentally, were instituted to 

get rid of the corruption that was endemic with paper ballots. 

Apparently no answer is available. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
113 

Another question, what voting systems currently exist for purchase that meet the requirements in the bill? 

The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect, the lady that held the hearings isn’t here at the moment to answer the question. She held the 

hearings and I am sure she has the answers to them and when she 

comes back we will have her address them. 

Mr. EHLERS. In that case, I will yield back and ask my colleagues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you offer a substitute? I don’t know whether 

you offered it or you just had a comment. 

Mr. EHLERS. I have a substitute to offer which is a substitute to 

their substitute. 

The CHAIRMAN. She offered the substitute and without objection, 

the substitute amendment is considered as read and you are recognized now. I would like to recognize Mr. Lungren from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an 

interesting moment for me. I was not here when HAVA was 

passed, but I recall watching with interest the actions of the Congress at that time, and with all due respect, much of what the 

gentlelady from California said we are about to do now and why 

we have to do it now, is reminiscent of what was said when we 

passed HAVA just a few years ago, and the machines we are now 

concerned about are the machines that were purchased pursuant to 

HAVA, and now we are coming up again with our solution. 

And I would reject the notion that the election officials who have 

complained about the contours of this bill in terms of its impracticality and in terms of its uncertainty are all those who don’t wish 

to make any change. I have here a letter from the American Association of People With Disabilities, the largest cross disability 

membership organization in the country. They support voting systems that are accessible, secure, accurate and recountable. These 

are their words. But in order for them to support this bill, they say 

it would require delaying the implementation date until 2014. They 

are doing this because they say the 2014 implementation date is 

realistic based on the experience of voting equipment manufacturers and election officials. 

That is not a group that is against change. It is a group that is 

against a version of a bill will make it impossible to succeed. The 

election officials in California have sent a letter talking about the 

impracticality of this approach. The letter that we received on April 

25th from Karen Kean, the legislative, excuse me from Stephen 

Weir, the President of the California Association of Clerks and 

Elected Officials, expresses the concerns that they have. 

I have letters from individual election officers in counties from 

my State. They are not opposed to changes that would make it effective, but they are very concerned about this bill that we have. 

And so I hope that we are just not going to accept at face value 

that anybody who is opposed to the version of the bill that has been 

presented to us or the substitute presented to us by the gentlelady 

from California are against change or against ensuring that we 

have access to our polling places, that we have the ability for people to vote and not be confused about how they vote and the ability 

for us to ensure the integrity of the system. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
114 

I appreciate the fact that my friend, the gentlelady from California, had to leave but it makes it very difficult for us to ask questions about the version that has just been presented to us so that 

we can not only talk about the general outlines of this, but so we 

can ask specific questions that would govern our introduction of 

several amendments to deal with the issues that we find as we 

read this bill. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the Federal Government now telling the States that they have screwed up based 

on what we told them to do just a couple of years ago. The HAVA 

bill, as I understand it, authorized $3.2 billion to assist the States 

in this. And ultimately, the Congress got around to giving them 

$800 million. Now we are telling them trust us, we are going to 

give you a billion dollars to do this in the time limits that we have. 

And I think it is certainly realistic for them to have some concerns 

about this. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will have ample time for debate on 

the substance of what is before us and also on the amendments 

that we have drawn hopefully to the substitute that is here and 

take into concern the very specific questions we have about the bill 

as it has been presented to us. And I thank the chairman for the 

time. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
115 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 36562.106
116 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 36562.107
117 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ehlers, I think you had a substitute and I think that I want 

to recognize you for five minutes to speak on your substitute. 

Mr. EHLERS. On this substitute or on my substitute? 

The CHAIRMAN. Your substitute, we are on your substitute now. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I was just going to ask a point of information. 

I am a little confused about where we are currently because the 

gentlewoman from California left. Are we going to debate her bill 

are we going to recess until she comes back? 

The CHAIRMAN. She introduced her substitute, and I thought Mr. 

Ehlers introduced a substitute to her substitute. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Did you make a motion? 

Mr. EHLERS. I have not offered my substitute. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are still on Lofgren substitute. I would like 

to recognize Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I want to make it clear. I voted against HAVA 

when it was first proposed. I voted against it because of a lot of 

things that happened since then. I thought I was right then and 

in hindsight, I think I was right still. But at the same time, we 

weren’t allowed to offer amendments. We weren’t allowed to have 

discussions in a serious way. I am a former elected official—a formal locally elected official—a former mayor. 

Mr. EHLERS. You are working on it? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Not yet. I will leave that one alone. 

But as a former mayor, we ran elections. I have hands-on experience with picking machines, talking to election officials, making 

sure that elections, both State, Federal and local, were run appropriately. The HAVA bill did not assure me in any level that number one, the money was going to be there; number two, that the 

bad actors were going to be told given standards; number 3 that 

the good actors were in any way going to be encouraged to continue 

to be good actors. 

So that was an easy vote for me. I agree that some of the provisions in the bill are still not done yet. I don’t have any problem 

with that. I have yet to see a bill ever that is perfect no matter 

how you look at it. 

I do, however, believe this bill is a significant step in the right 

direction, as I understand, I am relatively familiar with most of the 

provisions in the substitute, I think it is still a step forward. There 

are still some problems I have with it. But again, I could sit here 

and talk about the negative or the positive. And the negative, there 

is still some time in the process for me to have input and everybody have input to make it better. 

At the same time, I think it is the right thing to do to move this 

bill forward, continue to work on it to make it better as we all see 

making it better might decide, let the process work and get this 

going. Because I think everybody can sit here today—I don’t think 

anybody is going to argue that the process we have now, current 

law we are living under now is a good law. 

HAVA had huge holes in it. And if we can’t fix every one of them, 

if we are not going to be able to address every single issue that is 

of concern to each and every one of us, that is not an argument not 

to make significant progress. So I want to make it clear. I voted 

against HAVA. I am glad I voted against HAVA. But I intend to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
118 

vote for this bill. And I hope between now and the team, it actually 

gets to the President’s desk, there is still some things I would like 

to have further discussion on as well, and I think there will be 

plenty of opportunity for all of us to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from California Mr. 

McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask a point of information. Is the time that is allotted right now my 5 minutes, taking 

my 5 minutes to ask questions about this bill? 

The CHAIRMAN. You have five minutes now on the Lofgren substitute. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman if I may, I would like to withhold 

and I would like to allow others to go before me. I would wait until 

somebody comes back that can answer the questions on the bill if 

I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, she is not here at the moment, but she will 

be back. Hopefully she will come back in time and you will have 

a chance to ask her questions, but right now we are going to move 

forward on her substitute. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I was the ranking member on 

the subcommittee that dealt—we did three hearings on this and I 

am very concerned. Couple of points. This bill you have mentioned, 

it wasn’t ready. We have got a presidential election coming up 

where primaries are moved up. Florida is moving up to January. 

My home State moved it up to February. And we are now going 

to gut the system and change the system when we haven’t finished 

even going through the HAVA and finishing paying and now we 

want to move a bill today that we had to postpone from last week 

and we don’t have the ability to debate it? I am very concerned because in these hearings, many of you weren’t able to be here because you weren’t on the subcommittee. But election official after 

election official has come before us and said, this bill is not ready. 

And I think we are making a major decision here, one, with the 

lack of debate; two, with the inability to answer the questions, and 

I think from a perspective when we come to this issue, we should 

put people before politics. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, a partisan debate. And I don’t think you would see it on this side of the 

aisle. 

But from my point of view, I am feeling frustrated because this 

is such a serious issue that we don’t have the ability to debate it. 

We don’t have the ability to answer the question. And we may be 

able to come to a point where we find common ground. 

So with all due respect, I am just asking for the point that I 

would gladly wait until she is back into the room where maybe we 

could find a place that we can get to. I yield back my time to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we could maybe hear Mr. Ehlers’ substitute, 

debate that, vote on that and by that time Ms. Lofgren should be 

back and we can ask her questions then. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is the suggestion that Mr. Ehlers’ substitute is not 

going to be adopted? 

The CHAIRMAN. We don’t know. We have to vote on that. We will 

have a vote. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
119 

Mr. EHLERS. If I may reclaim the time I yielded back earlier. I 

was just so surprised that the offerer of the substitute immediately 

left the room making it impossible to ask questions or get answers. 

I share Mr. McCarthy’s frustration on that. 

My problem is, as Mr. Capuano’s about HAVA, it is a process. 

I would like to work together, have this be a bipartisan bill as 

HAVA was. I would like to work with the Senate, have it be a bicameral bill as HAVA was. I have already been told by people in 

the Senate that this version, even though with the substitute, is 

dead on arrival there, it seems like a waste of time to work on a 

bill that is going to be totally forgotten about once it reaches the 

Senate and they plan to write their own. 

So it is just a very confusing process. I suppose I could offer my 

substitute and run out of the room to avoid anyone asking any 

questions on it. 

But that is a hard way to accomplish progress. So Mr. Chairman, 

I understand the spot you are in. You are not responsible for what 

your Members do, but it is very disconcerting to try to have a discussion when one party leaves the room. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. We made an accommodation we will come back 

to that when it comes in, if it is dead on arrival I don’t know why 

you are offering amendments on substitutes but we are allowing 

you to do that also. Oh, his isn’t dead on arrival, only ours is dead 

on arrival. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for the substitute. 

Mr. EHLERS. To try to move things along, Mr. Chairman, let me 

just say I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the substitute is considered as 

read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
120 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 36562.108
121 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 36562.109
122 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 36562.110
123 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 36562.111
124 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 36562.112
125 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 36562.113
126 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 36562.114
127 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 36562.115
128 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 36562.116
129 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What we have 

tried to do is make an honest effort to improve the bill as submitted and the version that this committee had originally developed, the majority of the committee had originally developed. It directs the Election Assistance Commission, with the help of NIST, 

to establish guidelines and standards for new Federal election 

equipment by January 1, 2010. Everyone we have talked to, all of 

the election officials, State election officials said 2008 is simply impossible. 

I take their word for that. They are the experts. So we have tried 

for 2010 effective date. This provides a technology that allows a 

contemporaneous, redundant and auditable trail of votes cast recorded on such equipment which was the purpose of the original 

Holt bill. 

It provides a technology that allows each individual who is eligible to vote in such an election to verify the ballot before the individual’s vote is cast into the equipment. 

It provides a technology that ensures reliable security of the 

equipment from tampering or improper use. It provides a technology that ensures that individuals with disabilities who are eligible to vote in the election can vote independently and without assistance. 

States would need to be compliant with the new guidelines and 

standards as soon as they are able to do that. We estimate by 2014, 

they would certainly have everything in place and available for use. 

The real item that sticks in the craw of the States is the plan for 

audits. States are ready to have their own audits. They resent 

being told by the Federal Government how they should handle 

their audits. In particular, most States who have talked to me believe that the proposal in the bill is worse than nothing because it 

interferes with a recount process, interferes with a board of canvass review, and it does not really accomplish the audit the way 

it should be accomplished. 

State security plans. States would have to submit to the Election 

Assistance Commission by January 1, 2008, security protocols as 

far as voting machines and administering elections. So every State 

would have to prepare its security plan. 

State contingency plans. Each State must submit to the EAC by 

January 1, 2008 its contingency plans for election day emergencies 

or voting machine malfunctions. Plans must include a polling place 

and emergency ballot protocols. 

There are many other factors that make this substitute better 

than the Lofgren substitute. It is supported by the National Association of Counties, because they realize this approach fits with the 

proven idea of allowing the States to have the flexibility to meet 

Federal requirements in election law. H.R. 811 directly undermines 

the valuable gains from HAVA and takes us back to 19th century 

election systems and procedures. 

My substitute looks to use technology to improve the voting system, not revert back to requirements and problematic paper. It has 

been 5 years since the enactment of HAVA, and there are still 

States that have yet to fully comply with requirements. Until that 

happens, we are unable to accurately measure its successes and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
130 

shortcomings. My substitute allows for enough time to rationally 

make changes to this system. 

Recently, EAC commissioner Gracia Hillman testified during an 

Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee hearing that if 

H.R. 811 were enacted, over 180,000 voting machines would need 

to be replaced or upgraded nationwide for the 2008 elections. Another factor there is technology being developed that would be accessible to disabled voters and allow them to verify their vote independently and privately. That technology is not yet ready available 

or certified. 

Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark testified there is no way 

under the sun we—that is State election administrators—can make 

the kind of changes that are contemplated in H.R. 811 by next 

year’s elections. 

George Gilbert stated we are concerned that the implementation 

date of 2008 would actually collapse the election system. I could go 

on and on with this. But the pulp is simply the Lofgren substitute 

does not solve the problems in H.R. 811. It is a noble attempt, but 

it doesn’t accomplish it. I believe that my substitute does accomplish what H.R. 811 wants to accomplish, and it does so in a workable fashion. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
131 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 36562.117
132 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 36562.118
133 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 36562.119
134 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 36562.120
135 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 36562.121
136 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 36562.122
137 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 36562.123
138 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here 36562.220
139 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 02 here 36562.221
140 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 03 here 36562.222
141 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 04 here 36562.223
142 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 05 here 36562.224
143 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 06 here 36562.225
144 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 07 here 36562.226
145 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 08 here 36562.227
146 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 09 here 36562.228
147 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 36562.229
148 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The question is on agreeing to the Ehlers substitute amendment to the Lofgren substitute. 

