U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–345 2011

H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, April 14, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director & General Counsel 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

RICHARD NUGENT, Florida 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Harper, Nugent, Rokita and Gonzalez. 

Staff Present: Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; 

Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; 

Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Karin 

Moore, Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; 

Kyle Andersen, Minority Press Secretary; Matt Defreitas, Minority 

Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; Thomas 

Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; and Gregg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff. 

Mr. HARPER. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Elections oversight hearing regarding 

H.R. 672, which is legislation terminating the Election Assistance 

Commission. The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days so that Members may submit any material that they wish to 

be included therein. A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

The Subcommittee on Elections oversees Federal elections and 

considers legislative means to improve and protect the integrity of 

our electoral system. To that end, in the 112th Congress this committee has held oversight hearings on military and overseas voting, 

the 2010 elections, and the operations and budget request of the 

EAC. At that hearing we explored multiple operational and managerial problems at the EAC and the statutory responsibilities that 

are complete. 

Today I look forward to discussing H.R. 672, which would terminate the Commission and transfer its remaining responsibilities to 

a more appropriate agency. HAVA, passed in 2002, required updated voting equipment and standardized election-related procedures across this country. The legislation also established the Election Assistance Commission to disburse funds and assist States in 

their obligation to meet the requirements of HAVA. 

Today, nearly a decade later, after most States have met the 

major requirements of HAVA, little funding remains to be disbursed. And yet with the bloated, management-heavy budget and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

a demonstrated inability to manage its resources wisely, the EAC 

continues to operate providing little, if any, real assistance to the 

States at significant cost to taxpayers. 

The Commission’s chronic issues have included an astounding 

doubling in staff, while the Commission’s responsibilities did not 

increase; a budget that spends more on internal operational costs 

than actual election assistance; questionable funding allocation decisions; and hiring processes that have led to multiple discrimination claims. In totality, the Commission has simply lived passed its 

usefulness. 

As another example of the EAC’s inability to function effectively, 

following an oversight hearing last month, this subcommittee sent 

written follow-up questions to the EAC with a response deadline of 

April 6th. Today it is April 14, and we still have not received responses to some seemingly straightforward questions. 

Finally, I note that when HAVA was on the House floor in 2002, 

Congressman Hoyer cited a study showing that 4- to 6-million people could not vote or did not have their votes counted in the 2000 

elections. In 2008, a successor study said the comparable figure 

was 4- to 5-million, after the EAC had existed for 6 years and 

spent over $3 billion. Now the EAC’s election programs have 

shrunk to one-third of its budget, so future improvements seems 

unlikely. 

I believe the States benefited from Federal assistance to update 

voting machines and election procedures, no doubt; but the funding 

for those payments has ended, and the Federal Government cannot 

afford to keep spending money on an agency that has not produced 

measurable improvement. 

I look forward to discussing these issues with our witnesses, particularly the minority whip, who, during his time on the committee, 

was instrumental in HAVA’s passage. I look forward to hearing 

their thoughts on these troubling practices and why in both 2005 

and 2010 the National Association of Secretaries of State adopted 

resolutions calling on Congress not to reauthorize or fund the EAC, 

why the very beneficiaries of the Commission’s work no longer feel 

it is needed. 

Since introducing H.R. 672, I have heard from many elections officials from across the country who have provided their suggestions 

and advice. I appreciate and value their input and suggestions, including maintaining the voting system testing and certification programs, and maintaining a formal role for election officials in the 

development of the voluntary voting system guidelines. Again, I appreciate this input and plan to incorporate much of it in an amendment to this bill. These are the types of constructive ideas I look 

forward to discussing today. 

At a time of in excess of $1.6 trillion deficits and a $14.3 trillion 

debt, continuing to spend money on the EAC is unjustifiable. Simply put, if we can’t cut spending by eliminating a commission that 

has so obviously outlived its usefulness and that is opposed by 

many of the elections officials that it is supposedly serving, then 

the system is broken. 

Again, I thank each of our witnesses that are going to be here 

today and would like now to recognize my colleague Mr. Gonzalez, 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

the ranking member of this subcommittee, for the purpose of providing an opening statement.Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now, I remember when the Help America Vote Act was written and passed. 

I wasn’t on the committee at that time, but I fought hard during 

the drafting to fix some of the problems that I saw were inherent 

in the draft bill. Mr. Hoyer probably remembers our discussions 

way back then. And I did have a strong reservation, but not for the 

reasons that are cited today as justifying passage of H.R. 672. 

I want to make some acknowledgments. It is true that the Election Assistance Commission, having been created, has had its problems. No one denies that, including the Commissioners and staff. 

But it is not the first agency to have problems, and it was faced 

with a tremendous task: tackling the challenges of voters in 50 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and the thousands of different electoral districts within them. Perhaps it was in recognition 

of this challenge that during the 109th Congress the Republicancontrolled Congress lifted the cap on EAC employment so they 

could staff up to tackle those goals. 

The EAC remains a tiny Federal agency compared to others in 

our Federal Government. The chairman has mentioned the disproportionate amount of its budget that EAC spends on personnel 

costs, and this is one of the reasons for that. The reason, of course, 

is that every agency, no matter how large, has to fill certain requirements. You need someone handling accounting and human resources whether you have 5 people or 50. In business they call 

these ‘‘fixed costs’’, and they are one of the economies of scale enjoyed by large companies. 

I know that EAC has tried to minimize the relative cost of their 

small size, first by outsourcing some functions to GAO, and now by 

cooperating with other small agencies to share some of those fixed 

costs. 

But the real point isn’t whether EAC is spending a lot or a little 

on personnel. The real question is, Does the work EAC produces 

justify the money that we spend on it. Now, I am of the opinion 

that few things are more important in our country and more deserving our support, including financial support, than ensuring 

that every American citizen’s right to vote is protected, but that 

doesn’t mean that I will sit still while a single penny is wasted on 

an agency that isn’t helping to do that. So is EAC helping America 

to vote? It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the answer is yes. 

The chairman and others of my colleagues have mentioned that 

the National Association of Secretaries of State, a letter written 

some time ago calling for the dissolution of EAC. Of course, that 

resolution was first adopted in February 2005, as pointed out, 

when EAC was barely 2 years old and certainly going through the 

terrible twos. 

It was renewed last summer, and Mr. Rokita and Secretary of 

State Browning have both cited the resolution. But I notice that 

the renewal wasn’t sufficiently important to the association for 

them to update the resolution. So it still calls for EAC to fade out 

of existence, quote, ‘‘after the conclusion of the 2006 Federal general election.’’ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

I also note we have had the president of the association testifying 

before this subcommittee just a few weeks ago, and Minnesota’s 

Secretary of State Ritchie had many complimentary things to say 

about EAC. So the opinion among Secretaries of State is clearly not 

unanimous. 

There is a further point that needs to be made. The secretary of 

state is the chief election official in most, if not all, of our States. 

But, that means they are like the general who organizes the campaign. It is the local election officials who are on the front lines 

dealing directly with the voters and struggling to ensure that our 

elections, the very foundation of our democracy, run smoothly. 

And what they do and what do they have to say when they are 

doing it? At our last hearing Susan Gill, supervisor of elections of 

Citrus County, Florida, spoke glowingly of EAC and how, quote, 

‘‘the Help America Vote Act provided the continuity needed on the 

national level, but left the states to devise how best to serve their 

voters.’’ I have never heard a better description of how our federal 

system is supposed to work. 