All of those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ All those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ No. The noes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I ask for a roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. The amendment is not agreed to. The noes 

are 5, the ayes are 3. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. EHLERS. Not to be—Mr. Chairman. I have a number of 

amendments, individual amendments to the substitute, to offer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, right now I need to recognize the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I do have 

an amendment to the substitute by Ms. Lofgren. And I ask for 

unanimous consent to consider it as read. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Do they have a copy of the 

amendment? The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
149 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 36562.129
150 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 36562.130
151 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I did inquire of staff because I wanted to make 

sure that you had the amendments. My understanding is that they 

were distributed prior to the calling of order of the committee, but 

surely they are not available, let’s go ahead, these are technical 

conforming—— The CHAIRMAN. Technical perfecting amendment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. If I could be recognized for a few minutes, 

maybe my explanation will be adequate or sufficient. I don’t think 

that members on the minority side are going to find anything objectionable. 

This amendment makes technical and conforming changes to ensure this bill is consistent and accurate. The first change ensures 

that we are consistent in making the independent testing agencies 

the escrow entities for voting software and not the Commission. 

The Commission is listed on page 17 of the bill where it should 

read ‘‘laboratory accredited under section 231.’’ The second change 

being made here is to include manufacturers in reporting security 

standards if requested by the Commission. On page 18, line 5, it 

should read ‘‘manufacturer or appropriate election official.’’ And as I said, these are just basically conforming and changes 

one amendment, two minor changes. There were inconsistencies, 

we were making reference to commissions and so on. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Yes. Ranking Member, 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman from Texas indicated that the minority could not find anything wrong with this. He sorely underestimates us, but in the hope of speeding things along, I am prepared to accept the amendment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment then is accepted. The chairman 

now would like to recognize Mr. Capuano for offering an amendment to the Lofgren substitute. 

First, we still need a vote on the Gonzalez amendment. 

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

Aye. 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’

In the opinion of the Chair, the ‘‘ayes’’ have it. 

So ordered, the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Capuano offered an amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from 

Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
152 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here 36562.131
153 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here 36562.132
154 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here 36562.133
155 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here 36562.134
156 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply allows voters to have a choice as opposed to having election officials have full 

control over the method of voting that a voter might wish to do. 

It allows people who walk into the polling place to take whatever 

is offered, or to ask for a ballot that is capable of being 

handmarked. To me, this is an amendment that is already full of 

compromises for me. It does take into account some of the earlier 

voting provisions. It exempts them. It doesn’t take effect until 

2010. It does not deal with voting centers because personally, I 

wasn’t familiar with voting centers, but I have no problem at all 

working to make sure that voting centers in the future be excluded 

from this. 

For all intents and purposes, it renders the emergency provisions, the emergency provisions moot. And it does that by allowing 

every voter to make a decision and therefore requiring every polling place to have enough ballots to handle that. Provisions are not 

yet stricken by this. I have no problem with having discussions to 

not trying to be redundant. I don’t think redundancy helps at all. 

And this amendment I think is very simple, very straightforward, 

and I would urge people to support it. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any discussion? Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment 

again. I think it is an attempt to provide a clarification, and personally I have no objection, if you wish, to call for yeas and nays. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Initially, I 

was very supportive of this because I think that at some of the 

hearings that we heard from people, it became clear that there is 

a choice for voters. And we wanted to be able to provide that, 

whether you know we used the word paper or plastic, but essentially, to be able to allow people who are concerned, have problems, 

whatever that may be to vote with paper. I was then concerned 

that we might disallow people who are voting early to do this because election centers would not be prepared to handle that, but I 

think that has been clarified in the amendment. 

I think that it really does allow some choice. And I think over 

time, some of us will settle out because people will either choose 

to use the paper or they will have the confidence in whatever machines it is that they are using and they will be able to do what 

we are really doing here—focusing on the voter and encouraging an 

election system that has the confidence of people that are getting 

to the polls, so I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I support it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. Any other discussion? All those 

in favor of the Capuano amendment signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’

Aye. 

Any opposed? So ordered, the amendment is agreed to. 

We will move on to any other amendments? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a whole series of amendments here. The first one is labeled Ehlers Number 1, requiring 

paper as the official ballot. What this amendment does is allow 

States to decide what the official ballot of record should be. 

I think one of the flaws in the original bill, H.R. 811, as we have 

heard testimony from various governmental units, is that it insists 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
157 

that the only ballot of record is the paper ballot. I think there have 

been substantial cases showing that paper, in and of itself, is not 

necessarily more reliable than other methods of voting. I think it 

should be up to the election officials to have the capability and the 

freedom to decide, based on the record of what they see and the 

results of the voting, to decide which of the ballot—which of the redundant system they are using is the more reliable in terms of recounting the election. 

So this certainly clarifies that issue, removes the absolute nature 

of the statement. As I said before, the 2000 presidential recount in 

Florida proved that paper ballots were not the answer and that 

was the genesis of HAVA. The main reason the Nation moved from 

paper ballots to mechanical voting machines was because of rampant fraud associated with paper ballots and the problems with discerning voter intent. Paper ballots can be—and frequently were— lost, stolen, or damaged. Entire ballot boxes were lost, stolen or 

stuffed with counterfeit ballots. That was the origin of the development of the old lever-style voting machines to get away from the 

problems of paper. I think we should let the election officials decide 

which is the appropriate record to use when recounting in a particular election based on the state of the ballots, the state of the 

equipment and so forth. I urge the adoption of this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, the 

amendment is considered as read. Any other discussion on the 

amendment? Yes. The gentleman from Alabama. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
158 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 36562.135
159 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 36562.136
160 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 36562.137
161 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ehlers, I 

would pose this question to you and then yield you your time to 

answer it. I assume when you crafted your amendment, you may 

have possibly expected that the Capuano amendment would not be 

successful. It has now been successful. It just passed by voice vote. 

Can you reconcile your amendment with the Capuano amendment? It seems like from my standpoint, if the Capuano amendment gives the voter a choice that that is substantially undercut 

if the States could then come back and say we are going to ignore 

all paper ballots in adjudicating a recount, but I yield to you to answer that. 

Mr. EHLERS. I will be happy to yield. I don’t see a conflict here 

at all because it gives the local election officials the choice of which 

to use for the record. If for example they have allowed some people 

to use VVPAT, paper ballots, and there is no alternative, obviously 

they have to depend on those paper ballots for those individuals as 

the vote for the record. But the intent of the bill is to make certain 

there are two indicators of the intent of the elector so that we can 

determine precisely what the elector meant. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, reclaiming my time. I am searching 

for the actual text of your amendment. If you have an extra copy 

of it, I would appreciate being given it versus just the executive 

summary of it. But if I am understanding the summary, it suggests 

that it would be up to a State to decide. But in the event of a recount, the State could choose something other than paper ballots. 

If I understand Mr. Capuano’s amendment, the goal is to give a 

voter the option of making sure there is a paper trail. The only relevance of giving a voter that option would be that there was, in the 

event of a recount or in the event of a dispute, the availability of 

something more reliable than machines. 

So it may be that we simply disagree about your amendment, but 

it would seem to me given Mr. Capuano’s amendment now being 

included in the bill that you would take away or you would undercut the voter flexibility Mr. Capuano creates by allowing the States 

to in fact ignore those paper ballots. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. They would not have that option. The intent 

here is that when there are two official records, whether it is a 

computer and a paper trail or whether it is some other alternative 

dual redundant record, which could be a computer with an additional server located alongside which verifies the votes, if there are 

two choices, let the State choose. If there is only one choice, if it 

is just the paper ballots that Mr. Capuano refers, that of course 

has to be the only option that the State or the local government 

can pick. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. In the interest of time, I will make this 

just my last observation. It would seem as a practical matter that 

if consistent with Mr. Capuano’s amendment that there would always be in every jurisdiction a chunk of ballots that were paper 

ballots that would exist, perhaps in some there would be the overwhelming majority of the ballots that were cast. So as a practical 

matter, If I understand the point the ranking member is making, 

if there were an election recount or an election audit, it may create 

a very significant practical problem if the State were to decide to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
162 

use one mode of verification if a significant number of ballots were 

cast. 

Mr. EHLERS. The State could never exclude ballots that were officially cast if that is the only ballot that was made. They could 

never do that. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Okay. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Yes, the lady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to—I am sorry that I had to briefly 

depart for a previously scheduled meeting. I did want to address 

the issue that I understand Mr. Ehlers raised in my absence, which 

is what machines are readily available now that meet the standards in the substitute. And that would be official optical scans and 

ballot marking devices, and I also understand that the question 

has been raised whether levers, the machines with the levers 

would be essentially outlawed under the substitute. And the answer to that is yes, they would be outlawed. However, only New 

York uses the levers, and the State of New York has itself outlawed the levers as of September of this year. H.R. 811—actually 

the substitute would actually not outlaw the levers until November 

of 2008. So I don’t think New York would actually even be impacted since they have taken a step in advance of this. I think that 

the substitute does really nothing to advance our cause of transparency and voter recounts. 

And you know years ago, I was visiting in Silicon Valley, and all 

the techies are very concerned, at least in the valley, who have 

talked to me, that we take a step such as is envisioned in the bill 

and in the substitute. And I remember one of the scientists told 

me—I said, well, mistakes can be made under any system, and that 

is true. I mean there can be mistakes on paper ballots. There can 

be mistakes on optical scans. There can be mistakes on machines. 

I mean, nothing is perfect, and we all know that. And he argued 

back to me, yes, but the mistakes can’t all be skewed to one side 

as they could be in a voting machine. And that is really what 

underlies this issue. You can’t hack a paper ballot. And you can 

hack a voting machine, and you need to have a paper ballot at 

least to prevent that from happening, and I think to do anything 

less is a mistake, and I don’t question the gentleman’s commitment 

or his good will. I just think that he is mistaken, and I thank the 

Chairman. 

Mr. EHLERS. Would the gentlewoman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to get back to you. We have agreed 

to hold open any debate on your substitute until you got back. But 

right now we are on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment No. 1. If we could do 

this, get through the amendments, and as I agreed to, we could go 

back and have our discussion with the substitute. I believe Mr. 

Ehlers’ amendment No. 1 is up for——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Addressing Mr. Ehlers’—I guess—amendment 

No. 1. Mr. Ehlers, could you give me an example of what you are 

talking about here where there would be an election by the election 

official and determine what would be the official ballot? What constitutes the official ballot for the purpose of an audit or a recount, 

a real life experience that we could anticipate occurring? 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am sorry. I yield to you. Yes, sir. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
163 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank you for yielding. This is not an amendment 

that is just coming out of the blue. This is in response to the requirement in H.R. 811 that in the case of two extremes the paper 

ballot is the ballot of record, period. The local community has no 

choice, the State has no choice and this amendment is simply to 

make it clear in the case of a dual record. The State and the locality upon examination of the two records can decide which is the 

most accurate and use that as the official recount. It is not a new 

concept. It is simply taking away the requirement that it has to be 

paper, that you can’t consider the voting machine as—— Mr. GONZALEZ. Reclaiming my time, I guess what I am trying to 

get at is, if you could give me an example of where you have two 

competing ballots that either could be recognized as the official ballot. Are we talking something that is electronically computed? Or 

something that we have that is actually a—obviously the paper ballot? The reason that I pose that question is, if you are going to give 

an option to the election officials to basically defeat the very purpose of what we are doing, and that is a paper trail, but not just 

a paper trail but something that can be examined, quantified as 

being more reliable than that which cannot be, which would be 

something that would be a nonpaper ballot. See what I am getting 

at? I am just saying, I would like to know of an example that you 

could provide me because maybe I am missing the whole point of 

your amendment. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I would like to yield to Mr. Ehlers since it 

is his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Let me first respond, and then I hope you 

will also recognize Mr. McCarthy. You are assuming, as the bill 

does, that the paper trail is automatically the better record. Now 

we heard testimony before this committee from Cuyahoga County, 

Ohio that this is not true, that they did run an election where 

there was a paper ballot as well as the machine. The machine 

turned out to be far more accurate than the paper ballot. Now I 

am not saying this would be true in every case. I am just saying 

in a case where that is true and it is evident, isn’t it foolish of us 

to say, I don’t care if the machine is proven to be more accurate, 

why do you exclude—why do you require us to use a paper ballot? 

So I am just giving the local election officials a choice. This is 

based on my strong feeling. Having served in local government, 

State government and Federal Government, I have discovered that 

not all wisdom resides in the Congress, and I think we ought to 

recognize the ability of the local election——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Reclaiming my time, I know that it is probably 

almost expired. But I think just an important point—obviously I 

was just informed in that particular aspect or that particular county, the paper roll jammed and you had certain problems. I think 

we start from the basic premise. And I know that we have a fundamental difference about it that we are insistent on the paper ballot. 

I think what you are doing is you are allowing an election official 

to frustrate the very purpose of what we are attempting to accomplish and, further, find ways and manners of making sure that the 

paper ballot does in fact establish something that is very clear and 

quantifiable. That is my fear and my concern or that you actually 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
164 

put what we are trying to do here in jeopardy by—and I understand what you are saying, it is just the good faith of the election 

officials or so. But I can actually see where there would be a heck 

of a lot more mischief with that than if we say let’s emphasize a 

quality paper ballot, a paper trail, because that is what brings us 

here today and this particular piece of legislation, and at this time 

I would yield back because I know—— Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I would yield to Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would note to cite Cuyahoga County is pretty 

amazing since it is my understanding the election officials there 

were removed by the State because of irregularities and misconduct 

in the conduct of elections, and that has been widely reported in 

the press and I would yield back. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield back to the chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I could ask my questions, I guess. Referring 

to my friend from the other side asking for a specific example, during the hearings we did have an elected official from Ohio. It was 

a race this time, and it was close. I believe it was Deborah Pryce’s 

race. It was a large county. It met all the criteria, all the matrix 

that you would want to see. And it went through with the State 

provision to have the recount. The interesting part that they 

brought up, they had electronic machine and they had the paper 

right there. When they went back and did the checking because 

that is what they have to do, the machine counted correctly. The 

paper—because you are using individuals there who have been 

trained but who aren’t there all the time—jammed. So in this bill 

what Mr. Ehlers is saying and why he is offering the substitute, 

we are predetermining which one we look at. Even though in that 

case if this bill was to pass, the paper would be the correct answer 

even though we all knew it was wrong. 

So all Mr. Ehlers is saying with the substitute, don’t predetermine the winner in the process. Allow the elected official who is 

elected by the body or appointed to actually weigh that issue so 

they have the option. And I understand your argument from there, 

but in this case we would have legislated what was right and what 

was wrong even though in that case he pointed out it was wrong, 

and I can see human error, just like Ms. Lofgren talked about earlier. The more people touch it, the greater a chance that there is 

an error. When you are feeding these in, you can’t have error. And 

double checking, doing the parallel test, they found the machine 

had counted correctly. The paper had counted wrong so they were 

having the verification on both——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Would the gentleman yield? Thank you very 

much. My understanding is you had a reel and it jammed and you 

had those problems. I believe and I could be wrong, and I will defer 

to Ms. Lofgren and to Mr. Ehlers who are very knowledgeable 

about every aspect of this particular piece of legislation, my understanding is that we are going to have paper ballots available for 

those that are going to be requesting them. So I don’t see that situation that we now allude to as ever repeating itself. Because if they 

had a problem with the printout, with the roll, the reel or whatVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Jul 26, 2007 Jkt 036562 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A562.XXX A562

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
165 

ever, we are actually going to have available for use in those circumstances a printed ballot. It is my understanding that we are 

going to have something that would address that particular situation. So that if anything, we have now built into this whole voting 

process a more careful and deliberate way of arriving at a paper 

ballot that we can rely on so that we do avoid the problem that you 

just set out. I just think that really defeats the whole purpose of 

what we are trying to accomplish here with paper trail, paper ballot and reliability. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I may yield back my time. The only thing I 

would state here is this is probably the problem where we are putting the cart before the horse. If we would debate the bill, maybe 

this would be a little clearer understanding, because in that instance you wouldn’t have known the paper had jammed. Even 

though you do have paper and you have the paper ballot but the 

person was able then to go to the choice, what happens is only 

when the election was close did they go back, trigger an automatic 

evaluation. The election was close. That is when they realized that 

the paper count was not correct, but this legislation, if the answer 

is the way I read it, it says the paper is always right. The machine 

can never be right. And I would rather—instead of predetermining 

who the winner is, I would rather give that power to the elected 

officials who do this every day. And they could see from that instance, and that is in essence what the substitute, and let me yield 

my time to—— Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman would yield here, let me just follow 

that up. First of all, machines don’t always function perfectly. That 

is true of computers, and it is true of paper. I am not arguing that 

we make the computer the automatic one. I am saying just allow 

the election officials based on the records to decide which one is 

right. I think it is absurd to say well, the paper always has to be 

right. We already have examples where it is wrong. It is also so 

argued that the computer has to be right. But I don’t understand 

the underlying assumption here that somehow the computer is always wrong. 

Look, we sent out millions of Social Security checks every year. 

Our paychecks are run off by a computer. Right? I never even see 

it. It automatically goes into my bank account. Now I have a check 

because I can check it because—I wish I had more checks—but I 

could check my bank account and see that it was actually deposited 

correctly. The point is simply we trust computers for so many aspects of our lives. I think it is insane to have something that says 

the computer is automatically wrong. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Would the gentleman yield for one point? 

Mr. EHLERS. It is not my time. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Would you yield for one quick observation? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Ultimately Mr. Gonzalez and I are making the same point. So I won’t spend a lot more time on this, but 

I think, Mr. McCarthy, what you said perhaps unintentionally 

clarifies this debate. This side of the aisle, the supporters of this 

bill want to create a paper trail in every instance because this side 

of the aisle has made the judgment that that is, all things being 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
166 

equal, the best, most provable, most empirical way of verifying 

whether a vote has been cast. The purpose of this amendment is 

to depart from that intent and to say to local election officials, you 

can choose a different mode, and that just seems crystal clear to 

me. That is your position and we have ours. But I don’t think it 

is accurate to say that this is consistent with the intent to move 

toward a paper verification. It is not. It would allow the opposite 

of paper verification. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I may yield back just for clarification. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure if there is time left. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Just to be short, maybe we are not clear because 

that is not our intention. All we are saying is you could have a 

paper trail and you can have a computer trail. In essence what you 

are saying, paper trail always, even in the instance when it jams, 

and this person got a hundred votes and the paper trail says——

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has no more time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have nine amendments. We could do this 

back and forth forever. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to strike the last 

word. I come to this somewhat fresh. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And I have been one that had been concerned 

when I come up to certain machines and, you know, I push my finger on it and I hope it registers it correctly. And initially I thought 

paper verification, man, that is the way to go. And maybe this is 

the essence of the difference here. Isn’t what we really want is to 

have a redundancy, a redundant system that is independently 

verifiable so that you can compare one against the other to see if 

in fact there was the accuracy of the machine involved, not just go 

back and check the machine and its internal operations? That is 

what I understand what we are trying to do here. And we are, it 

seems to me, making the judgment that the only way to do that 

is by a paper trail, and I don’t know if that is because we doubt 

technology or we think that the constituents need—the voters need 

to have something in their hands to prove to them that in fact that 

is the best way to verify. 

Now, I am one of those who loves to have a check in my hand, 

loves to have a piece of paper in my hand. But at the same time, 

I recognize the world is changing and that we are going to 

paperless programs. And I just wonder whether it really does make 

sense. And this is not partisan on my part. I am trying to assure 

you. I want a redundancy. But does it make sense for us to predetermine the redundancy has to be paper? 

And I guess my question is a general one but then also a specific 

one. I understand—and maybe the gentlelady from California can 

correct me—but I understand in your substitute that you give a 

waiver to reel-to-reel paper, reel-to-reel machines for 2008? 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And that is because——


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
167 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is because some of the States, some of the 

localities have complained that their State legislatures might not 

be able to act in time, and we want to accommodate that, but since 

the gentleman has yielded—— Mr. LUNGREN. And I yield to the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think it is important to be clear about what the 

underlying bill says and what it doesn’t say. It says—— Mr. LUNGREN. It would be very helpful. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. In section 2(b)(1) that if there is an 

inconsistency between any electronic vote tallies and the vote tallies determined by counting by hand that the paper ballots shall 

prevail, as has been discussed. It goes on to say if it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, as determined in accordance with the applicable standards in the jurisdiction involved 

in any recount, audit or contest of the result of the election, that 

paper ballots have been compromised by damage or mischief or otherwise and that a sufficient number of ballots have been so compromised that the result of the election should be changed, the determination of the appropriate remedy with respect to the election 

shall be made in accordance with the applicable State law. And so 

there is room for using commonsense in the case where the reelto-reel, for example, jams, as we saw in one of our hearings. I 

would note also that in Ohio there was no parallel testing—I just 

wanted to correct the record on that—in the election contest previously referenced. The difference here I think is—and I don’t want 

to talk about Florida 13 specifically because that is a separate committee that we belong to. But we do know that looking at that 

issue, there is nothing to recount. There is no paper ballots to recount. And that is the greatest argument I can find—— Mr. LUNGREN. Reclaiming my time, the gentlelady has just directed us to in the substitute actually goes to what the amendment 

offered by Mr. Ehlers is, and so therefore the gentlelady accepts 

the argument but is suggesting that you have taken care of that 

in your base substitute. That is, at times if there is proof that the 

paper ballot method is somehow insufficient, they can go to something else, is that correct? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Not exactly. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Oh. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the paper ballots have been compromised and that a 

sufficient number of the ballots have been so compromised that the 

results would have been changed, the determination of the remedy 

shall be made in accordance with applicable State law. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is up. Anyone else? Question on the Ehlers amendment? All those in favor, signify by saying 

‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed? The noes have it. The amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Could I have a recorded vote on that? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote. Recorded vote on the Ehlers amendment No. 1. 

The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
168 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 6, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, Lungren 

No. 1. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lungren No. 1. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. I will now recognize the gentleman for five 

minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
169 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 36562.138
170 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the Chairman. This amendment I think— well, I hope is somewhat noncontroversial. It attempts to try and 

deal with a particular problem that occurred to me, and this 

amendment tries to deal with that problem. It would allow the 

States that currently use the direct recording electronic systems 

with the voter-verified paper audit trail that have thermal paper 

to continue to use these voting machines in Federal elections. It is 

my understanding that 27 States currently use DREs with reel-toreel voter-verified paper audit trails. This bill would require that 

States junk these new voting machines after the 2008 election. I 

could find no compelling reason to require the States to replace 

these machines because DREs with voter-verified paper audit trails 

that use reel-to-reel thermal paper still provide the paper record 

that we are talking about. It seems to me this is the kind of thing 

that the election officials were complaining about. This would be a 

huge waste of taxpayer dollars to replace something that is working and that provides the paper auditable trail that is desired by 

the majority in this bill. State and local election administrators 

have advised members of the committee that an alternative to reelto-reel voter-verified paper audit trails cannot be developed, tested, 

certified and implemented for the 2008 elections and there is some 

question, according to them, whether it would be available for the 

2010 elections. 

So this amendment would simply allow States to use these reelto-reel voter-verified paper audit trails for the life of the machine. 

And as I understand it, that could be 10 to 15 years or until the 

State decides to purchase new equipment. This does not change the 

underlying premise of the bill, as I understand, brought to us by 

the majority. It does have the paper trail there established. It 

would save money even though I know we are promising that we 

are going to send the money down there. I think we ought to be 

realistic, there is always cost involved. And if this serves the purpose of what we were talking about, I would hope that we could 

adopt this amendment. 

It does nothing to undercut the premise of the majority. It does 

nothing to undercut the idea of a paper trail. It allows the use of 

the machines that, as I understand it, have not proven to be problematic to this point. And that is the purpose of my amendment, 

and I think it is fairly simple and straightforward. 

And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to thank the gentleman. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. As referenced earlier by, I believe it was Mr. McCarthy, the reel-to-reel 

are not optimal technology. I mean, they can jam. They are not perfect. And the provision in the substitute that permits their use 

through the 2008 election is a compromise, really in deference to 

the county and State officials who said that they could not meet 

the 2008 deadline. But I think to ignore the problems that we are 

aware of forever would be a mistake, and that is why the substitute gives a waiver but actually says these machines need to 

have a durable paper trail that is readable and countable in the future. And I think that to adopt the gentleman’s amendment, although I am sure it is well intentioned, would be a mistake, would 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
171 

undermine the bill and the progress that we hope to make with it, 

which is why I oppose it, and I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the lady. Any other discussion? The question is on the amendment? All those in favor of the Lungren 

amendment No. 1 signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk 

please call the roll? 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. This amendment——

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read, and you are recognized for five minutes. Which 

number is this? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 1. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 1. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
172 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 36562.139
173 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 36562.140
174 

Mr. MCCARTHY. It is my understanding that they have all been 

numbered by name, hopefully everybody has it. 

It is pretty straightforward. It allows States to continue to use 

the DRE for early voting and advanced voting. As many of us 

know, a lot of the States have moved up their voting such as Nevada and others to help when it comes to lines, to help in the process. And this allows them to use the DREs because they are necessary in urban areas to serve voters from anywhere within the 

county who wish to vote early at the voting locations. In some of 

these areas you can have 1,100 different ballot styles. And from 

this perspective, I believe it will help the individuals, it will shorten the lines, and one thing we found, a significant ballot printing 

and delivery problems for the optical scanners occurred in 2008, 

2004, 2006. And as everybody moves their election up faster, with 

the presidential coming and the primary, I just think this gives an 

opportunity to mend into your bill to actually give some flexibility 

at the same time. 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Any discussion? The 

question is on the amendment? All those in favor signify by saying 

‘‘aye’’. Any opposed? The noes have it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would ask for a roll call vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Roll call is requested. Would the Clerk please 

call the roll? 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read and the Ranking Member is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
175 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 36562.141
176 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 36562.142
177 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 36562.143
178 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is very 

straightforward. It strikes the audit provisions, which have been 

the most disturbing and difficult for the States and local governments to deal with. It strikes all of the other provisions, but it does 

not get rid of auditing. It allows the States to develop their own 

plan for auditing Federal elections. States will develop plans and 

get approval by their respective State auditors or equivalents and 

then submit their plan to the EAC. Election administrators are the 

ones who have to administer the changes and many of them have 

testified and sent letters testifying to the burdens and unintended 

consequences of the audit requirements in H.R. 811. I have alluded 

to that earlier in terms of the election officials who have talked to 

me. So the proposed audits will greatly interfere with the actions 

of the canvassers in deciding the final totals for local and State 

elections. With the testimony that we have received on this, this 

is not a good way to audit. They have better ways of doing it. We 

are happy to work with their State auditors to improve it if it 

needs improvement and submit their plan to the EAC. 