Now, my own election official—because we all know that all politics, voting activity and how it is conducted, is truly local—but 

Jacque Callanen Bexar County, Texas, she speaks of EAC’s ‘‘terrific 

outreach’’ and ‘‘fantastic’’ services. And Chairman Lungren’s local 

election official, Ms. LaVine, speaks highly of EAC in her written 

testimony. 

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a total of seven letters from local election officials from Virginia to California, Republicans and Democrats and nonpartisan, as well as letters from the League of 

Women Voters and the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and 

Human Rights. 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 67345A.001
6 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 67345A.002
7 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 67345A.003
8 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 67345A.004
9 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 67345A.005
10 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 67345A.006
11 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 67345A.007
12 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 67345A.008
13 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 67345A.009
14 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 67345A.010
15 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 67345A.011
16 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 67345A.012
17 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Now, I was surprised to read that one of the witnesses will testify that the problems EAC was created to address 

‘‘are essentially resolved,’’ and that there is no need for EAC. 

Frankly, I am amazed that anyone would say that while we are 

still in the midst of the Wisconsin recount in which 14,000 votes 

went missing, votes that could be decisive in that race. 

Now, Wisconsin is a race for a State office, but can you imagine 

how much trouble this would cause if it was a federal office that 

was in dispute? We don’t have to imagine. The citizens of Minnesota had to make do with only one senator for 6 months in 2009, 

less than 2 years ago, as the state struggled to administer the 2008 

election, and next year is a presidential year that presents its own 

set of challenges. 

EAC does have its problems. It has for some time. But it also 

remedied many problems, and the officials who run our elections 

say that EAC helps them do so better than any other agency. In 

such a situation, the proper response is to improve EAC, not throw 

up our hands in frustration. 

In 1788, the country faced a problem: It had a government that 

didn’t work. Money was wasted, and problems were mounting as 

the government’s central purposes—establishing Justice, ensuring 

domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence and promoting the general Welfare—weren’t being met. They could have 

said, ‘‘Well, we tried. The government we created did the main 

thing we created it for when in the Revolutionary War, but now it 

has just broken down, and we will dissolve it.’’ They could have 

said that, and some people did. But other people, we call them the 

Founders, said, No. Instead they created an improved government, 

one that has served us well for 222 years, but which itself has required 27 amendments, thus far, to improve its functioning. 

If they could do that, which is monumental in our history, I 

think we can tweak, and we can improve and have a more effective 

EAC. It’s not a question of dissolving and doing away with something that is so important in protecting the rights of all Americans 

to cast their vote. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. Does any other Member wish to be recognized for the purpose of an opening statement? 

The gentleman from Indiana Mr. Rokita is recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are hearing talking about ending a commission that has become a burden to the American taxpayers and simply, to my friend 

Mr. Gonzalez, is not needed. The Founders specifically said this in 

the Constitution when they left the procedures and processes surrounding our elections to the States to quite honestly do a much 

better job than any Federal bureaucracy can possibly dream of 

doing. 

I know a little bit about this because as former secretary of state 

for Indiana, I have practical experience with the Election Assistance Commission and with conducting elections at the State level. 

The EAC was created by the Help America Vote Act to help 

States replace old punch-card and lever-voting systems and to implement statewide voter registration databases. These were necessary updates, I certainly agree, due to the voting machine issues 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

illuminated in the 2000 Presidential elections. HAVA authorized 

$10 million per year for EAC, but last year the EAC actually spent 

$18 million. The budget request we received from EAC this year reflects administrative costs as 51 percent of the budget. Such funds 

are a waste. 

In a hearing held in March, the committee heard firsthand accounts of the EAC’s bloated budget, including an ever-growing staff 

with shrinking responsibilities and discriminatory hiring practices. 

Additionally it was found that the EAC was spending more money 

on management than on actual programs. 

Mr. Chairman, like the fate of so many of the Federal Government’s ideas and programs, this one has become nothing more than 

a large bureaucracy supporting a small program mandate that has 

largely been completed at this point. In 2005, I authored, and the 

National Association of Secretaries of State voted on, a resolution 

to dissolve EAC after the 2006 election. Congressman Gonzalez’s 

point there is correct. That resolution was based on the fact that 

the task outlined in HAVA was nearly completed at the time. 

Where Congressman Gonzalez, I believe, is wrong, Mr. Chairman, is that there was another resolution. NASS renewed the call 

to dissolve the Commission in 2010. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, 

that vote at the National Association of Secretaries of State was 

nearly unanimous. Only two of our members voted against it, and 

we had more Democratic secretaries of state, I believe, at the time 

than we had Republicans. So it was certainly bipartisan. Furthermore, Secretary Ritchie, who Congressman Gonzalez mentioned, 

voted for the resolution to get rid of the EAC. 

It is now 2011, and the EAC still exists. When the Commission 

was created, the Congress agreed that it should only be authorized, 

Mr. Chairman, for 3 years. Five years after that—the authorization 

date, after the scheduled deauthorization, the American taxpayers 

are still footing the bill, and the amount of work that is getting 

done can be done by some other agency, like the Federal Election 

Commission. 

At a time of crushing debt and deficits, the money spent on EAC 

cannot be justified. I do not believe that the creation of the EAC 

was necessary in the first place. 

As I noted earlier, the 2000 Presidential election brought awareness of needed changes to our voting system and registration databases. And with some assistance from the EAC at the time, the 

States—the States—took care of the problems. We didn’t need another Federal bureaucracy. Furthermore, those changes could have 

been made by, like I said, other already existing entities. 

To date we have spent $147 million on the EAC, and, again, it 

wasn’t necessary. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the chairman’s 

bill to eliminate this duplicative, overly administrative agency. 

Supporting the EAC and its bloat, and its waste, and its inefficiency, and its ineffectiveness by comparing it to the bloat, the 

waste, the inefficiency, and ineffectiveness of other agencies is not 

the answer. That is not an answer at all. That attitude is what is 

part of the problem of this growing Federal Government that many 

of us were sent here to get under control. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. I look forward 

to hearing them, and I want to especially welcome my Sigma Chi 

fraternity brother Steny Hoyer for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Rokita. 

And it is now my privilege to introduce our first witness, who we 

are especially pleased to have here given your service on this committee, and I know your interest, long-time interest, on elections 

reform. And we could truly say you are a witness who needs no introduction, but you are now serving your 16th term. 

Congressman Hoyer represents the Fifth Congressional District 

of Maryland and is the longest-serving Member of the House from 

Maryland in our history. First elected in 1981, Congressman Hoyer 

has had a distinguished career, having served as deputy majority 

whip, cochair of the Democrat Steering Committee, chair of the 

Democratic Caucus and majority leader. In the 112th Congress, he 

is the House Democratic whip, a position he also held from 2003 

to 2007. And, of course, Congressman Hoyer is a former member 

of the Committee on House Administration and served as ranking 

member during consideration of the Help America Vote Act that 

created the Election Assistance Commission. We are honored to 

have Congressman Hoyer here and thank him for his dedication to 

public service. 

Congressman, we look forward to hearing from you today, I obviously don’t need to give you any instructions other than you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STENY HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Chairman Harper, members 

of the committee, and Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear here before you. I want to thank you for inviting me to 

testify today on the important work of the Election Assistance 

Commission and why we must make sure that that work continues. 

The work of the EAC matters to voters who deserve assurance 

that their vote will count on election day and to poll workers who 

across the country are being asked to do more with less and still 

ensure that polling places operate smoothly. 

I would make as an aside the observation that not only do the 

States obviously conduct State elections, but they conduct, as we 

all know, extraordinarily important Federal elections. In the first 

210 years or 15, 20 years of our existence, the Federal Government 

gave no assistance to them to do so. 

Abolishing the EAC would be an invitation, in my opinion, to repeat the mistakes that blemished our democracy in 2000. The debacle of the 2000 Presidential election embarrassed the United 

States and showed just how flawed elections systems were. Regardless of their feelings about the controversial outcome of that election, Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that the Federal 

Government had a duty to step in and improve election systems 

and procedures so that every qualified citizen’s vote is, in fact, 

counted; to provide States the financial and informational resources—I stress informational resources—to upgrade their voting 

and registration systems, train their poll workers, and improve acVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:24 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 067345 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B345.XXX B345

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

cess for disabled voters. The result was the bipartisan Help America Vote Act, which I was proud to help write when I was the committee’s ranking member. I might say that a very distinguished 

member, Bob Ney, worked with me on that and in a bipartisan 

way. 

HAVA, which established the EAC, overwhelmingly passed the 

House 357 to 48. That was, of course, when your party, Mr. Chairman, was in control of the House of Representatives. This was not 

imposed by Democrats on the country, it was supported in a bipartisan way and overwhelmingly by the secretaries of state as well. 

It passed the Senate with only two votes against it. So this was not 

a partisanly imposed bureaucracy on the neck of the American people or the States. It was in a bipartisan way decided that this was 

an important addition to our election monitoring and effectiveness. 

Before HAVA, the Federal Government worked to guarantee voting rights, but it had no serious involvement in the nuts and bolts 

of elections, conditions in our polling places and voter registration 

offices that ensure that our precious voting rights are translated 

into a vote that counts. That is not simply a concern of the State 

officials, which it is, it is clearly a concern of the Congress and the 

American people generally. 

I presume the people of Indiana are concerned about whether or 

not we have fair voting in Maryland. Clearly the Maryland voters 

are concerned whether we have fair voting in Indiana. Why? Because the votes in both States affect who the President of the 

United States is going to be, so that there is a national interest in 

elections, not just a State interest. 

For over 200 years the Federal Government in effect got a free 

ride from States when it came to elections. And, in fact, as I am 

sure the former secretary of state of Indiana knows, my brother in 

Sigma Chi, traditionally all States, all governments have had trouble with resources. Where was it easiest to cut? Elections. 

Congress passed HAVA because it recognized that the Federal 

Government had to step up to the plate with the resources to help 

ensure that every vote is, in fact, counted. HAVA authorized 3.8 

billion in grants to States to buy new voting machines, improve 

voter registration procedures and train poll workers. HAVA also 

created the Election Assistance Commission, a four-member bipartisan Commission, which only has two members right now, whose 

job is to administer grants to States and provide States with ongoing guidance. It is that really function that I think is a critically 

important one so that we have a national perspective as well as a 

State-by-State perspective. Just as important, it provides expert 

advice on how polling places and voting machines can be fully accessible to disabled voters, which Mr. Ney and I were both very focused on. 

The EAC has created a comprehensive program to test State voting systems for accuracy. And use of this program has been shown 

to save our State millions of dollars and up to 12 months of testing 

time. 

The EAC is dedicated to transparency and makes its methods 

and test reports public so that the public can hold both the EAC 

and voting machine manufacturers accountable. In addition, the 

EAC develops best practices for Armed Forces to ensure that the 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

votes of our troops are accounted fairly. Let me emphasize that. It 

also is involved, and we have made very sure, with making sure 

that those folks from Indiana or Maryland or Texas or any other 

State, including your own, Mr. Chairman, are treated fairly, notwithstanding they may be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq or some 

other trouble spot in the world. Prior to the EAC, a narrow range 

of voting-related activities was conducted by the Federal Election 

Commission. 

Let me comment on the comment the former secretary of state 

made about the Federal Election Commission perhaps could undertake the responsibility. The focus of the Federal Election Commission and the EAC are totally different. The Federal Election Commission is concerned about the financing of Federal elections and 

the enforcement of financing laws. They have their hands full, as 

all of us know. Totally different perspective than how elections are 

run as opposed to how candidates run. The FEC’s mission is to ensure that campaign finance laws are obeyed. As I said, HAVA’s 

lead sponsors quickly learned that voting-related issues are not the 

same by any stretch of the imagination. Transferring most of the 

EAC’s function to the FEC, in my opinion, would be a mistake. 

The EAC, as all of us have observed and with which I agree, has 

not been, is not now a perfect agency. Does it need oversight? Yes. 

Does it need efficiencies? Yes. Should you as the committee of jurisdiction and the Appropriations Committee as well look at these, 

make cuts where cuts are appropriate? Certainly. But should that 

mean that, therefore, we should abolish an agency which the Congress overwhelmingly decided was a useful, an appropriate function 

for the Federal Government to follow? I think not. 

Mr. Chairman, I would submit the balance of my statement for 

the record and urge you as you consider this to improve, do not 

eliminate, because if we eliminate it, it would mean that the Federal Government will have no effective participation in ensuring 

that every vote counts, that the Voting Rights Act means something for every American whomever they might be, and Federal 

elections as well as State elections are held in a manner to give 

confidence to every voter that his or her vote will count and that 

the votes of every other American will count. And I thank you for 

this opportunity. 

Mr. HARPER. And we thank you for being here, Congressman 

Hoyer. Thank you for your leadership in the House and your history of leadership on this committee, and we appreciate your insight. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

We will now call the second panel up, please. 

I now would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses, 

some who probably just flew in. We appreciate that dedication to 

get here and to share your testimony. 

Our first witness, the Honorable Delbert Hosemann, is the secretary of state of the great State of Mississippi. The secretary is 

serving his first term, having been elected in 2007. As chief elections officer from Mississippi, Secretary Hosemann has sought to 

protect Mississippians’ right to vote by visiting precincts around 

the State during elections, working very closely with the circuit 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

clerks and elections commissioners, and supporting voter education 

programs such as Promote the Vote for young Mississippians and 

Vote in Honor of a Veteran. 

The Honorable Kurt Browning is Florida’s secretary of state, 

having been appointed this past January. He also served as secretary of state during the previous administration, serving from 

December 2006 until April 2010. Prior to that appointment Secretary Browning spent 26 years as the supervisor of elections for 

Pasco County, where he was extensively involved in Florida’s election community, serving as the president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections; and as a member of Governor 

Jeb Bush’s Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and 

Technology; and as a member of the State Planning Committee for 

the Help America Vote Act. 

Mrs. Jill LaVine is the registrar of voters for Sacramento County, 

where she is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the division of voter registration and elections. She has been registrar for 

almost 8 years and has worked in elections for over 24 years. In 

addition to her election duties, Mrs. LaVine is also responsible for 

the redistricting of the supervisoral boundaries following the 2010 

census, a very exciting and thankless job. She is the cochair of the 

legislation committee for the California Association of Clerks and 

Election Officials, and is also a member of the election center. She 

has testified before Congress on paper audit trails, and therefore 

the EAC, regarding accessibility standards for voting systems. 

Mr. John Fortier was a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he was the principal contributor to the AEIBrookings Institution Election Reform Project and executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission. This month he 

joined the Bipartisan Policy Center as director of the Democracy 

Project. 

You each have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and we 

will look forward to hearing your testimony shortly. 

I would like now to recognize the distinguished Representative 

from New Hampshire, Congressman Charlie Bass, who will introduce our final witness. 

Congressman Bass, you are recognized. 