I ask for approval of my audit provision change. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, as the 

substitute actually deals with some of the issues raised by State officials relative to the audit. In the substitute the audit board has 

been removed but has been replaced with a requirement that the 

entity chosen by the State to conduct the audit satisfy the requirements of independence as set forth in the GAO’s government accounting standards and also provides for an alternative, that States 

could instead use auditing procedures established by NIST, and I 

know the gentleman has great respect for, as do I. So I believe, 

however, that independent random audits are very important, and 

certainly in talking to local government officials in California they 

concur that a randomized audit is absolutely essential. 

As the gentleman knows, I was a local government official for 

more years than I have been in Congress. I was on a board of supervisors in Santa Clara County for 14 years with responsibility for 

elections. We supervised and funded the registrar of voters in that 

fourth largest county in the State. And I would never, as a local 

official, have said that a randomized audit that was independent 

was somehow to be resisted. 

So I think the amendment undercuts the bill, an important element of the bill. We have in the substitute change provisions of it 

to accommodate what we think are legitimate issues raised by 

State officials so that we do not unduly constrain the development 

of audits, but we need to have independence and I think the gentleman’s amendment would undercut that. 

And I thank the chairman for yielding to me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other discussion on the Ehlers amendment 

No. 2? The question is on the amendment? All those in favor of the 

amendment signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed signify by saying 

‘‘no.’’ The amendment fails. We ask for a recorded vote with a roll. 

Would the Clerk please call the roll? 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
179 

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. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have Lungren No. 2, amendment 

No. 2 at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, Lungren No. 2. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
180 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 36562.144
181 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 36562.145
182 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This 

amendment deals with the question of disabled accessibility. As I 

mentioned earlier, when we had general debate the American Association of People With Disabilities, the Nation’s largest cross-disability membership organization, has expressed their concerns 

about the impracticality of the implementation of this bill. While 

they take pains to laud the impact of HAVA, HAVA’s requirement 

that all polling places have at least one accessible voting machine 

by 2006 because it has, in their words, resulted in significant improvements in voting access since the 2002 elections, they go on to 

say that they fear that the Nation might move backwards on accessible voting technology, not because that is the intent of the author 

of this bill or the substitute but rather because of the impracticality in implementing this bill in this way. 

That is why I offer this amendment. This amendment would simply allow States to continue to use the DREs that meet the accessibility requirements under current HAVA law. This guarantees that 

the progress achieved under that law for the disabled community, 

as referenced in the letter from the President and CEO of AAPD 

would continue. Testimony before the committee indicates there 

still exists access problems with paper ballot and paper trails. Dr. 

Diane golden, disability access and technology witness, stated the 

following, quote, there are two access problems that we have still 

got in existing products related to print. It is not going to work to 

have an accessible electronic vote record or ballot and an inaccessible paper one. You can just see the problem with that. It is clearly lack of equal access. And quote, when you add paper into the 

process, we certainly don’t have equipment on the market readily 

available that delivers all of those access features when a paper 

ballot is involved. 

Congressman Holt stated that, one, our legislation requires that 

there be a voter-verified paper ballot. Now what goes along with 

that we really don’t specify. There is some accessibility issues that, 

you know, purely a paper system cannot help the voter with disabilities along with the process. And that is an admission by Congressman Holt that we have a problem here. 

So it just seems to me that if we are going to require voterverified paper audit trails, we should first ensure that it has accessibility standards for all disabled voters before requiring the States 

to purchase technology that does not now exist. I believe a paper 

option can still be offered for those who are disabled and want a 

paper backup and prefer to have assistance in the voting booth. 

I understand the intent of the author of the underlying bill and 

the gentlelady from California with the substitute to try and somehow come to a reasonable compromise on this. I just fear that 

under the current terms of the bill that doesn’t make it. I would 

just ask that there be serious consideration of my amendment so 

that we don’t have an unintended consequence as a result of the 

terms of the bill that we pass. 

And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Is there any other discussion on the amendment? The lady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I oppose the amendment. And as mentioned earlier, there is a grandfather clause through the next election for 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
183 

those systems that have reel-to-reel. On page 7 of the substitute, 

starting at line six, there is also a provision requiring that the use 

of at least one voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place that allows a voter to privately and to 

independently verify the individual durable paper ballot and ensures that the entire process is equipped for individuals with disabilities. 

I will note that we worked very closely with the disability community in crafting the substitute, and I believe that it does address 

their very important issues, and the amendment is unnecessary 

and also redundant, and therefore I would oppose it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other discussion? The question is on the 

amendment? All those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Those 

against, ‘‘no.’’ The noes have it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Recorded vote, please. 

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk 

please call the roll? 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have Lungren amendment 3 at 

the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lungren with amendment No. 3 at the desk. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and I recognize the gentleman for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
184 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 36562.146
185 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes 

to a very controversial part of this bill. It goes to the question of 

source code and the availability of the source code to a large number of potential parties. This amendment would strike the provisions in the bill relating to election dedicated software and source 

code disclosures. 

As I read the bill, and I believe this is still true in the underlying 

substitute, it allows access of voting machine software to parties of 

a rather large universe. As I understand it, all someone would have 

to do is file a lawsuit, they would then be considered a party and 

they would have access to this information under the terms of this 

law. As I understand it, it would be both pre-election and post-election. As I understand it, there would be a requirement for disclosure—nondisclosure agreement to someone who successfully sought 

this information. However, I have looked in vain to find any provision in the bill before us that has an enforcement mechanism. 

Now, I don’t know, but I would think that we would want to protect intellectual property to a greater extent than that. A nondisclosure requirement that has no backup in terms of a penalty to 

someone who did disclose, either administratively or any other 

way, is not the way we normally look at important issues of intellectual property. As a matter of fact, we know we have international disputes with any number of our trading partners, and if 

we were to visit Taiwan or visit the People’s Republic and they 

were to tell us, look, we are going to protect your intellectual property by requiring nondisclosure agreements under certain circumstances but there is no enforcement mechanism, I think we 

would be very, very upset. 

These are crucial issues out there. I understand the importance 

of being able to check to make sure that machines have not been 

in any way tampered with, but I think this goes far too far. There 

are inherent security concerns and reservations about allowing a 

broad spectrum of parties, some of whom may not have real interests in the source code, to view sensitive and security-related voting machine equipment and software. And maybe I am mistaken 

on this, but I understand this is allowed pre-election as well as 

post-election under the terms of the bill. If we are concerned about 

securing something, maybe the last thing you want is individuals 

having access to these things prior to an election where they might 

be able to do testing to find out what the vulnerabilities are. I 

know that is not the intent of the gentlelady from California, but 

I have a concern that that could be the result, and particularly 

when we have no enforcement mechanisms in the underlying proposition before us. 

So my amendment would strike the provision in the bill relating 

to the election dedicated software and source code disclosures, and 

I would hope to get support for my amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any discussion on the amendment? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The lady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I oppose the amendment, and let me tell you why. 

I think there is no section of the substitute that I spent more personal hours on than this section, and to strike it would mean that 

no party or voter to—no party to litigation would ever be able to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
186 

have access to voting system technology and might never be able 

to find out whether votes were miscounted. Now the language in 

the substitute is crafted to provide protection needed to get access 

to the information while at the same time respecting the rights of 

third-party vendors and off-the-shelf software. The provision relating to nondisclosure agreements is one that I think provides the opportunity for penalty for disclosure when it comes to election specific software. 

I would note that the section which begins on page 11 of the substitute and extends into page 16 of the substitute is one that was 

crafted with the input of technology companies, many of whom are 

in my congressional district in Silicon Valley, and that the language is not opposed by the Business Software Alliance. I am not 

going to pretend that any software company wants any disclosure. 

I understand they don’t. But there is also a recognition that when 

there is election-specific software there is going to be a need in certain cases to have access to that software so that one can be assured as to what happened, and that is why we put these protections in place. I think that the provision is a balanced one that 

achieves its end, and I think the amendment simply striking it 

would lead us in the dark and would be a huge mistake, and I yield 

back. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions for Mr. Lungren and then I would like to yield him some 

time as well. In your amendment you say strike it because you 

raised the issue about no penalty, that anybody could just go in 

and file a lawsuit that day and then get—I mean I could file a personal lawsuit currently as the bill is written? 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I will yield. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As I understand it, the definition of the bill is 

someone who has an interest—a party of interest would be anyone 

who filed a lawsuit involved in this issue, whether or not they succeeded in the lawsuit, whether or not the lawsuit was thrown out 

later on, as I read the bill. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And yours would—because there is no penalty as 

well. If someone goes in and signs that paperwork, I filed the lawsuit, I signed the paperwork, I get the source code. Is there any 

penalty if I do—— Mr. LUNGREN. Well, if the gentleman would yield. And the 

gentlelady from California can correct me if I am wrong. But I read 

through the bill and could not find, or referring to my bill, the staff 

did a good job of reading through the bill—I could not find a reference to the penalty attached even administratively, civilly, criminally, any otherwise. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. On that point, if you would look, I direct your attention to line 24 on page 13 on the nondisclosure agreements. The 

NDAs, what we decided would be prudent would be not to try to 

write the NDAs for the software companies. Let the companies 

write their own NDAs. Ordinarily—I have signed plenty of them—


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
187 

there are penalty provisions for disclosure that would be included 

in the NDA itself. So it was really in deference to the variety of 

companies. But there are limits that are put into the bill on what 

the NDA could contain, for example——

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I may reclaim my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So if I recall correctly here, what you are saying 

is we are giving it up to the companies to put out any penalty they 

want, and how would it be reinforced then, through the legal 

course there? 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand what the gentlelady is saying, it is 

a nondisclosure agreement to be reached between the manufacturer 

or the possessor of the intellectual property and the person asking 

for it. But the fact that we don’t specify any type of enforcement 

leaves that hanging out there. I would suggest that if one reads 

this bill, the impetus is to get this document or this information 

source code and other information out and for a company to stand 

there and say, look, we don’t believe the nondisclosure agreement 

is sufficient to protect us, they will not be in a very strong position 

to do this. And I mean I would just say if the gentlelady is telling 

me that the high tech industry has signed off on this, this is news 

to me. And if that is the case, maybe on the Judiciary Committee 

we ought to understand they are not as concerned about source 

code protection as they have told us they are. And that is what I 

frankly find surprising, that somehow I am being told that they 

don’t oppose it or they agree with it or they accept it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Before that, I would just say if I were their lawyer 

and I saw this legislation and I saw that I was required by the 

Federal Government to give this information up pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement and there are no elements of protection for 

me that is specified there, that this is the penalty if you fail to do 

this, I would recommend to my client that they get out of the business. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Reclaiming my time. If I could just ask you this 

question, it might be yielding the answer you want. You said the 

industry doesn’t oppose it. Does the industry support it, this provision of the bill? 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. On page 15, line 1, the NDA is ‘‘silent as to damages,’’ and on line 19, ‘‘provides the agreement shall be governed 

by the trade secret laws of the applicable State.’’

I am on the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary 

Committee and have been on that subcommittee for the past 12 

years. I think this is very much in keeping with our tradition of 

protecting intellectual property. I would note also that this relates 

only to election dedicated voting system technology, which is—we 

tried to define it and finally realized it is already defined. And so 

we simply reference the definition under current law. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
188 

In terms of support, I will say that if you go to any industry and 

say, would you like to have a provision such as this? I mean they 

didn’t ask for this. But in multiple meetings and really I don’t 

know how many hours but many, many, we came to the point 

where the Business Software Alliance said that they do not oppose 

this. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. They do not oppose it but they do not support 

it? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t want to say they support it yet. I do not 

know. But they do not oppose the language that we have in this 

amendment. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Can I ask another question? You bringing up the 

subcommittee you serve on of the Judiciary, would this bill need to 

go through that committee as well? 

The CHAIRMAN. We are getting close to time. I will let you go a 

little bit longer, but not much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I hope not. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the part that 

bothers me the most. It just seems very strange to me. I don’t know 

if the Business Software Alliance or Microsoft, et al., have taken 

leave of their senses. Considering the battles we have had just obtaining access to the source code thus far, but it has been obtained 

when it is appropriate. I am not even sure why we need this provision, but certainly I think it does incredible damage to the intellectual property laws of the country. I hate to think of how the Chinese might interpret this and say, well, this can apply to our case 

as well and it is okay if we violate the intellectual property laws. 

I think it is very strange, and I don’t know if they were brow beaten into this or what. I think it is a very, very dangerous precedent 

for the high tech industry, especially the computing industry. Let 

me just ask if Mr. Lungren would like more time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield. Look, I think we 

want some of the best in the business to be involved in this. I think 

we want not just one person who is sitting out there to look at this. 

This is specialized software. I would hope that we would have—we 

would at least not set up a scenario where companies are afraid to 

get in this because their intellectual property can be so easily compromised. I think you have to look at that side of this. It is one 

of the purposes of intellectual property. It is to allow the great competition of ideas, but people knowing they have some value in that 

property, that is one of the toughest concepts we have in developing countries is to have them understand the concept of intellectual property as a thing, as a right, as something that you protect, 

as a property interest. It is not immediately ascertainable. After 

developing countries understand how they actually promote themselves and their industry with the protection of these rights, they 

all of a sudden start protecting intellectual property that comes 

from other countries because they hope to have theirs protected. 