Mr. BASS. And I thank the chairman for your indulgence. And I 

understand that it isn’t customary to have double introductions, if 

you will, for witnesses, but New Hampshire’s secretary of state Bill 

Gardner is a special friend and a great citizen of the State of New 

Hampshire. He was elected secretary of state, I think, a couple of 

years after I graduated from college, and that is the New Hampshire tradition. We have had probably no more than a half dozen, 

maybe a couple more, secretaries of state in the history of our 

State. Secretary Gardner has served with distinction and integrity 

now for many years. He is a Democrat who has been elected time 

and time again by a legislature that for almost all of his career has 

been controlled by the Republican Party. 

I spent a considerable amount of time and energy when I was in 

the New Hampshire Legislature and the New Hampshire State 

Senate working on issues involving elections and ethics, and Secretary Gardner was at my side for most of that period—all of that 

period of time. And I think during that time we made good 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

progress on various—many areas of election law in New Hampshire 

and also ethics. 

Bill Gardner is also a personal friend, an advisor, and probably 

one of the less nationally or State-known individuals who wields 

power beyond any other secretary of state in the Nation because 

he has, in essence, the sole power to set the date of the New Hampshire primary, which is, of course, the first in the Nation and will 

remain so forevermore. 

So without any further ado, I bring you my good friend, the secretary of state, Bill Gardner. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Congressman Bass. 

I thank each of you for being here. 

As I mentioned with Congressman Hoyer, the committee has received your written testimonies. At the appropriate time I will recognize each of you for 5 minutes to present a summary of that submission. 

To help you keep the time, you will see in front of you a timing 

device. The device will be green for 4 minutes and will turn yellow 

when you have—1 minute remains. When the light turn red, it 

means that your time has expired, and we would ask you to bring 

it in for a landing at that point. 

So we will begin with Secretary Gardner and ask you to please 

proceed. 

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM M. GARDNER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

SECRETARY OF STATE; DELBERT HOSEMANN, MISSISSIPPI 

SECRETARY OF STATE; KURT BROWNING, FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE; JILL LAVINE, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; AND JOHN FORTIER, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. GARDNER 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. I was going to say something a little 

special about Congressman Rokita. And I want to thank Congressman Bass, who is like having a brother here with me, because we 

go back a long way. I worked with him when he served in the 

house, when he served in the senate. He chaired the elections committee in the senate and the ethics committee. He is from a distinguished longtime family; his grandfather was Governor, his father 

was a Congressman and then a Senate President. 

I will get to the business. 

I support this legislation wholeheartedly. I do so with very strong 

passion. When this Commission was established in 2004 and had 

its first meeting in March of that year, within 2 months it was 

making national headlines all across the country because letters 

had been sent out that hinted at having the EAC become the authority for determining whether we had a Presidential election or 

not in 2004—later in 2004. Actually when we went to our conference that summer, it was the 100th anniversary of the association, and as we talked about it amongst ourselves, that was the 

news in all the States. What was this new upshot Federal agency, 

what was it? And how could this be? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

In my State there were several newspaper editorials that referred to how the country had an election in the middle of the Civil 

War, had an election during World War II. How can this be? So we 

made a statement as secretaries. We sent a letter. The letter made 

it to Congress. Within a week or so the Congress voted 419 to 2 

saying that there is no Federal agency that is going to have this 

kind of authority; the States run the elections. 

Well, after that, legislation was introduced in both the House 

and the Senate that would increase the authority of EAC, and give 

it rulemaking. That gave us a lot of concern, and in 2005 we passed 

this resolution saying that when the States complied with HAVA, 

it should go away, i.e. the EAC. And at the time we were discussing ‘‘How? With eight staff members, what were they for?’’ The 

concern was that in a few years there may be twice or three times 

as many. And so we passed it. As Congressman Rokita said, it 

passed pretty substantially, just less than a handful against. 

And then 2 years later we passed another resolution in 2007 

where we mentioned this again. And in 2008, we passed another 

resolution entitled ‘‘Maintenance of Effort,’’ but it had in the resolution our concern about the expanding role in programs and why 

it should continue not to be reauthorized. 

In 2009, we passed another resolution, and it was about payments and grants, because it appeared to us what was being done 

was not helping the States, but it was just creating more burdens 

for the States, and States particularly that have small staffs. 

So then it continued. And that came to a point now where, as 

some of the States—many of the States were reminded in the last 

3, 4, 5 months that there was payments money left that they 

hadn’t taken yet. But what has been done is that in order to get 

that money, the States have to agree that it is grant money. Ninety-nine percent of the funding for the States has been payments 

money, but the director is called grants director. After our resolution it was changed to director of grants and payments. Now it is 

back to just grants. Why? Because it falls under OMB; there are 

more strings attached; there is more taking away from the States. 

And so the bottom line—and there has been a continuing attempt 

to have more programs and power, more authority, and we don’t 

like that. 

In 2010, we did it again, and we just said, enough is enough. We 

have done this now five times as an association and feel very 

strong about it, and I applaud you for the legislation. 

I might just say, Congressman Rokita came back when I thanked 

you for coming in. I just want to say that he is a friend and a 

former colleague, and I am proud, and I know a lot of the rest of 

us are, to be able to call him a Congressman and address him that 

way. We in New Hampshire have a reverence for Indiana, because 

if it wasn’t for Indiana, we wouldn’t have the first-in-the-Nation 

primary. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you so much, Secretary Gardner, for your 

testimony and for being here today. 

[The statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 67345A.013
26 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 67345A.014
27 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 67345A.015
28 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 67345A.016
29 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 67345A.017
30 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 67345A.018
31 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 67345A.019
32 

Mr. HARPER. I now ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record the letters and NASS resolutions mentioned by Secretary 

Gardner in his testimony. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 67345A.020
34 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 67345A.021
35 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 67345A.022
36 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 67345A.023
37 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 67345A.024
38 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 67345A.025
39 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 67345A.026
40 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 67345A.027
41 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 67345A.028
42 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 67345A.029
43 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 67345A.030
44 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 67345A.031
45 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize Secretary Hosemann for your 

testimony for 5 minutes, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DELBERT HOSEMANN 

Mr. HOSEMANN. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman Harper. 

Good to see you. You are missed at home. Apparently the adage of 

the State of New Hampshire, Don’t Tread on Me, still applies to 

Bill. 

In light of the budget issues and the international conflicts and 

national debt ceilings that we have got here that you all are all facing and the country is facing, election issues seem to be less important. However, as everyone who charts this country’s path comes 

through the electoral process, we believe it is very important what 

you are doing today. 

I have given you my comments in writing, and I will just summarize those quickly. Obviously, under HAVA we have had an explosion of scrutiny of increased types of voting systems. But the key 

to HAVA, of course, was to give Federal funding to elections, to develop standards in election administration, and the systematic collection of data. That is what we were about when you started this. 

In this environment the EAC was created. It placed—this was 

the genesis, and Congress in its wisdom in 2002 gave it only a 3- 

year life. It was not appointed perpetually. 

My colleagues at NASS, as Congressman Rokita has already 

pointed out, have voted time and again to abolish the EAC. Those 

votes were, as he mentioned, bipartisan and, in fact, 22 to 3 with 

3 abstentions the last time it came up. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, 

this is a time which has come and a time now that is overdue. 

As a threshold matter I would want explain to the committee 

that we could not have implemented the Federal standards without 

the assistance of some $35 million to the State of Mississippi. 

Those were the HAVA grants, and we hope that we have used 

them, and we believe we have used them, in accordance with 

HAVA’s mandates. However, EAC’s role, as I agree with the majority of my NASS colleagues, EAC has become redundant as we move 

forward in the enforcement of HAVA. Many of their functions or all 

their functions can now be utilized by other organizations. And I 

have read the statutory language that you have drafted. 