And that is why if we hope to have some of the best companies in 

the world giving us the best, most reliable machines, it seems to 

me we should be very careful about that. That is why I offered the 

amendment. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
189 

Mr. EHLERS. Just reclaiming my time, I have a question for you, 

Mr. Lungren. You alluded earlier that this might stir the interest 

of the Judiciary Committee. Would you anticipate that this might 

trigger a referral of this bill to the Judiciary Committee? 

Mr. LUNGREN. If I were in the majority I guess I could give you 

an answer. I would—well, it is intellectual property. It goes about 

enforcement, but traditionally at least it is something that we 

would look at in the Judiciary Committee and past chairmen have 

jealously guarded that, and Mr. Conyers is not known to be a wallflower. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I will yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am advised the bill does not change any underlying intellectual property laws, and I am advised by someone who 

has checked with the Parliamentarian that it would not require a 

referral. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just conclude by saying that I still have serious concerns about this. I think it is of great importance to the 

computer industry and that we should at least be very worried 

with that provision. With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any other discussion? The question 

is on Lungren amendment No. 3. All those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed say ‘‘no.’’ The noes have it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, could I have a recorded vote on 

that, please? 

The CHAIRMAN. Recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk 

please call the roll? 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 6, the ayes are 3. The amendment fails. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk, McCarthy Number 2. 

The CHAIRMAN. McCarthy Number 2, without objection, the 

amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized 

for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
190 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 36562.147
191 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 36562.148
192 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 36562.149
193 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 36562.150
194 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 36562.151
195 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 36562.152
196 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 36562.153
197 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 36562.154
198 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment 

comes directly from our hearings. The one thing we talked about 

in the name of this bill is voter confidence. We are talking about 

auditing the election, having the ability to know that the election, 

the outcome, is what took place. And that means auditing it all the 

way through. 

And in our hearings, one of the individuals talked about from all 

of the different stages. And it dawned on me at that moment, at 

that time, that we are auditing those votes that have been voted, 

but we have never put the confidence back into the people who 

were allowed to vote, do we ever look at, do they have the right 

to vote? 

The outcome may—the votes may tabulate, be correct, of those 

who voted but we never looked at, for the confidence part of that. 

So what this amendment does, effective 2010, voters will be required to provide a photo ID much like every week when I get on 

the airplane, I show my ID. If I were to going to a store and purchase cigarettes or alcohol I show an ID. Effective 2010, voters who 

arrive at polling places without the required ID will be given a provisional ballot. And there will be 48 hours to present a qualifying 

ID. Effective 2010, people voting by mail must include a photocopy 

of a photo ID. The bill states to set up a program to distribute the 

IDs and provide them at no cost to the individuals. Funds are authorized to reimburse the states for the costs of providing free IDs. 

I believe IDs will preserve and bring integrity back to elections, 

and actually go to the heart of what this bill says, the confidence 

in the voters. If you are going to audit an election, but you are 

never going to audit whether the individuals could vote or not, how 

do you know you have the right outcome? 

And I will tell you there is broad support for this. It is really 

common sense. In a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, demonstrated that 81 percent of the people surveyed expressed supporting requiring IDs at the polls. The bipartisan Carter-Baker 

Commission on Federal Election Reforms have recommended that 

we require IDs at the polls. I really believe this goes to the heart 

of it, that if we are to move this bill, the first thing we should do 

is the ID portion of it. 

And the bell rang, so I give back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, can I weigh in on that or 

do you want to recess? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis from Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I have a little bit of experience on this, 

Mr. McCarthy, being from Alabama and the south, a number of 

these southern States have these photo ID provisions. They sound 

seductive for the reasons that you outline, but there is a big practical problem with them. The folks in our society who do not have 

a photo ID tend to have the following characteristics, they tend to 

be very old, they tend to be very poor, and they tend to be blacks 

or Hispanics. 

And there are all kinds of reasons those four eventualities occur, 

but that is just the empirical fact. So if you impose any kind of 

voter ID, the result is that you strike at groups of vulnerable peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Jul 26, 2007 Jkt 036562 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A562.XXX A562

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
199 

ple who often participate at lower levels than they should in the 

political process. 

And there is another core problem, and by the way, that is what 

a number of courts have found. As you know, there have been a 

number of challenges to voter ID provisions on Voter Rights Act 

grounds and courts have tended to find that there are significant 

implications with respect to the Voters Act. 

There is another issue we are talking about legislation that aims 

at practical wrongs that exist. I am on the Judiciary Committee, 

which I served on with Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Lungren, we had an 

individual from the Department of Justice and I remember posing 

a query to that individual about the number of prosecutions that 

have happened in this country involving individuals who walk into 

a voting booth who claim to be someone that they are not. And the 

number is negligible. The number of elections that we have had in 

this country where there has been some taint or some evidence of 

corruption based on people walking in claiming to be John Jones 

when they are not John Jones is just a negligible number. 

On the other hand we have had, as we know from the Florida 

race, as we know from Ohio, as we know from the Florida presidential and congressional races in 2001 and 2006, as we know, are 

the Ohio race in 2004, there have been, whenever we think of the 

outcomes of those races, all kinds of questions raised around other 

aspects of the electoral process. So while this legislation sounds 

good, as a practical matter it aims at a problem that doesn’t exist 

and it singles out a vulnerable class of voters. So I would yield to 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for yielding. And I would just add, this 

is something that I think the Election Subcommittee is going to 

take a look at later in the year because there has been so much 

discussion about it. But I will say this, people often say, well, you 

have to show ID to buy a beer, but you know a beer is not a constitutional right. We know that substantial numbers of American 

citizens do not actually have a photo ID. And in fact, we had hearings—and Mr. Ehlers was present at one of the hearings I attended, I believe, in New Mexico. We heard from the Navajo Nation—and it is about 250,000 Americans. And indeed, they are the 

first Americans. And we were told by their leadership that they basically don’t have photo IDs, and when we were having that hearing, the gentleman, who was a wonderful representative of his tribe 

said, you know, don’t ask us for birth certificates because we don’t 

have them. And don’t ask us for utility bills because we don’t have 

those either. 

So essentially, a photo ID imposition for voting would essentially 

say to a quarter million Navajos, our first Americans, you are not 

allowed to vote. 

I want to say also that the other studies we have heard about 

in the committee seem to indicate that there would be an enormously disproportionate adverse impact on people who are poor 

and people who are minorities. In fact, one of the studies that we 

learned about last Congress was in Wisconsin—I was stunned to 

see this—that a huge percentage, over somewhere in the neighborhood of half—of the African American young men between the ages 

of 19 and 26 don’t have a driver’s license and do not have a photo 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
200 

ID and cannot get one. I would note also that the Eagleton studies 

that was sponsored by the Election Assistance Commission, I would 

say rather cynically, suppressed and even distorted—and that is 

another thing we are going to look into later this year—indicated 

that there would be a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities with this voter ID impact, and it also pointed out there is virtually no evidence that there is fraudulent voting, and the Justice 

Department has shown that also through their lack of prosecutions. 

I think this is a very poor amendment. It would have a very, I 

am not sure not intended, but adverse civil rights impact and 

should be vigorously opposed. And I know the time of the gentleman has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize Mr. Capuano from Massachusetts hopefully for a very brief comment so we can vote on 

this amendment and then go and come back again. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would wish to discuss it too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I won’t vote for this amendment. 

I don’t care how long any subcommittee looks at this issue. I won’t 

vote to require Americans to carry IDs unless there is a need for 

that requirement. It is basic civil liberties. I kind of feel like the 

roles have been reversed here. It used to be that the right didn’t 

like the Federal Government telling people to carry IDs, apparently 

now it is the left. I am the left and I don’t want it. 

And this proposal, first of all, is I haven’t had anything to say 

on the other amendments. They are all on point. They all have 

some reasonable purpose to say it. This is a whole other issue. This 

is basic civil liberties. Have all the hearings you want. There is no 

way that I would ever vote to require Americans to carry an ID and 

show it to anybody unless there is some clear and unequivocal need 

and purpose for the society. 

There is no allegations by anybody that I have heard of widespread voter fraud. People already have the ability if there is some 

known reason to ask somebody if you are really who you say you 

are. You can already do it in a voting place. And this is an incredibly slippery slope. What is next? Showing an ID and requiring certain information to buy a gun? Oh no, we can’t do that, can’t never 

do that. But this is okay. 

This is ridiculous. This goes to the basis of civil liberties here in 

America. The last time they tried this to require National IDs was 

in Nazi Germany in World War II. Didn’t work there and not going 

to work here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we should recess and come back and I 

will recognize you when we come back. We will have a brief recess 

we have three votes on the floor and then we will return. Thank 

you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I would like to call our Committee back to order. 

I believe we were on McCarthy Number 2. I think that Mr. Lungren had his light on and he agreed to hold off until we got back, 

so I now recognize Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I understand that some people get very exercised over this but frankly to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
201 

suggest that this amendment is somehow anti civil rights is, I 

think, a little extreme. 

Let’s remember what the Carter-Baker Commission said. 

The Carter-Baker Commission said to make sure that a person 

arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list 

we propose a uniform system of voter ID based on the real ID card 

or an equivalent for people without a driver’s license. The Commission noted specifically that there is likely to be less discrimination 

against minorities if there is a uniform ID than if poll workers can 

apply multiple standards. 

In fact, Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and mayor of 

Atlanta, supports the photo ID requirement. 

Now the suggestion is that somehow we will have or discriminate 

against certain peoples, that somehow it will diminish or depress 

voter turnout. Well, voters in nearly 100 democracies around the 

world use a photo ID card without fear of infringement on their 

rights. That is the language of the Commission. 

Let’s take our closest country to the south. In Mexico, strict anti 

fraud regulations in voting have actually increased voter turnout. 

Three Mexican presidential elections since the photo ID reforms 

were implemented in 1991, 68 percent of eligible voters voted compared with only 59 percent in the three elections prior to the rules 

change. 

The Mexican ID program is far more than what we suggest here. 

It includes multiple security features, a hologram, special fluorescent ink, a bar code, special codes and magnetic strip. And it appears that where people have greater confidence in the election 

process there is greater rather than lesser participation. 

One of the big issues now on the front pages of the newspapers, 

on television every night in my last town hall people talked about 

this, it is identity theft. People are concerned about people using 

their identity to gain some sort of advantage, to gain some sort of 

benefit, in some cases to raid their personal bank account. 

Here we are talking about the essence of democracy, which is, 

that people have the right to vote, but your vote and my vote is 

diminished if someone who doesn’t have that right to vote votes. 

And I don’t understand why, when we are concerned about the integrity of the system we are so afraid to deal with this issue and 

come up with arguments that suggest it is going to be oppressive 

against certain individuals. 

As I say, Mexico has this card system. Canada has a system in 

which you get a ticket in the mail after registering and you have 

to bring that to the voting place. In the Netherlands you need a 

passport or driver’s license to be presented. In Brazil, you need a 

picture ID to be presented. 

And for the life of me, I don’t understand when we are trying to 

make sure that the person who is voting is the person who is supposed to vote, that we somehow say that is an infringement on 

their rights. 

Now, the suggestion has been made that we don’t have a whole 

lot of examples of this. I recall when we tried to investigate it in 

California when I was attorney general, the lack of proof is there 

because you have no means of showing at the poll that someone is 

someone other than what they who they say to be. And if you sugVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Jul 26, 2007 Jkt 036562 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A562.XXX A562

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
202 

gest that someone stand outside with a sign that says only if you 

are a citizen can you vote, that can be viewed as voter intimidation 

whereas, if, in fact, you require everybody to present a photo ID 

at the time that they vote, everybody is treated the same. Every 

single one of us is treated the same. 

And so at a time and place where we are worried about identity 

theft, why aren’t we worried about identity theft for that most precious of gifts that you have as a citizen of the United States, the 

gift and the responsibility to vote? And so, I just don’t understand 

when we are so concerned about a paper trail making sure that it 

properly records votes, we are not concerned in the first instance 

with who it is that is voting. 

And so I wish that we would not view this as an effort to diminish voter participation that somehow it is aimed at one group or 

another. If that were true, Mexico, last time I checked, is not as 

wealthy a country as we are, maybe I am wrong on that—has far 

greater poverty than we have, and yet, they have greater participation in voting since they have had this identification and one—and 

perhaps for one great reason, it instilled a greater confidence in the 

integrity of their system than they had before. Is it perfect? Of 

course it is not perfect. But is it better because of this? Yes, it is. 

And I would hope that we would seriously look at the gentleman’s 

amendment and adopt it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping if I could have the author address the issue of absentee voting 

and how you see that. I see the language that you have here. How 

would you—how do you see that in terms of absentee voting? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. You have the ability to send in a photocopy. Libraries have copy machines, others you are providing when I did 

it by mail, absentee voting, I have it there for a number of days, 

I can go to a Kinko’s, to other places, just photocopy my ID and 

send it in. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. And how do we verify that is you? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. When you sign—when you vote for absentee you 

sign on it. If I worked for this committee and we had one contested 

race. When you turn it in you sign on the card itself and they— when they get it into the election office, they identify your signature based upon your voter registration. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I am familiar how they do that. I have 

checked those. But I am also trying to get at the whole issue of do 

we know it is that person? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. We will know more than we know today. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I have to sign my name alongside my 

registration at the precinct itself and so for many people obviously 

they have been voting at the same precinct for years, people know 

them, they don’t have to have an ID. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. You don’t have to have an ID today. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. You don’t have to have an ID, but people know you are signing your name and they have that 

verification. But if you are voting in absentee voting—I happen to 

be very supportive of absentee voting—but I also think that in 

some ways, we set up kind of an unequal system here because and 

it is possible for someone to Xerox somebody else’s license, of 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
203 

course, if they are choosing to, if somebody wants to engage in 

fraud——

Mr. MCCARTHY. If the gentlelady would yield. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. We can’t prove that. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. When you sign, when you go in and vote in person, never does the election department check that signature if it 

was really you who voted. When you vote by absentee before that 

vote is counted, they check that signature. So the absentee vote is 

actually checked more than the person going forward. So when you 

send in that absentee vote and photocopy ID it is checked whether 

that signature is correct before they open the ballot. 

Inside when you go to vote, you sign the book. But that is never 

checked unless there is a problem. So you have greater checks and 

balance in absentee in vote by mail than you do any other way. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. In your system then when you are asking for people to go to the trouble, if you will, of trying to find a 

way to Xerox whether it is a license or any other kind of ID that 

that would really be an important——

Mr. MCCARTHY. I understand the debate from the other side, but 

I do believe we live in a society where we show our IDs many 

times. We all just used our ID just to vote. I believe this is capable 

of doing. And the name of this bill is the ability that we are going 

to bring confidence back. We are willing to shift a whole system 

that we just went through with HAVA on how we want these machines because we want voter confidence. We should have 100 percent voter confidence. We should make sure those who are allowed 

to vote like 100 countries do this, but we don’t ask, but you can’t 

get on an airplane, you can’t rent a car, you can’t shop, you can’t 

cash a check. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Let me, right now, pose this in forms of 

questions to Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lungren, certainly won’t take 

very long to do it. 

Mr. Lungren, you were making the assertion that you didn’t understand the argument or you weren’t very sympathetic to the argument on the other side that this had the effect of diluting minority voter rights as you were probably aware, the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals, which is an overwhelmingly Republican circuit, 

ruled several years ago that the Georgia voter ID was unconstitutional exactly because it created a dilution of black voting participation in Georgia. 

So I would ask you to address that. 

Mr. McCarthy, if I can pose a question to you, if an individual 

walks into a polling place with an intent to commit fraud, obviously 

that person has at least to know the name of the voters list. You 

have to walk in and say your name that is on the list obviously. 

If someone has an nefarious intent to do that, I think we would all 

agree the easiest thing in the world, if you doubt this, talk to a 16- 

year-old, the easiest thing in the world is to get a fake ID. 

So if someone is nefarious enough to decide I want to pretend to 

be John Jones and go through a list of voters and just distribute 

the names, it would seem to me that person is almost certainly nefarious enough to engage in fake IDs. But I would yield to both of 

you to address it either of those points. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
204 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I will answer first and I will yield some 

time to the former attorney general of California. The only thing 

I would say if today you can walk in and say you are somebody and 

you never can be questioned on it or show an ID, that is much easier than going to the task of creating a fake ID and trying to show 

it to vote. I just think it is another checks and balances that protects us in the long run. And I yield the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not your time to yield. I just want to let you 

know that I am paying attention. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As understand it, the Eleventh circuit struck 

down the Georgia ID law because of the fact that it did not provide 

dollars—money for indigents for ID cards. And I understand, this 

amendment does provide that benefit so that we would get around 

that number one. 

Number two, look, I don’t want the gentleman to think I am not 

sensitive to the concern he expresses. And I believe that Andrew 

young is concerned about what the gentleman expresses and came 

to the conclusion that this would not discriminate against any particular group if we applied it across the board. 

And so the gentleman from California’s amendment allows this, 

for the provision of funds to reimburse the States for the cost of 

providing such free IDs to the indigent and I believe that will take 

care of the gentleman’s problem. 

If I could just also mention one thing, when I was in Congress, 

I think it was 1981, we had a situation in which a Member of Congress voted on a resolution that I had on the floor which dealt with 

the disciplining of a Member here who had been convicted of 29 felony counts. 

The Member was registered as voting with his electronic card, 

but at the time we voted he was in Chicago conducting a hearing 

for the committee he then chaired. 

It ended up that for whatever reason, apparently some Members 

thought it was okay to vote other Members cards when they 

weren’t here. The gentleman first made excuses, finally took ill and 

never did return to the Congress deciding not to vote and it 

brought to me that even as honorable a body as this—which I think 

is an honorable body, and I will defend the House of Representatives with attacks by a lot of people—we had a situation in which 

identity theft or identity fraud can take place. And we had to take 

action in this House to make it clear that that is a violation of the 

rules and that Member would have been expelled had he not left 

of his own accord. 

I am just saying that if we found that situation here, ought we 

not to extend that same sort of concern about someone voting who 

doesn’t have the right to vote? 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Let me reclaim and I will wrap this up 

because I know the chairman wants this moved to an end, but I 

do want to correct one factual point my friend from California 

made. If I understand your amendment correctly, you put a provision in place for individuals to obtain a government ID, in effect, 

for voting, but you still got to obtain some proof of who you are before you get the government ID. For example, a birth certificate 

would be one obvious way to get it. Birth certificates aren’t free, 

they cost money. Passport, passports cost money, naturalization paVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Jul 26, 2007 Jkt 036562 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A562.XXX A562

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
205 

pers if you don’t have them, cost money. So in other words, it is 

not quite as simple as you make it sound. 

To obtain the special ID for voter purposes, you would have to 

have an ID for which you would have to pay money potentially, and 

that is squarely what the 11th circuit ruled in Georgia was impermissible. They ruled what was impermissible was imposing a fee 

or requiring a fee before one could exercise the right to vote. 

If the identification process pushes one in a direction toward obtaining fee based documents, I would argue that would still run 

afoul. 

The CHAIRMAN. Time is running out. The only people who have 

time left are myself and the Ranking Member. Mr. Ehlers, go right 

ahead. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman. First of all, unfortunately 

Mr. Capuano is not here, but I want to reassure them that I am 

not a Nazi. I also want to inform everyone that you do need an ID 

to buy a gun and I won’t comment on his other statements. 

I am really appreciative of the fact that we don’t have any more 

votes, so we can go for several hours yet without interruption. 

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt that if I am still here. 

Mr. EHLERS. Here is where the strong gavel comes out. Let me 

just make a couple of points. The gentleman from California, the 

one to my right, commented that when Mexico adopted a voter ID, 

the turnout went up. That is not the only case. Arizona in a referendum last year adopted a photo ID. Their voter turnout went 

up. So those who say it will go down when you have a voter ID 

are just dead wrong. The evidence is there. 

Another factor is that last year this committee approved and the 

House passed precisely what we are talking about here, a voter ID. 

We—Mr. Davis, for your information on that made certain that 

anyone who is indigent not only get the ID paid for, but they get 

the backup paper records paid for and any legal requirements that 

were necessary paid for. So no one would be discriminated against 

on the basis of income or access or anything else. 

And as I said it passed the House. Everyone seemed to think it 

was a good idea. 

I think that this is a very good idea, something that should be 

required. I am amazed it hasn’t been required before. 

The arguments against it are very weak. I just defeated all of 

them. Everyone on our side here has indicated that they are not 

valid arguments. It is something that we simply should require for 

something as valuable as voting. Now, this clearly was not necessary in the town where I was born, because the voting officials 

knew everyone in the town. And so when you went in to vote they 

would say, hi Sam, good to see you again, et cetera. In today’s 

world, with the tremendous growth in population, plus the tremendous mobility of our Nation moving from one place to another, I 

think it is perfectly reasonable and logical and, in fact, necessary 

that we require a voter ID from voters if we are required to use 

a photo ID for so many other activities, cashing a check, buying 

certain goods, buying a gun, I can go on and on. What is so awfully 

bad about requiring a voter to carry an ID to indicate that he or 

she is who he or she says they are? I think it is a very, very good 

idea, and I strongly support this amendment. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
206 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the——

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman I will be very brief. 

The CHAIRMAN. I heard that before no matter how long it takes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Eagleton study, which the EAC sponsored 

pointed out that in States where voters were required to present 

ID documents, African Americans were 5.7 percent less likely to 

vote, Hispanics 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian Americans 8.5 

percent less likely to vote, and the Brendan Center said as many 

as 13 million United States citizens—or 7 percent—do not have 

ready access to citizenship documents. 

I would like to make the letter from the Leadership Conference 

on Civil Rights a part of our record, but they strongly urge us to 

oppose this requirement and say that voter ID requirements represent one of the most serious threats in decades to our efforts to 

ensure the right of every eligible American and that is from Wade 

Henderson, the leader on civil rights in America. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
207 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 36562.155
208 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 36562.156
209 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to note that last year when we 

adopted this provision, not everyone did agree. I certainly did not 

agree. And we have ample evidence that these measures do have 

a discriminatory impact on low income Americans and on various 

ethnicities. And I hope that we can take a broader look at this in 

the Election Subcommittee later in the year, and I thank the chairman for his indulgence in letting me say that and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor, signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed signify by saying, ‘‘no.’’ No. 

The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would ask for a roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. Clerk please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. The noes are 5 the ayes are 3. The amendment, McCarthy Number 2, fails. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment Number 3 

Mr. McCarthy at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the amendment is considered 

as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
210 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 36562.157
211 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 36562.158
212 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 36562.159
213 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 36562.160
214 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 36562.161
215 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 36562.162
216 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 36562.163
217 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 36562.164
218 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Having thought ahead of time of some of the arguments you may have to amendment Number 2, I offered in the 

worst case scenario that Number 2 failed, amendment Number 3. 

Such as the earlier amendment, individuals are required to show 

photo ID at the polls. But I have heard from some of the arguments across the aisle that maybe you disenfranchise somebody. 

Gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis, stated people sign their 

names when they are in there. So all I would say is this provision 

establishes the important principle that voters have to show the 

photo IDs. If they do not absolutely have the voter id when they 

go in there, all they have to do is sign a piece of paper claiming 

they are who they say they are. So we would take away the argument of disenfranchising somebody. This is not 100 percent voter 

proof. But I think it is a step in the right direction. They can find 

a common ground to the arguments that are made by the other 

side that we could come together because it wouldn’t disenfranchise 

somebody. They are already signing their names at the polls. So 

they would just have to sign their name, stating they are who they 

are and listening to the former attorney general of California saying the reasons you don’t find cases because you don’t have the evidence to move forward. So this would also give the ability to have 

the evidence if somebody was providing voter fraud, and then go 

right back to what we have—about this bill itself, giving the voters 

the confidence in it to be able to move forward. I yield back my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Lady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I note that even though we postponed this hearing 

from last week to this week so that everybody could have an opportunity to look at everybody’s amendments, I am advised by staff 

that this amendment was received by them only 15 minutes before 

the markup began. 

I don’t know what the impact of this amendment would be, and 

I think it is something that when we look at this overall issue and 

the Election Subcommittee later in the year we will look at, but I 

think to throw it out at this time with 15 minutes notice is not the 

appropriate way to proceed, and so I would urge that we oppose it 

at this time and I thank the gentleman for yielding—or I would 

yield to Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Two quick points. I thank the gentlelady 

for yielding. What is unclear from the amendment, let’s say the individual, for whatever reason, was not English speaking. How 

would they go about signing the affidavit that that is an ambiguity 

that is contained in the amendment? I can also imagine some instances frankly that this would amount to a de facto literacy test. 

And again, someone presumably would have to go through some 

step of reading the document and signing it. And I hear the gentleman thinking that well, someone should be able to read when 

they walk in the polling places and the problem is, we have had 

that debate in this country before and we have said no literacy 

tests. And we also—I am troubled by the language implications. I 

yield. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Was that a question? 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
219 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Yes, I yield so the gentleman can respond 

to that. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. To vote in the first place, we make people fill out 

voter registrations. So I think we take the assumption from the 

very beginning that a person can read when they fill that out. So 

I wasn’t going to anything further. Plus when a person goes to 

vote, they already are signing their name. They have to be able to 

read where they sign their name. I would accept a friendly amendment if you wanted to clarify within this amendment that we 

would provide the language in which the person speaks much as 

if they are—— Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Reclaiming my time let me ask the gentleman one quick question if someone were to walk in right now 

and were to fill out the wrong name on the voter form would they 

be prosecuted inside your opinion? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Any decision on the prosecution goes up to the 

individual, the DA——

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No—— Mr. MCCARTHY. Reclaiming my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Actually it is my time. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I am trying to get an answer to the question. If an individual were to walk in and I were to say I am Zoe 

Lofgren and I were to put Zoe Lofgren down, could I be prosecuted 

today? Because it seems if I could be prosecuted today, this amendment is completely unnecessary. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. Only your intent to go forward—to apply 

yourself just like identity theft that you were Zoe Lofgren. You had 

explained to me in the earlier debate that there are no cases such 

as this or not very many. And I have heard from the attorney general who says that he couldn’t move forward in those cases because 

there was no evidence—— Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. The state of the law today, I am asking 

use prosecutorial discretion, and if I walked in and said I am Bob 

Brady under the law today, can I be prosecuted? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you would be prosecuted. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time I would just note that Mr. 

Davis is a former U.S. Attorney, and I think has some background 

in all of these things. I think this discussion leads me to the conclusion we certainly need to know more about this proposal than 

we do now. And I am sure that when we have hearings on this subject matter, we will hear it further. 