There is nothing in the administrative functions of EAC which 

cannot be performed by another entity. The funding, the standards, 

the data collection are all things that can be done from others. My 

colleagues here from Florida and New Hampshire are here with me 

today. We share this information that is gathered under HAVA, 

and it is very helpful in creating solutions to the electoral process. 

I am not opposed to reporting for the reasons mentioned. EAC 

could be more efficient, and I have outlined those in my comments. 

The secretary of state of Mississippi has no statutory authority to 

require counties to provide the requested data of the EAC, although we get the initial contacts for each of them. 

The lack of information that is reported from the counties, it is 

very hard to prepare this 58-page document and get it back on 

time. Standardization of the reporting data is very important as a 

step going forward, although we don’t believe that the EAC is the 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

one to do that. We believe FVAP and DOJ, the Department of Justice, can both do this as well as the FEC. 

I read with some interest the involvement in military and overseas voting. Of five secretaries of state that went to Afghanistan 

and Iraq to promote votes for the Presidential election, three of 

them are sitting here today. We got really good information. We 

learned a great deal of respect for the members of our military and 

how the voting was going to be conducted. I know firsthand what 

secure Internet-based access is. 

However, the EAC has come in with two grants to research technology for injured members of the military and also create guidelines for the design of remote electronic voting systems. Those 

could be handled by FVAP or by the FEC. 

One area of standardization I mentioned in here in regards to reporting requirements. They have changed over the years, and we 

have had reports—the ones where we follow the prior year’s reports, we have had those rejected and had to refile them. Under 

the EAC guidelines, they have moved around. 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that from my experience, in all due 

respect to Congressman Hoyer’s statements before, this issue is not 

about the continuing of enforcement of HAVA. We all support that. 

The secretaries of state have repeatedly supported that. 

We are the ones that train the elections officials at the local 

level, as you well know. We educate election commissioners, and we 

maintain the systems, and we assure disability access, and educate 

the voters. All of the things that were required in HAVA when we 

started are done by the secretaries of state in the local reporting 

agencies. It is not about HAVA here; it is about the fact that the 

EAC’s responsibilities can be better utilized in other locations, and 

the government can function better. 

All of the issues that I have raised today we raise on behalf of 

all of the secretaries of state, although I do not mention—I am not 

speaking for NASS today. 

I do think it is critically important that we continue the three 

functions of HAVA that I have mentioned to you, the data collection, the standardization, and hopefully the funding. All of those, 

though, can be better served by another agency, and this one has 

become redundant and expensive. 

Thank you for allowing me to come today. 

[The statement of Mr. Hosemann follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 67345A.032
48 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 67345A.033
49 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 67345A.034
50 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 67345A.035
51 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Secretary Hosemann. Appreciate your 

being here and your friendship and your dedication to our great 

State of Mississippi. 

I now recognize Secretary Browning for 5 minutes. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KURT BROWNING 

Mr. BROWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to be here today to provide testimony for H.R. 672. Today I speak in support of this legislation, 

and, as you know, elections administration has always been a responsibility of the States. With the passage of the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993, I believe the Federal Government took its 

first major step into their involvement in the conduct of elections. 

Certainly after the 2000 general election that has been frequently 

mentioned today, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 that I believe went even further into the administration of 

elections, and under that act created the Elections Assistance Commission and provided much-needed funding to the States for modernizing their voter registration systems as well as their voting systems. And we continue to be appreciative certainly of that assistance. 

The EAC was also tasked with administering, obviously, the 

number of grants to study various elections-related issues. The creation of the Election Assistance Commission was probably a good 

idea at the time, because it did provide a means of administering 

the requirements payments for the State, as well as providing some 

much-needed uniformity that was pretty much nonexistent among 

the States. It also had a limited life span. 

It continues to operate today as a Federal agency that has grown 

both in staffing and in its budget. It appears to me to be an overlap 

of responsibilities between the EAC and other Federal agencies. As 

Secretary Hosemann has mentioned, some of the military initiatives that the EAC has involved themselves with is something that 

to me only makes sense that the Federal voting assistance program 

would be the logical home for some of those initiatives. 

My experience with the EAC has been mixed at best. In my opinion, the EAC has outlived its usefulness. In 2007, I appeared before 

the EAC seeking guidance from the Commission regarding the use 

of Florida HAVA dollars that we still had on account for the purchase of voting systems when we were moving from touch-screen 

to optical-scan voting systems. After a great deal of testimony and 

questions, they, the Commission, were unable to provide any definitive answer to me for a very timely topic and in need of a very 

timely answer since my legislature was in session. It was only after 

discussion with the Commission’s general counsel that an answer 

was provided, and then and only then was it a tentative answer. 

A common criticism is the EAC’s voting system certification, and 

that it has taken extended amounts of time to certify systems. It 

wasn’t until recently that they certified their first system after having been in existence for as long as they have. 

The other thing that is a concern is the continually changing voting system standards. No sooner is a set of standards adopted by 

the EAC before they are preparing a new round of standards. This 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

constant state of flux has cost the voting system’s manufacturers 

millions of dollars, and in turn those costs are passed on to local 

and State governments. For that reason Florida chose not to require Federal voting system certification, but instead to rely on our 

own rigorous voting system certification program. In my opinion, 

we can certify a system faster and more accurately in Florida than 

the EAC. 

As has been stated a number of times today, the National Association of Secretaries of State has, in fact, adopted a resolution in 

2005 and again in 2010 calling on Congress not to reauthorize 

funding or—reauthorize the EAC or its funding, and I supported 

that resolution. I do, however, believe that they should have gone 

further by providing specific suggestions to you, the Congress, as 

to the disposition of the functions of the EAC. 

The legislation today calls for the termination of EAC and reassignment of most of its responsibilities to the Federal Election 

Commission. I believe a more philosophical question that I believe 

needs to be asked and answered in light of this legislation is does 

the Federal Government need to continue administering a program 

intended to fix problems that are now 10 years old and have essentially been resolved? If the Federal Government is going to continue to be involved with voting system certification issues, I would 

recommend and certainly suggest that this be transferred to the 

Federal Election Commission and not the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology as currently proposed. 

Certainly with the passage of this legislation, the Standards 

Board and the Advisory Board cease to exist. I believe there needs 

to be some formalized process that State stakeholders have in providing input to the body that is going to determine these voting 

system standards as well as other things would impact the administration of elections at the State level. 

Certainly I am not an ardent supporter of Federal involvement 

in election administration, but I do believe that the issues that we 

are talking about today that are currently assigned to the Elections 

Assistance Commission could and should be assigned or reassigned 

to the Federal Election Commission, and I believe that it would be 

the best place to do it because of their continued relationship with 

the elections community. 

I would be more than happy to answer any appropriate questions 

at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Secretary Browning, for being here. 

[The statement of Mr. Browning follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 67345A.036
54 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 67345A.037
55 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 67345A.038
56 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 67345A.039
57 

Mr. HARPER. And I now recognize Mrs. LaVine for 5 minutes. 

Thank you. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JILL LAVINE 

Ms. LAVINE. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to speak here at this committee and to give you the viewpoint of the local election official if the EAC was terminated. 

In 2002, when the Help America Vote Act was being debated 

here in Washington, it was the topic of every election official. And 

I have to admit, I was on the concerned side. It was perceived that 

the Federal Government wanted control how the States and local 

elections conducted their elections. I changed my mind, however, 

when I saw what the EAC really did, that they were an Election 

Assistance Commission. 