I also want to note that the majority staff has indicated that the 

minority staff sent the amendment at 9 p.m. last night. I was not 

sitting in my office at 9 p.m. last night, so I don’t know. I still 

think it is way too hurried, but I do hope that we can look at this 

later in the year in the Election Subcommittee. And I understand 

the Chairman wants a vote on this. I will yield back so that he may 

take our vote. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. Lungren from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would like the last word. Mr. Chairman, this 

whole bill is about redundancy. This whole bill is to have a second 

way of checking the accuracy of the voter count, if you will, the attestation required by Mr. McCarthy’s alternative is a redundancy. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
220 

It is another check to ensure that people are not going to commit 

fraud. As the gentleman knows, when you prosecute, sometimes it 

may be easier to prosecute for someone intentionally signing something under oath that is untrue as opposed to them attempting to 

prove the intent to vote improperly. 

The other thing is, I am just sorry, but the arguments I hear 

about this could be utilized as a literacy test or this could be utilized as a voter fee. I mean, all those arguments can be used by 

registration. If I were to take a logical conclusion of my friends on 

the other side of the aisle we ought to do away with registration. 

I presume that would increase voter participation. Anybody just 

shows up off the street can vote. I know there might be fraud involved but it is more important that we get more people voting 

whether or not they qualify. 

I mean, the manner in which these amendments are being dismissed suggests that there is no concern about the identity of voters, that somehow this bill which purports to ensure that we are 

going to protect the integrity of the voting process, doesn’t believe 

that identity fraud or identity theft has any place in our discussions, even though it is the hot topic out there in terms of credit 

cards, in terms of all sorts of things in this new world that we live 

in. And I just find it hard to believe that Mexico can be ahead of 

us in terms of its concerns for the integrity of its system and yet 

we say if we did this sort of thing it would somehow violate constitutional norms because it would be utilized in ways to depress 

turnout, when, in fact, just the opposite has been the case in Mexico, in any number of countries around the world. 

Someone diminishes my vote by voting when they don’t have a 

right to vote as surely as if you refused to allow me to vote when 

I have the opportunity to vote. 

And we look at this only on one side. 

And I just think that that is a terrible shame. And I would hope 

that we would at least look at the gentleman’s amendment for 

what it is and not for some of the outrageous things it has been 

suggested it is for. I yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman before we vote, may I ask unanimous consent to add into the record the article from Roll Call, of 

The New York Times and The New York Times editorial on this 

subject and the National Leadership Council letter? 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
221 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 36562.165
222 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 36562.166
223 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 36562.167
224 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 36562.168
225 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 36562.169
226 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 36562.170
227 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 36562.171
228 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 36562.172
229 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 36562.173
230 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 36562.174
231 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 36562.175
232 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 36562.176
233 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 36562.177
234 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 36562.178
235 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 36562.179
236 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 36562.180
237 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 36562.181
238 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 36562.182
239 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly lend my support to what the gentleman from California just stated. Mr. Lungren has made his case very clearly and very eloquently. I strongly 

support that. I just cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the 

opposition is. We have answered all the questions of the majority. 

We have made sure that others can establish an ID if they wish, 

and we would pay for it. If they don’t have it, they simply sign 

their name saying that they are who they are. 

There must be some other reason for opposing it. I would also 

just close by saying that if we don’t pass something like this, I predict it is going to pass State by State probably through referendum 

or other means. Then once again, we will have a hodgepodge system. It would be much easier to have one law that covers the Nation, makes it very clear from State to State. With that, I will yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The question is on the McCarthy 

amendment Number 3. 

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

Those opposed, ‘‘no.’’

No. 

The noes have it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Roll call vote. Clerk 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. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5 the yeas are 3, the amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman I have Lungren Number 4. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
240 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 36562.183
241 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the provision of a private right of action contained in the bill and contained in the manager’s amendment or substitute. This amendment would strike the 

provisions allowing individuals to bring action in a Federal court 

to enforce requirements contained in Title 3 of HAVA. 

Already pursuant to HAVA, States have set up administration 

complaint procedures to provide sufficient Federal and State enforcement of the requirements. 

This private right of action provision would open the DOJ and 

attorney general to thousands of claims and force the attorney general to respond in some manner to any complaint meeting the 

standards of the bill. 

I fear the language is overly broad and will result in slowing 

down the process of determining election results and subject local 

governments to spend millions of dollars on what could be politically motivated lawsuits. 

The DOJ if you examine their budget, in their current situation 

does not have the capacity of staff to handle the volume of potential claims. 

You can promise something. You can give an authorization to a 

department such as DOJ, and the ability for something to get done 

may not be there. 

I recall having 1,000 attorneys and 5,000 employees when I was 

attorney general of California, not nearly the size of the Federal 

DOJ, but nonetheless, you have limitations on your resources. And 

just because there is a law saying that it comes within your ambit, 

if you don’t have a budget that allows you to do it, it just—the purpose of the law is frustrated. 

And that is why, when under the preexisting law, HAVA, a requirement for the States to set up administrative complaint procedures, is now in place, you wonder why we change under this provision and open up private rights of action and require the DOJ or 

presumably require the DOJ and the attorney general to respond 

to the potential of thousands of claims. 

The intent of the law, HAVA, was to improve elections, I 

thought, not to expand litigation. 

As an old trial attorney, I love litigation. And some of my colleagues, and even I, on occasion, made money on litigation. 

But, I also saw the limitations of litigation. And oftentimes, administrative complaint procedures worked far better than the formal court system. 

The National Motor Voter Law has private right of action for 

claims. And there is section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act which is 

available if they qualify under that. 

And so I would just ask that we reach a mid course correction 

here, which is to say that the administrative complaint procedures 

were established under HAVA, they exist, as I understand it, in all 

States, and that that allows for sufficient and timely enforcement 

of the requirements where this may very well lead to litigation 

with endless processes which would not allow for final determination of claims. 

And with that I would yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Any other discussion on 

the amendment? The question is on the amendment. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
242 

All those in favor, signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ No. 

The noes have it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman could I have a roll call vote on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Clerk please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. The noes are 5, the yeas are 2, the amendment fails. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment Number 4. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. McCarthy from California. Without objection the amendment is considered as read and you are recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
243 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 36562.184
244 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 36562.185
245 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank you for your patience Mr. Chairman. 

This is pretty straightforward. As we move forward, we have to remember where we have been. In these hearings, we have heard 

time and time again about just recently how we passed HAVA and 

that we have not funded HAVA, there is still approximately $800 

million that has not been funded through HAVA. A lot of States 

have spent a lot of money buying machines, going forward with 

counties and others. This would put an amendment into the bill 

that would suspend the requirements of this bill until the authorization amount of the money is fully appropriated. 

Now why do I offer that? Is to build the trust. We have just 

forced these States to go through something saying this is the direction we wanted to go. Now we are coming full circle right back 

and saying we want you to do something else. We say we have authorized the money but history shows we have not funded it all the 

way. And I have come from State government. The first thing I 

have always had problems with was unfunded mandates. Now we 

are directing it. We say there is money there. All this is saying is 

that if that is truthful, if the money is there, there wouldn’t be a 

problem because this would suspend the problem if the money is 

not there. If the money is there, there is no problem whatsoever. 

So to me it is a friendly amendment. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt with respect to No Child Left Behind. 

The CHAIRMAN. We get like that after 4 or 5 hours. Does anyone 

else want to be recognized? Discussion on the amendment? The 

question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying 

‘‘aye.’’ All those opposed? No. 

The noes have it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman I request a roll call vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Roll call vote by the Clerk please. McCarthy 

Number 4. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. The noes are 5, the yeas are 3, the amendment fails. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think I have the last amendment. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
246 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, whoopee. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and 

you are recognized for five minutes. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
247 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 36562.186
248 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 36562.187
249 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 36562.188
250 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 36562.189
251 

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It would delay 

implementations of the bill until 2012. Based on the testimony and 

the letters that we have received from election officials across the 

country, that the dates proscribed in the bill are unattainable. Testimony presented to the subcommittee on elections suggest that the 

changes that are required under this bill would require approximately 18 months to 4 years to accomplish. 

As a matter of fact, the letter from the one disability organization, American Association of People with Disabilities, they believe 

it would be even longer. They suggest that we have a date of 2014, 

however being very reasonable I thought that was very too long. So 

my amendment has 2012 in it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There is no voting system currently certified and 

in use that meets the very specific requirements proposed in this 

bill, nor are there such systems available in the market that can 

be and have been or can be appropriately tested and certified for 

use through the EAC voting system certification program by the 

year 2008. State and local election officials and voters continue to 

absorb the sweeping changes brought about by our previous law, 

HAVA—almost sounds like a school on the East Coast as spoken 

of by some members from Massachusetts—but HAVA and State 

legislation. It is unrealistic for the States to implement all these 

new Federal mandates by 2008. Standards and guidelines should 

be established before requiring States to purchase this new voting 

equipment. 

The bill before us unfortunately fails to recognize the need for 

public outreach and education associated with new voting equipment and procedures, including poll workers and poll worker training for these new machines. Compliant voting systems under this 

bill are limited. DRE systems that would comply do not exist at all. 

Ballot conversion equipment and software to meet the disability access requirements has not been tested or certified or used by any 

existing voting system. And when you realize we have what I consider to be unenforceable or absent penalties in this bill with respect to source code nonpublication information, then I think you 

understand we might even have more difficulty in getting vendors 

out there to participate. 

A famous political scientist named ‘‘Dandy’’ Don Meredith once 

said, ‘‘If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be 

Christmas,’’ and it appears in many ways that’s what this bill is. 

We have been told that those who are out there that would be 

given the responsibility for doing this can’t do it. We have been 

doing that from counties as large as Los Angeles to counties as 

small as in my district in Amador County up in the mountains. 

And yet we carry on with this bill as if we believe it is going to 

happen because we wish it so. It would be wonderful if that is the 

way the world works, but it doesn’t. 

So I am attempting to not do anything else in the bill. Everything else remains the same but delay implementation so that we 

can actually ensure that those things that we believe are required 

under this bill can actually come to fruition. So it is a delay of the 

implementation until the year 2012. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
252 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and I have 

no more amendments. I know the chairman will be disappointed to 

hear that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am having fun. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the lady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I oppose the amendment and urge that all of my 

colleagues oppose the amendment. To delay this process, to delay 

the ability to recount in elections and to have a transparent process 

until 2012, which would be two Federal elections from now, is I 

think entirely unreasonable. The timing of the bill is not too aggressive. If we enact this promptly, I think there is adequate time 

to implement it. Those of us on the Election Subcommittee, I am 

sure all remember that the Republican Governor of Florida came 

and was a witness at our hearing. And he advised us at that hearing that the entire State of Florida is going to transition to an optical scan voting scheme before November 2008—actually before February was what he told us. We know that in the past jurisdictions 

have been able to transition rapidly. Aside from the fact that the 

bill, the substitute allows jurisdictions to retain their DREs 

equipped with thermal reel-to-reel printers or accessible voting systems that use or produce the paper trail until 2010, only the jurisdictions that use voting systems that had no voter-verified paper 

trail at all have to upgrade, and that is a small jurisdiction. 

Take a look at New Mexico. New Mexico enacted a law March 

2, 2006 requiring conversion from a mixed system with paperless 

electronic voting machines to a uniform statewide system using 

paper optical scan ballots with accessible ballot marking devices. 

All 33 counties fully deployed the system 8 months later in time 

for the 2006 mid-term election. 

Nevada’s then Secretary of State, now Representative Dean Heller, mandated in December of 2003 that the State would obtain new 

voting systems with voter-verified paper records. By the following 

August, just 8 months later, 16 of 17 counties deployed voterverified paper record systems countywide in time for the primary, 

and all counties had them for the November 2004 presidential election. 

In North Carolina they enacted a law requiring voter-verified 

paper records on August 26, 2005. Eight months later, in time for 

the May 2006 primary, the entire State had completed the conversion process, including RFP, testing certification and training to 

the new systems. 

West Virginia enacted a law requiring voter-verified paper 

records in May of 2005. Every county had new voter-verified paper 

record equipment in place for the primary the following year. 

What is at stake is whether we have another unverifiable Federal election, potentially a presidential election, the results of 

which might depend on one State, and the results in that State 

might not be independently verifiable because there are no voterverified paper ballots. We don’t have to put up with that. We can 

get this done in time for the 2008 election. We have ample waiver 

opportunities for those who have old systems, but I think it is time 

for the Congress to say enough is enough. Certainly we can ask 

States and localities to step forward and take the action that they 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
253 

are capable of taking, as New Mexico did, as Nevada did, as North 

Carolina did, as West Virginia did, and as Florida is going to do. 

I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman just guts 

this bill, and I hope that all of us will vote against it and, noting 

that the time is late, I will—— Mr. LUNGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will yield back to the chairman because he wants 

a vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Recognize Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. First of all, I believe this amendment 

summarizes what needs to be done to make this a workable bill. 

This is just one aspect of it, but let me discuss the whole bill as 

a whole. I am really bothered by it. First of all, this authoritarian 

view that what we do in the United States Congress is the right 

way to do it. We don’t care what the States think, we don’t care 

what the local governments think, we don’t care what the county 

clerks think, and we don’t care what the city clerks think. 