In 2005, Sacramento County rolled out our new voter assist terminals for voters with disabilities. This was the largest rollout in 

any State at that time. The EAC was there to help and observe, 

and their experience was very helpful. I have been able to participate in several of the EAC projects, and in preparing the Election 

Management Guidelines and the Quick Start Guide. The Commission would gather together a group of election officials. We would 

get together and discuss the topic. We were not told what to do or 

what we were supposed to say, but rather how did we make this 

work, and what were our differences, and what could we suggest 

to improve the process. 

Since we represented different States, and worked under different laws, and used different voting systems, the finished products will help everyone. 

The Election Management Guidelines should be in every election 

office. I use them when I write procedures, when looking for ways 

to save money, and when writing RFPs for new equipment. However, election laws change, and technology changes, and these 

guidelines need to be updated, and the new elections trends need 

to be vetted with election officials having those experiences. 

There are two topics now that should be added: One, requiring 

identification to vote; and another would be on-line voter registration. I believe the EAC is the best organization to continue these 

projects. On the EAC Web site, it is one the best and most helpful 

clearinghouse spots for information for election officials from all 

States. I cochair the legislation committee in California, and as I 

prepare analysis of the bills to determine cost and impacts, I can 

do research on the EAC Web site and be able to make appropriate 

suggestions for amendments. I even used the Web site when I was 

asked by my county to prepare a contingency plan for the H1N1, 

or swine flu. 

As cochair of the legislation committee, I put on a yearly workshop to discuss all the laws that had been passed the previous year 

and the impact on the local officials. The EAC has been very supportive of this workshop and, when available, will speak at this 

meeting to update what is happening on the Federal level. It is 

that interaction to show their support and we build trust together. 

The authors of H.R. 672 recommend the termination of the EAC 

because they feel the job is done. HAVA has recommended—or one 

of the HAVA’s requirements is that they have—every State have 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

a statewide voter registration database. California does not, and 

right now the expected implementation date is 2015. 

Another requirement of HAVA is to improve voting systems. At 

this time Los Angeles County, the largest county, I think, in the 

Nation, is looking for a voting system. They are using their homegrown Inkavote system because there is not a system that will accommodate their needs. And California’s passage of the Top Two 

Primary has increased their burden, and they will not be able to 

accommodate the number of candidates and contests for 2012. 

I bought our optical scan system in 2004, and soon it will be at 

the end of its lifecycle. Many counties are in the same position. 

HAVA’s requirement to improve voting systems will always be an 

ongoing job. 

One fast food company used the saying, you don’t notice clean 

until it is not there. Well, the same could be said for elections. No 

one pays any attention to an election official until something goes 

wrong. That is what happened in 2000. Election officials now are 

preparing for the Presidential 2012 elections. Now is not the time 

to terminate the EAC. 

While the research projects first included in HAVA are complete, 

elections change, people change, voters change, technology changes, 

and the EAC also needs to be changed, but not terminated. Like 

all election offices facing budget cuts, we must look for new efficiencies. HAVA now requires three advisory boards for the EAC. I 

would suggest reviewing the need for all these members. I would 

recommend staffing all four Commissioners. There is no cost savings when decisions cannot be made to get the work done. 

In conclusion, I would recommend a change, not a termination, 

of the EAC. Election officials rely on the guidance and the resources that the Election Assistance Commission provides. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you Ms. LaVine. Appreciate your attendance 

today. 

[The statement of Ms. LaVine follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 67345A.040
60 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 67345A.041
61 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 67345A.042
62 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 67345A.043
63 

Mr. HARPER. I now recognize Mr. Fortier for his testimony. You 

are recognized, sir. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FORTIER 

Mr. FORTIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the subcommittee, for having me here today. I appreciate 

testifying on this subject, and I guess I have something of a middle 

view. 

I sympathize very much with the aim of the bill. There are a lot 

of reasons to think that we have a time of fiscal crisis, we should 

look at every line in the budget; that the EAC has a number of 

missions that it has completed and it is not going to be performing 

in the future; and finally, the questions about the EAC’s management, and how much it spends on management, and how it allocates its resources. All of those point in the direction of doing something significant with the EAC. 

I do have some, a couple of reservations that caused me not to 

go down the road of absolutely calling for the termination of the 

EAC. One is that, I think, the one function of the EAC that is partially preserved by the bill, partially preserved in the FEC with reports on UOCAVA and reports on NVRAs, the research function; 

the research function, the ability to collect and standardize data, 

which can be very different from State to State. Not only the reporting of the data is uneven, but different things are called different things in different States. So it is very difficult to find a sort 

of common data across States, and the EAC performs a valuable 

function in that area. 

I guess I want to take you back to the time when Mr. Hoyer was 

sitting here at this table, was sitting where you are sitting, and we 

had the 2000 elections crisis, and it really was a time when Washington had to figure out how elections worked. There were secretaries of state, local elections officials well versed in these issues, 

but in many ways Washington wasn’t, scholars weren’t versed in 

these things. And we spent a couple of years in this committee and 

various private commissions around the country trying to get a real 

handle on how the whole system works. We had worked on it episodically here and there, but having a place that can look at the 

elections system as a whole and collect data, I think, is significant 

and important. 

Two things I would highlight. One is that, yes, you preserve 

some of the research functions. But I do think that the Elections 

Administration Survey, which really is part of a larger survey that 

includes UOCAVA and NVRA, is valuable. The work that I have 

done on early and absentee voting, information about provisional 

ballots, about types of voting machines, just getting a sense of the 

landscape of where we are across this very, varied country, is 

something I think is worth preserving. 

I do think a more robust research component in general than has 

been proposed by the bill would be worthwhile. Thinking about a 

State of Voting in America report coming out regularly that would 

be a Federal and independent voice of what was going on in the 

country would help policymakers here in Washington, policymakers 

in the States, and elections scholars as well. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

The other concern I have is that elections administration issues 

might get lost. The FEC, of course, did have a responsibility for 

these matters before 2000. And we did come to the 2000 elections 

crisis and realize we didn’t know enough about it here in Washington. And I worry that all of the resources of Washington knowing about elections will drain away if we don’t treat this core responsibility of being able to describe the elections system well seriously. 

The committee here may find itself not as interested in these 

issues if there is not an EAC. Scholars may not write as many reports. There already is some sense that foundations and others are 

pulling away from this area. So I think it is important to keep 

these issues in the forefront. 

And I suggest a leaner, meaner EAC focused much more on research issues and making sure that we retain some of these core 

components. That might be a significantly smaller EAC than it is 

today, but certainly an important function. Or if you do need to 

move it to another place, to the FEC, I think the challenge here 

is to make sure that that part of the FEC has a voice. The FEC 

is a busy place, and Commissioners are concerned with other 

things, and getting Commissioners’ time and getting a prominence 

to those issues, I think, is a challenge. 

So I am supportive of the strong look at the FEC, the need to 

streamline, cut down many of the functions, but I do think we need 

to look much more significantly about preserving a strong research 

function and finding a place, whether it is a smaller independent 

agency or as a part of the FEC, to make sure that those issues are 

not lost in other issues. 

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Fortier, we thank you for your testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Fortier follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 67345A.044
66 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 67345A.045
67 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 67345A.046
68 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 67345A.047
69 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 67345A.048
70 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 67345A.049
71 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 67345A.050
72 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 67345A.051
73 

Mr. HARPER. And we now have time for committee members to 

ask questions of the witnesses. Each member is allotted 5 minutes 

to question the witnesses, and, of course, we have the same time 

clock to look at, and I’ll begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

And I certainly want to thank each of you for taking the time 

that you have out of a very busy schedule to be here and to give 

us some insight into this legislation on what we should do. 