I show this stack of letters over two inches high, Indiana, Arizona, Iowa, North Dakota, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, South 

Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, 

Vermont, California, Kentucky, Los Angeles, which is not a State 

of its own, but I think most people know where it is. Arkansas, 

Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Maryland, 

North Carolina, Washington, New York, and so on down. I don’t 

want to take all the time to list all of them. These people know 

what they are doing. They have to work with us. They all wrote 

in and said this bill is not good. It should not pass in its present 

form. And yet the majority insists on passing it just as is without 

a single word changed, not accepting any of our amendments. 

I am also concerned about the attitude displayed by the majority, 

that somehow computers are bad, but paper is good. I think it is 

a gross mistake to require them to use one of the two alternatives 

without letting them use their own judgment. 

This bill supersedes the judgments of the city clerks, and the 

county clerks, and the State election officials. It is simply wrong for 

us to force our ideas and our opinions on the good people of this 

country who are used to running elections, know how to do it, and 

know what problems this legislation brings. 

Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for you. I know you are 

running for another office and I wish you well. I hope you make 

it. But I hope this bill doesn’t pass. I would like to keep you here, 

by the way. I want to make it clear, but for your own benefit since 

you want the job, I hope you will get it. I also hope for your sake 

if you do get it that this bill doesn’t pass because you would have 

to live with it. 

The one consolation I have throughout all this is that I am sure 

the Senate will not accept the bill as it stands. I am sure they will 

drastically rewrite it, and I hope that it becomes a good bill before 

it becomes law. But I am very disappointed in the discussion today 

and the rejection of all of our amendments even though there is no 

logical argument why we should not accept them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. With that, I will yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. McCarthy. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
254 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify 

a few things that were said. I was here when the Governor of Florida came. He never endorsed this bill, and the legislation that Florida passed out down allows continued use of DRE machines without paper into 2012. We have gone through HAVA and it took 4 

years. I come from a large State of California where we just made 

everybody switch. Just to put this out to bid, just to go forward— and we have moved our primary up. And to have this type of confusion in a year of a presidential election I don’t think is the right 

way to go about it and does not really come to the commonsense 

as we move forward. 

I listened to the Governor of Florida and I listened to each and 

every organization that represented election officials. They were 

unanimous in their approach that they thought this was the wrong 

way to go. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Any other discussion? 

The question is on the amendment. All in favor signify—I am 

sorry. I recognize the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I didn’t know if this was the appropriate time. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just be asking unanimous consent at this 

time to be allowed to file today the papers of this hearing, that 

they be made part of the record. The statement of concern regarding the nature of H.R. 811 and the problems of electronic voting 

technologies and electronic ballots from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to briefly address the issue of 

amendments because we have not accepted amendments here 

today because we didn’t agree with them, but I think it is important to note that when we postponed the markup last week we did 

look through the amendments that had been offered. We did adopt 

several of them in the substitute, and prior to the markup our 

staffs went through and scrubbed the substitute, making changes 

that were suggested by the majority in about eight instances. 

So I understand the minority still disagrees with the bill, but I 

think it is important to note that we have tried to collaborate 

where we can. 

I would further note that of the list of states that the ranking 

member just read, only six would have to make changes by 2008. 

In some cases—you know it reminds me of the election official from 

North Dakota who said gosh, you know, this would require optical 

voting systems. But his State already has optical voting systems. 

So I think there is a lot of resistance to change from individuals 

in States that have already fully complied with the act and with 

the substitute, and with that, I would yield back to Mr. Gonzalez 

and thank him for yielding me the time. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. Simply 

again, just ask for unanimous consent to allow me to file the statements. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
255 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 here 36562.190
256 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 here 36562.191
257 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 here 36562.192
258 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 here 36562.193
259 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of the Lungren amendment No. 

5 signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed ‘‘no.’’ The noes have it. A 

roll call vote is requested. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails. 

We are now on the substitute. Ms. Lofgren had to leave. We 

wanted to have some more discussion on the substitute. We will 

open the floor up for discussion on Ms. Lofgren’s amendment in the 

nature of a substitute, as amended. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have already said my piece about 

the Lofgren substitute, and I just registered my dismay that the 

bill is passing in this form. I yield to any of my colleagues who 

wish to make a closing comment. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had some 

lengthy debate here into the amendments and some of the concerns 

that we have with this bill, starting out the time, second the 

money. We had three hearings in the subcommittee, and I will tell 

you, election official after election official that does this came forward and said, there is real concerns about this. I have sat down 

and talked to many of them. They want to work with us. The Association of Counties, the Association of Elected Officials—that is not 

just your Secretaries of States. That is all the way down—are opposed to it. And I understand when Ms. Lofgren says we are not 

going to sit and wait for them just to support something all the 

way, but I do believe there is a way to do it where we can find common ground. 

When we have a presidential election, when this society is able 

to be strong together with the trust they have in an election, and 

this is what this is about, bringing greater confidence, when we are 

not even going to deal with who is there to vote and we are going 

to predetermine who is the winner and loser, saying that the paper 

is always right even though we see elected officials come to us and 

say the paper jammed. So knowingly, we are voting for a bill that 

determines the outcome of an election, knowing that system doesn’t 

always work right. We would rather have a checks and balance. 

I believe there is an ability within this committee to craft a bill 

that is bipartisan, commonsense and that everybody can be behind. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
260 

That is where I would want to be. I would think when you are 

dealing with elections, you put people before politics. And I just feel 

frustrated with the outcome of which way I see this going. 

Yield back my time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Ehlers, do you yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I would be pleased to yield to my colleague. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am with those who believe we ought to be concerned about the integrity of our system and that we ought to have 

a system in which our constituents have confidence, and that can 

come about in a number of ways. Evidently this bill has made the 

determination that paper is the way to do it. When I was a kid I 

remember playing rock, scissors, paper. But I guess now it is rock, 

scissors, paper and computer, and paper always wins. Now maybe 

that is what we have to do. I am just not convinced that we have 

made that determination appropriately yet. And also from my experience at the State level, maybe I am conditioned by this because 

I remember the FBI used to always come in and tell us they knew 

best. They always wanted information, they rarely shared information, but they knew better than we did on how to do things. And 

I hope we are not doing that with this bill because there does seem 

to be on the part of most of the election officials I know a desire 

to have a system that works well and a system that does have integrity within it. And the frustration I get from the folks back 

home is, you folks told us how to do it just a couple years ago. We 

tried in good faith to do it. Now you are telling us that didn’t quite 

do it, so you are asking us to do something completely different, 

you are giving us less than half the time frame you gave us before, 

we saw you didn’t give us the money that we needed last time. 

Please accept our promise you are going to get the money, and in 

reflecting on my experience at the State level, that is a whole lot 

to swallow and to accept. 

And I just hope that we understand that this bill probably is not 

going to go very far in the Senate, and I don’t say that as a threat 

because we ought to pass what we think is right and then deal 

with the Senate. But if in fact that is true, I hope we can come 

back and work on a bipartisan basis to do what I hope we all want 

to do, which is to extend the possibility of participation in our electoral process, give a greater sense of confidence in the integrity of 

our system and do it in a way that is user friendly, both to the 

voter and to the local and State officials that are required to enforce the law. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree totally with the 

statements of the two members on my side of the aisle. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The question is on agreeing to the 

Lofgren amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. All 

in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ All those opposed ‘‘no.’’ In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I ask for a recorded vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I will help you along here. Recorded vote 

is requested. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
261 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The ayes are 6, the noes are 3. The amendment in the nature 

of a substitute, as amended, is agreed to. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentlewoman from California to offer a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report 

the bill, H.R. 811, as amended, favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is not debatable. Those in favor say 

‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed say ‘‘no.’’ The ayes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I ask for a roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will have the Clerk call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The ayes are 6, the noes are 3. The motion is agreed to. Without 

objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table and the 

bill as amended will be reported to the House. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Pursuant to clause 2(L) of House rule XI, I announce that I am requesting the two additional calendar days provided by that rule during which members may file supplemental 

minority or additional views for inclusion in the report to the 

House. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
262 

The CHAIRMAN. Members will have two additional days provided 

by House rules to file views. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to prepare H.R. 

811 for filing. 

We have a couple other pieces of business that we have to dispose of. The Committee will now consider four original resolutions 

to dismiss pending election contests. Each of these resolutions will 

then be reported to the House as privileged. 

I now call up an original resolution relating to an election contest 

in the 5th District of Florida, the text of which is before the Members. Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be 

dispensed with and the resolution shall be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Davis. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
263 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 36562.194
264 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have reached a bipartisan agreement that the election contest relating to the 5th 

District of Florida is without merit and should be dismissed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional debate on the resolution? Mr. 

Ehlers agrees. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California for the purpose of making a motion. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that 

the Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution, 

the text of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest in the 

5th District of Florida. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from California. All those in favor say ‘‘aye.’’ Any opposed? 

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

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

The resolution will be reported to the House. Members will have 

two additional days provided by House rules to file views. 

I now call up an original resolution relating to an election contest 

in the 21st District, Florida, the text of which is before the Members. Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be 

dispensed with and the resolution will be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. I recognize the gentlewoman 

from California. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
265 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 36562.195
266 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have also reached a 

bipartisan agreement that the election contest relating to the 21st 

District of Florida is without merit and should be dismissed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate on the resolution? 

Mr. EHLERS. The minority agrees. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California for the purpose of making a motion. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution, the text 

of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest in the 21st 

District of Florida. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’

Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

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

The resolution will be reported to the House. Members have two 

additional days provided by House rules to file views. 

I now call up an original resolution relating to an election contest 

in the 24th District of Florida, the text of which is before the Members. Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be 

dispensed with and the resolution shall be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. I recognize again the gentlelady 

from California. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
267 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 36562.196
268 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have 

reached another bipartisan agreement on the election contest relating to the 24th District of Florida. 

In this case, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention because I 

know members have heard from individuals from the community. 

We certainly realize that Mr. Curtis and his supporters have 

worked very diligently to demonstrate that this contest merits further consideration. They have knocked on thousands of doors, and 

we recognize their dedication. But under our strong protection for 

secret ballots, the law can not recognize sworn affidavits as a substitute for votes cast via secret ballot. Under the Federal Contested 

Election Act, this contest fails to reach the necessary thresholds to 

warrant further consideration, and therefore it is also to be dismissed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Is there any additional debate on the 

resolution? 

Mr. EHLERS. We agree. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California for the purpose of making a motion. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution, the text 

of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest in the 24th 

District of Florida. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

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

The resolution will be reported to the House. Members will have 

two additional days provided by House rules to file views. 

Finally, I call up an original resolution relating to an election 

contest in the 4th District of Louisiana, the text of which is before 

the Members. 

Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be dispensed with, and the resolution shall be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. I recognize the gentlewoman 

from California. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
269 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 36562.197
270 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have indeed reached another bipartisan agreement that the election contest relating to the 4th District of Louisiana, that this case is not 

a proper subject for a contest brought under FCEA and should be 

dismissed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate on the resolution? 

Mr. EHLERS. The minority agrees. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California for the purpose of making a motion. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution, the text 

of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest in the 4th District of Louisiana. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’

Any opposed? The ‘‘ayes’’ have it. The motion is agreed to. 

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

The resolution will be reported to the House. Without objection, the 

staff will be authorized to make technical and conforming changes 

to prepare each of the four resolutions for filing. 

The final item of business today is approval of a Committee resolution to approve franked mail allowances for the standing and select committees of the House for the 110th Congress. 

The Chair now calls up Committee Resolution No. 4, which is before the Members. Without objection, the first reading will be dispensed with, and without objection, the Committee resolution will 

be considered as read and open for amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
271 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 36562.198
272 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 36562.199
273 

The CHAIRMAN. Committee Resolution No. 4 provides franking 

funds for committees and select committees for the 110th Congress 

and is not sent to the House floor. Our Committee is responsible 

under statute for limiting the amount of franking funds each committee may spend. The franking allocation is unrelated to the operating budgets that we give committees in the omnibus funding resolution. We adopted a similar version of this resolution two years 

ago with the same $5,000 with bipartisan support. 

I will inform each Committee Chairman of our action today. If 

any committee needs, and can justify, additional franking funds, I 

will bring that request back to House Administration for consideration. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Without objection, the previous question is ordered. The question 

is now on agreeing to Committee Resolution No. 4. All those in 

favor say ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed ‘‘no.’’ The ‘‘ayes’’ have it. The Committee resolution is agreed to. 

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

Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make any technical and conforming changes to the Committee resolution. 

One more announcement of ‘‘interim authority’’ actions. The 

Chair would like to conclude by making an announcement of the 

exercise of ‘‘interim authority’’ on behalf of the Committee. This announcement is usually done at the organizational meeting. With 

the Chairwoman no longer with us, I will complete the process 

today. 

The Chairwoman undertook the following actions on behalf of the 

Committee in the 110th Congress prior to its organization. She approved 5 consultant contracts, 15 detailee requests, and 5 Federal 

retirement waivers. In addition, she requested the preservation of 

equipment relevant to the pending election contest. I am not aware 

of any other actions under interim authority. 

There being no more further business before us, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
274 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 36562.200
275 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 36562.201
276 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 36562.202
277 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 36562.203
278 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 36562.204
279 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 36562.205
280 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 36562.206
281 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 36562.207
282 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 36562.208
283 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 36562.209
284 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 36562.210
285 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 36562.211
286 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 36562.212
287 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 36562.213
288 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 36562.214
289 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 36562.215
290 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 36562.216
291 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 36562.217
292 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 36562.218
293 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382/600 here 36562.219