And, of course, Mr. Fortier, recognizing some of the things that 

you said about research and things of that nature, one of the responsibilities for EAC was that they were to have—and this was 

assigned under HAVA—they were supposed to do a study on the 

use of Social Security numbers in voter registration, and I believe 

that it was due in 2005. And as of April 2011, we don’t have it, 

even though there have been inquiries. And their response, EAC’s 

response, was that it was the responsibility of the Social Security 

Administration, which they have responded back, no, under HAVA 

it is your responsibility. So we have had some disappointment in 

that response. 

I don’t know if you were in the room when I did my opening, but 

we asked for simple questions to be responded to by April 6th. How 

hard is that? 

And so there is a high level of frustration here as we look at 

what is going on. And EAC, having responsibility for fairness in 

elections, has two of their Commissioners commit political discrimination. That gets the government sued and results in a hefty settlement being paid by the taxpayers ultimately. 

So there are many things here that we are dealing with. But as 

it comes to research, which is certainly an important aspect, who 

else besides EAC can handle the research responsibilities that are 

already in the system? 

Mr. FORTIER. Well, I do think it is important that there be a Federal role, a core Federal role. It is true that there—since our problems in 2000 have been much more interesting to the academic 

community, certainly the secretaries of state, their organizations, 

and local elections officials, the elections centers do lots of good 

work in that area. But what is difficult is, and what I think needed 

is, an organization that can go to States and localities and say, 

look, we need relatively common information, and it is a difficult 

challenge because of the differences out there. 

I have written a book about absentee and early voting, and I 

know that each State calls it something different. And some States 

don’t report at the State level on this. And I found myself having 

to go to town-level data. So just to know what is happening in the 

States for you, for Federal policymakers, for us requires some sort 

of core data. Yes, others can do additional research, but I do think 

that that is important to preserve. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Fortier. 

Secretary Gardner, if I may, can you explain the difference between a payment and a grant under HAVA and how the EAC’s use 

of terms interchangeably affects your State or other States? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, a payment: 99-plus percent of the money 

that has been given to the States have been payments. To comply 

with the provisions of HAVA, make sure that all disabled voters 

have a way to participate that protects them, and create the stateVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:24 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 067345 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B345.XXX B345

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

wide database. A grant was for colleges, for instance, that want to 

have a program for students that might want to work in a polling 

place. It amounts to a small amount of money; compared to almost 

3 billion for payments, maybe 30 million for grants. But grants tie 

the States up. Grants have a lot more strings attached, and that 

really got to the fundamentals of—is this just an attempt to prolong the existence by bringing the States in tighter in a way that 

doesn’t give back? That is why we made a big point of it. 

It is laughable that there was a grants director and not a payments director, because the focus is towards the OMB and rules 

and rulemaking. That is what we at the State level are really concerned about. That is what your attempt—that is why I applaud 

you for that. 

This is—this is a waste of money. From all of my experience: We 

had the closest U.S. Senate race in history decided by two votes in 

1974. The U.S. Senate decided—the Rules Committee—that they 

would do a recount themselves. Just like your counterpart, you— 

if you decided someday you wanted to do a recount because you are 

the final judge of the qualification election of your own members. 

We shipped all the ballots to Washington. They remained down 

here for about 20 years. About a decade ago someone called me and 

said, ‘‘What are all these boxes doing in one of the closets in one 

of these buildings from New Hampshire, what are they doing 

here?’’ They were the recount ballots, and the Senate spent 6 

months and couldn’t do it. 

And this is not—I wasn’t expecting your question, but here is an 

example. This is one of these Quick Starts, best practice. This is 

about recounts. This is laughable what is in here. It doesn’t help 

at all. I have done a lot of recounts in my day, and my testimony 

will tell you that. If the U.S. Senate got this when they were deciding to look at recounts, whoever did this, they would ask a lot of 

questions. This is just one example of spending money on this and 

other things that are part of this. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Secretary Gardner. I appreciate that 

very much. 

I am now going to recognize the ranking member Mr. Gonzalez 

for 5 minutes. 

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

ask, Mr. Gardner, are you for repeal of the Help America Vote Act. 

Mr. GARDNER. No. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You would not. 

Mr. GARDNER. I am not for repeal of the act. I am for repeal of 

the EAC. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I understand that. 

And, Mr. Hosemann, are you for repeal of the Help America Vote 

Act? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. No. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And, Mr. Browning, same question. 

Mr. BROWNING. No, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Because you recognize that its goals and its purpose are quite valid; is that correct, Mr. Gardner? 

Mr. GARDNER. Say that again, please. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The act itself, you don’t want it repealed because 

it is a valid piece of legislation addressing very real issues that exVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:24 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 067345 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B345.XXX B345

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

isted at the time of its enactment that are still present today in our 

elections system. It is a relevant piece of legislation, that is all I 

am saying. And I am assuming all three of you said you would not 

want to repeal it because you think it is a legitimate piece of legislation that is relevant today. That was just an assumption. And I 

only have 5 minutes because I want to get some other questions. 

I listen to your testimony, and it is almost as if you may be questioning the validity and the purpose of the act itself. So let us get 

that off the table. What you are really complaining about is the entity, the Election Assistance Commission as the entity that is 

charged, in essence, with carrying forth the goals of the Help 

America Vote Act. 

And I will follow that. My colleagues believe that it is inefficient, 

it costs too much, but if you read the letters that we have received 

from the other agencies that would subsume those duties, they are 

all telling you, We are understaffed. One, NIST has a conflict of interest; secondly, doesn’t have the resources and would be asking for 

more monies. The FEC is telling you, We are ill equipped; we can’t 

do it unless you plus up. So I don’t know where the savings are 

going to come. So, I don’t even think that is going to be relevant 

in this particular discussion. We are not seeking to pass this particular bill to really save any money, because no one is going to 

point at these other agencies. 

Now, let me ask you, do you really want to work with DOJ, NIST 

and the FEC as opposed to one entity that is charged with the responsibility of what is going to help you with the Help America 

Vote Act? Are you telling me you would rather be working with 

three, four, five different Federal agencies than one? 

Mr. GARDNER. Your premise is you are saying it helps us. I don’t 

believe it helps us. You said that the act helps us, and I am saying 

to you that I don’t believe that it does help us. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Then why aren’t you for repealing it? No, I mean, 

I think what we are really getting into is all sorts of philosophy 

and such, which is good. But I would—let me ask the three secretaries of state. Do all your local election officials share your opinions as expressed today in your testimony? Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, I can say that—and I work very closely with 

our elections officials. We have over 6,000 that participate just on 

election night itself. We have workshops all year. When I have 

shown them some of these or they have seen them, there was no 

enthusiasm whatsoever. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. I’m saying that—— 

Mr. GARDNER. The whole thing about best practices—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Total waste of time? Nothing; they have not benefited at all by what the Election Assistance Commission has attempted to do nationwide? They would all agree with you? 

Let me ask you, Mr. Hosemann, do all of your local elected officials agree with your assessment in your testimony? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. They do. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So you can speak for each and every one of them? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. Well, I didn’t speak with each and every one of 

them about here, but we do meet with election Commissioners. We 

train all of them. We have 400 of them. I visit with them on a regular basis, sometimes monthly, and oftentimes—— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And they are all for doing away with EAC? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. They are frustrated with EAC. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. They are all wanting to do away—— 

Mr. HOSEMANN. The ones I have spoken with are in favor of 

doing away with EAC. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, what I am saying, ‘‘all.’’ Because I think 

you are going to find individuals in your own states—I am just assuming this; maybe I will hear from them, hopefully I would, because we do have some local officials that are willing to testify and 

correspond with us. 

Mr. Browning, same question. Do all of your local elected officials 

agree with your testimony today? 

Mr. BROWNING. The way your question is phrased, no. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And the reason for that? 

Mr. BROWNING. Well, I haven’t polled all my local elections supervisors, but the ones that I have talked to, and I talk to my supervisors of elections on a regular basis, they have sensed or expressed to me a sense of frustration with the EAC. Certainly we 

are appreciative of funding that the Federal Government, through 

the EAC, has provided for the modernization of voter registration 

and voting systems, but, you know, when you have election administration being done or—I won’t even say—to a degree micromanaged, at least they are attempting to micromanage elections 

through the EAC, it doesn’t work. The folks that best know how 

to administer elections are those locally, and I think that they see 

the EAC as an intrusion. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am going to yield back if you’ll give me one second, sir. First I want to apologize to our witnesses and my colleagues. I am supposed to be chairing a meeting right now, and so 

I am 20 minutes late, and this group gets very restless, so I will 

apologize. But thank you for your testimony. 

I think if we are realistic about what we are trying to do and to 

assist you, it is not necessary to do away. All we have to do is improve on what has proved beneficial. That is why I asked that 

question. I don’t believe that all the election officials agree with 

your assessment, because, to be honest with you, we have someone 

present today that believes it has been beneficial. That is a local 

election official. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say for the 

record and to the witnesses, having supervised elections, having 

run elections in the State of Indiana for 8 years, I don’t know—this 

is to Mr. Gonzalez—I don’t know a group of election officials that 

agree on everything 100 percent of the time. In that sense they are 

no more than a simple microcosm of this great country. 

I also would say the fact that bureaucrats might write in and tell 

us that they are overworked and understaffed has little weight 

with me, and that comes from a guy who used to run a bureaucracy. I used to run it on 1987 dollars unadjusted for inflation. We 

can all do more work around here, Mr. Chairman. 

To my friend Mr. Fortier—I guess we haven’t met, so I shouldn’t 

say ‘‘friend’’ so flippantly. You were called in, I would suggest, as 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

a friendly witness. And I appreciate your concentration on research. Are you aware that the EAC contracts out most of its research, or at least does, yes or no? 

Mr. FORTIER. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Are you aware that it contracts it out to organizations that aren’t necessarily unbiased, or do you not have an 

opinion? Yes or no, no opinion. 

Mr. FORTIER. There is a lot of research, I suppose—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Are you aware that I was part of a group as secretary of state that worked with contractors to the EAC on issues 

of voter intimidation and photo ID, yes or no? 

Mr. FORTIER. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. You are aware that I was part of that. 

Are you aware that that contractor was discredited and had to 

leave its liberal, biased university, a specific law school, because of 

an inspector general’s report that came out indicating that the EAC 

had contracted biased people, biased organizations, and gave biased 

results back? 

Mr. FORTIER. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Now that you are aware of that, would you 

rely on the EAC for its research, yes or no? 

Mr. FORTIER. I have a hard time answering yes or no, but what 

I would say is this: That, yes, the EAC itself I don’t expect to do 

its research in house. I—the core functions—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have a problem—— 

Mr. FORTIER. Data collection, I think, is the most important feature. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have a problem with professional government organizations like the GAO performing the election research? 

Mr. FORTIER. Not necessarily, but I think it would be potentially 

too diffuse. It wouldn’t have the focus of an organization that had 

a core competency—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you think—— 

Mr. FORTIER [continuing]. Having five or six, seven people—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Core competency. But you just understood that they 

contract out their research. 

Mr. FORTIER. They contract out data collection, but having people 

in house who can analyze—— 

Mr. ROKITA. No, no, no. I was part of a group that didn’t just 

contract out data collection, they made conclusions. 

To my secretary of state friends, starting with Mr. Hosemann, is 

there anything in the Mississippi Constitution that allows the Federal Government to be involved in the election process? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. No. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Do you see anything in the U.S. Constitution 

that allows for the Election Assistance Commission to do what it 

does? 

Mr. HOSEMANN. No, I do not. And I would tell you that I think 

clearly we believe that the collection of data is important, and we 

believe that the collection of data by impartial individuals is important to the States. We share that data. Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, all of us share that data. 

Also the indication that there would not be a spotlight on the 

election system with the removal of the EAC is not shared by me. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

We get the spotlight thrown on the secretary of state’s office every 

time there is an election, and plenty of reporters and people looking 

at it. 

So it is not about the data collection. I think it can be better done 

in another location. It is not about the fact that this will somehow 

go away and people won’t look at the election system anymore. I 

can assure you they will look at it in Mississippi. I can’t testify for 

the other States, but I feel they will as well. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Hosemann. 

And, Secretary Browning, thank you for being here as well. Do 

you know Supervisor Gill of Citrus County, Florida? 

Mr. BROWNING. Yes, very well. 

Mr. ROKITA. She testified here last year before I got to Congress 

and said some nice things about the EAC at a hearing that was 

a look back at the 2010 election. And this comes from my friend 

Congressman Nugent, who is of that county. He had a conversation 

with her today, and I want to get this on the record and have you 

respond. This is her quote from, I believe, this morning: The more 

I learned about it, being the EAC, the more I was for eliminating 

the organization. 

So she has changed her view in an opposite direction from how 

Ms. LaVine’s testimony recorded her view. Any reaction to that? 

Mr. BROWNING. Yes. As a matter of fact, I had a conversation 

with Supervisor Gill just last evening, and she had indicated to me 

that the more she found out, the more she realized that the EAC 

was more of a burden than it was a help. She expressed that to 

me last night. 

Mr. ROKITA. Secretaries, I thank all the witnesses. Sorry I didn’t 

get to each of you. And I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you being 

here. What we want is we want to have efficient and fair elections 

in this country where everyone who is legally able to vote can vote, 

and those that shouldn’t don’t. And I know that is the goal of everybody in this room, but when we look at this and the function 

and the history of EAC, this is why we are here today. 

We are not attacking HAVA. In fact, if we are saying that we 

support that bill, well, within that bill was a provision that the 

EAC was only authorized through 2005. I think when you look at 

the history of your organization, of NASS, and what they have 

done, you have recognized that and looked at that. And so when 

we see the inability to do the job, that is an issue. 

One last thing that I will note that Mr. Gonzalez brought up of 

essential functions. Right now the EAC has, I believe, 50 employees. Only six of those would be handling what we would deem to 

be essential. So there is a significant cost savings of what we would 

be talking about in this reassignment. 

But we do look forward to hearing from you. If you have other 

thoughts, suggestions, you know, we definitely want to hear from 

you. We appreciate each of you, your service and dedication to the 

process. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 67345A.052
80 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 67345A.053
81 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 67345A.054
82 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 67345A.055
83 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 67345A.056
84 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 67345A.057
85 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 67345A.058
86 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 67345A.059
87 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 67345A.060
88 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 67345A.061
89 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 67345A.062
90 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 67345A.063
91 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 67345A.064
92 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 67345A.065
93 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 67345A.066
94 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 67345A.067
95 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 67345A.068
96 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 67345A.069
97 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 67345A.070
98 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 67345A.071
99 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 67345A.072
100 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 67345A.073
101 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 67345A.074
102 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 67345A.075
103 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 67345A.076
104 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 67345A.077
105 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 67345A.078
106 

Mr. Fortier did no submit responses to the Committee prior to 

the printing of this transcript. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING