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

52–325 2009

MARKUP OF SEVERAL BILLS 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 10, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

Ranking Minority Member 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

VICTOR ARNOLD-BIK, Minority Staff Director 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 1196, H.R. 2510, H.R. 1604, 

H.R. 512, H.R. 2728, H.R. 1752, H.R. 2185, 

H. CON. RES. 135, H. CON. RES. 131, AND A 

RESOLUTION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a.m., in Room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives, Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez, 

Davis of California, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Jamie Fleet, Deputy 

Staff Director; Charlie Howell, Chief Counsel; Tom Hicks, Senior 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; 

Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin 

Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel; Alec Hoppes, Minority Professional Staff; and Salley Collins, Minority Press Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration to order. I would like to thank everybody here and ask 

for your indulgence. I am going to jump around a little bit from the 

order. So if I appear confused, it is because I am, and I have to 

blame the people behind me. And so we are going to start with 

H.R. 2510. 

I have no opening statement. And I would like to ask Mr. McCarthy if he would like to say anything. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. In the pursuit of time, no, I am good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Good. H.R. 2510, the Absentee Ballot 

Track, Receive, and Confirm Act. 

This bill will give grants to States to establish absentee ballot 

tracking systems. The program is completely voluntary. It will improve transparency and voter confidence by allowing voters to receive accurate and updated information on the status of their ballot. Voters could determine whether ballots were counted by checking on line or calling by a 1–800 phone number. In fact, a few 

States, including California and Kansas, have already set up an effective tracking system, with minimal start-up costs. 

In the long run, election officials can save time and money as 

they field fewer phone calls from voters inquiring about status of 

absentee ballots. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

2 

I would like to now recognize the bill’s sponsor, Representative 

Susan Davis, for an opening statement. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Lungren. I certainly 

appreciate your including H.R. 2510, the Absentee Ballot Track, 

Receive, and Confirm, or the TRAC Act, in today’s markup. As you 

know, Mr. McCarthy and I have really worked closely together on 

H.R. 2510, and I certainly appreciate my California colleague’s 

input, additions, and support of this important legislation. 

As you, I think, initially alluded to, and to give a few more details, the bill is modeled on a successful piece of California legislation that allows voters to go on line or call a phone number to easily find out whether an elections office has sent out a ballot, whether a completed ballot has arrived back at the registrar’s office, and 

whether the registrar has actually counted the ballot, and if not, 

why not. 

In San Diego County, over 98,000 voters checked their ballot status on line last November. A lot of people out there want to know. 

And that is what this is all about. Tracking gives voters more access and takes a burden off the phone lines at election offices. And 

tracking is particularly useful for men and women in uniform serving overseas. 

The TRAC Act would allow the Federal Government to reimburse 

States for establishing tracking systems. But I want to be clear 

that it would not require any State to set up a tracking system. 

I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Mr. 

McCarthy and me in supporting this effort to strengthen the democratic process and give American voters the electoral certainly they 

deserve. 

I have letters of support that I will be submitting for the record 

from the Association of American Residents Overseas, AARO, Common Cause, Postal Regulatory Commission, the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, or SAVE, and the Federation of 

American Women’s Clubs Overseas. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

3 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 52325A.001
4 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 52325A.002
5 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 52325A.003
6 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 52325A.004
7 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 52325A.005
8 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 52325A.006
9 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look forward to the discussion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I would like to recognize the bill’s cosponsor, Representative McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I just 

want to thank my colleague, Susan Davis, for working on this collaboratively. And I believe this will bring accountability back in the 

process and will be very positive throughout the Nation as well. I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. Sure. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will just be very brief. I think this is a very good 

measure, obviously with bipartisan support. I would just report to 

the committee that we did have a hearing that included testimony 

about this concept, and there was universal support for it among 

our witnesses. So I thought that the committee would want to 

know that, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Anybody else? 

I will now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2510. Without objection, the first reading of this bill is dispensed with, and 

the bill is considered as read, and open for amendment at any 

point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

10 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 52325A.007
11 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 52325A.008
12 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 52325A.009
13 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 52325A.010
14 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 52325A.011
15 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? Are there any amendments? 

If not, I now move to report H.R. 2510 favorably to the House. The 

question is on the motion. 

All in favor signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 

laid upon the table. 

Our next order of business is H.R. 1752. This is a bill to provide 

that the usual day of paying salaries in the House of Representatives may be established by regulations of the Committee on House 

Administration. The House Administration currently pays the staff 

once a month, and I have been contacted by many staff members 

that when they get paid once a month, their third and fourth week 

they are always a little short. They thought it would be better if 

this agency followed every other Federal and State agency, and 

have them get paid—and have them get paid twice a month instead of once a month. It does not affect our pay, it does not affect 

the Congress people’s pay, it just affects our staff. Anybody have 

any comments? Statements? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I have a statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we strive to ensure that the House of Representatives operates in an increasingly 

efficient and cost-effective manner, I am pleased to support this 

bill, which will enable the committee to better access and implement potentially cost-saving practices. My understanding is that 

the preliminary financial assessment suggests that shifting the 

present pay cycle to a biweekly pay cycle with a lag time would 

allow the House to handle payroll with a greater accuracy and 

ease. 

However, I would like to ask that the Chair of this committee 

seek the input of the nearly 10,000 House employees that would be 

impacted before making any changes under consideration. Thank 

you, and I reserve the balance of the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions or any other statements? 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. Just thank you for trying to accommodate the 

schedule that I have today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I now call up and lay before the committee 

H.R. 1752. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read, and open for 

amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

16 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 52325A.012
17 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 52325A.013
18 

The CHAIRMAN. I will now offer amendments for the members. 

Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

19 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 52325A.014
20 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment would make a permanent 

change to the law affecting the House staff gym. Everyone in the 

military services has officers working here in the House to assist 

our offices. Last Congress we passed a resolution letting these folks 

become members of the House Gym. Rather than passing a similar 

resolution every Congress, this language would make the gym 

membership permanently available to them. 

Is there any debate on my amendment? Any questions? If there 

is no further debate, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment 

is agreed to. Are there any additional amendments? 

If not, I move to report H.R. 1752, as amended, favorably to the 

House. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is 

amended, and it is ordered reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

The next order of business is H. Con. Resolution 135, a resolution 

that would place a marker in Emancipation Hall acknowledging 

the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol. 

Last Congress we held a hearing in which we received the final 

recommendations of the Slave Labor Task Force Working Group, 

chaired by Congressman John Lewis. This task force spent several 

years studying the role of slaves in the construction of the Capitol. 

We can never make up for that treatment of these laborers, or even 

thank them for their sacrifice. But the task force final report recommended a number of steps be taken to acknowledge the key contributions of the slave laborers. Several of the recommendations, 

including the naming of Emancipation Hall, have already been 

completed. However, the placement of a new marker in Emancipation Hall requires further legislative action. 

This resolution would provide for the installation of such a marker by the Architect, under the supervision of the committee and the 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. As the resolution 

contemplates, we will make every effort to use some of the original 

slave quarried stones that were removed from the original walls of 

the Capitol during previous renovations. I would now recognize Mr. 

Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased that the committee is taking up a bill that will educate our 

visitors here to the Capitol Visitors Center on the contributions of 

enslaved African Americans in the construction of the U.S. Capitol. 

From the Slave Labor Task Force report, we know that the annals 

of history often, unfortunately, overlook the degree to which our 

Federal city rose from the labors of enslaved peoples. The diligent 

work of the task force highlights that slave laborers were critical 

in the areas of carpentry, brick making, brick laying, timber sawing, and stone quarrying, incorporating some of the most skilled 

elements of building at that time, along with some of the most 

physically demanding. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

21 

It is appropriate, considering the historical significance of this 

longtime omission, that Emancipation Hall in the CVC house a formal recognition of those critical laborers. The CVC has attracted 

over 1 million visitors already. This bill will further enrich the visitors’ experience in our Nation’s Capitol by properly recognizing the 

vital contributions of the laborers who helped to build it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge support 

for this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I now call up and lay before the committee H. Con. Resolution 135. Without objection, the first reading 

of the concurrent resolution is dispensed with, and without objection the current resolution is considered as read and open for 

amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

22 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 52325A.015
23 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 52325A.016
24 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 52325A.017
25 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 52325A.018
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? Are there any amendments? 

If not, I now move to report H. Con. Resolution 135 favorably to 

the House. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the concurrent 

resolution will be placed on to the House. Without objection, the 

motion was reconsidered and laid upon the table. 

We are now on H. Con. Resolution 131, a concurrent resolution 

introduced by Ranking Member Lungren. This is another resolution affecting the Capitol Visitors Center. This resolution will fulfill 

the commitment we made to several members last fall to add to the 

CVC an engraved inscription, the national motto In God We Trust, 

and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Again, these additions require legislative action. 

We have received recommendations from the Architect of the 

Capitol, and we are prepared to move forward on this commitment 

once the resolution is passed. 

I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to personally thank you for your support and leadership on this bicameral, bipartisan resolution. We have worked with both sides of 

the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. 

The opening of the Capitol Visitors Center of December 2, 2008 

marked the end of a long process. And while the Capitol Visitors 

Center did a good job of incorporating many elements of the Nation’s history, there were, I believe, two important references that 

were absent: the Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto In 

God We Trust. I am pleased that this resolution remedies this oversight, incorporates those important parts of our national heritage 

into the CVC. 

As the Chairman has said, we worked with the Architect of the 

Capitol in making sure that this is appropriate for both where 

these are going to appear in the CVC and the appropriateness of 

how they will be displayed. Both speak, that is both of these references speak to the consciousness and philosophical roots of our 

Founding Fathers, and serve as expressions of will and the resolve 

of the American people. 

Recognizing them at the CVC will be a testimony to our Nation’s 

history and to the history that exists on these Capitol grounds. 

Again I thank the Chairman for your efforts in bringing this important matter before the committee and look forward to its quick 

passage and incorporation into the CVC. 

Thank you, and I would urge support for this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay before the committee House Concurrent Resolution 131. Without objection, the first reading of the concurrent resolution is dispensed 

with, and the resolution will be open to amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

27 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphics 40 here 52325A.019
28 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphics 41 here 52325A.020
29 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any additional debates? Are there any 

amendments? 

If not, I now move to report H. Con. Resolution 131 favorably to 

the House. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the concurrent 

resolution will be reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I would ask unanimous consent—no, not yet. Page 1. We are 

going back to page 1. We are on H.R. 1196. Authorizes the CAO 

to carry out a series of demonstration projects to reduce energy 

consumption and promote energy efficiency and cost savings in the 

House of Representatives. I would like to recognize the sponsor, 

Vice Chair Lofgren, for an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1196, a bipartisan 

bill authored by myself and Congressman Zach Wamp, authorizes 

CAO to carry out a series of demonstration projects to promote the 

use of innovative technologies to reduce energy consumption, promote energy efficiency, as well as cost savings in the House. It authorizes the CAO to carry out these demonstration projects and to 

enter into contracts that are consistent with current House Administration regulations for the CAO. 

It requires a report to be submitted to the House Administration 

and Appropriations Committee analyzing the project and the extent 

that it reduced energy consumption, promoted energy efficiency, 

and saved costs for the House. 

It authorizes 25 million for fiscal year 2010 to carry out the 

projects until expended. It is a bipartisan measure, as I noted. It 

is very limited in scope. It will help the House determine which 

technologies are best-suited to its needs. Not only would this further prove our commitment to environmentally sustainable practices, but it could also lower the cost of House operations. 

Last April I hosted a discussion and meeting in Silicon Valley, 

titled ‘‘How Going Green Saves Money, Jobs, and Improves Lives,’’ 

and asked the Chief Administrative Officer to attend. It was a wonderful meeting, and we issued a report subsequent to it. But one 

of the things that we learned is that big money can be saved in 

some of these energy efficiency measures or energy measures. 

For example, Applied Materials installed 23,000 sensors in their 

office towers, and was able to reduce energy consumption by nearly 

half. The sensors paid for themselves in 8 weeks. Applied Materials 

has estimated that by installing solar panels it will create 900 jobs 

in addition to the energy. 

So we believe that this bill will help our environment, it will help 

our bottom line, and will set an example. I would note that the Appropriations Committee has already included such a provision in 

the appropriations bill with bipartisan support. Obviously, we are 

authorizing a substantial sum, but they appropriated only 2.5 million. And that was done, as I understand, on a voice vote with bipartisan support. So I hope that we can authorize what the appropriators are marching forward to do. And I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

30 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 1196. Without objection, the first reading 

of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read, 

open for amendment at any point. 

Is there any—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Are we going to do a statement on the bill, Mr. 

Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. I recognize Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I know Mr. Lungren had to depart, but we have 

a statement here on the bill as well. 

I want to thank Chairman Brady. While I strongly disagree with 

the measure before us, I believe it is important that the committee 

engage on these important matters within our jurisdiction. As the 

entity responsible for the Capitol Complex energy infrastructure, 

the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for meeting mandatory 

energy efficiency requirements and specific statutory mandates for 

the use of renewable energy. The AOC’s effort has successfully reduced Capitol Complex energy consumption by more than 13 percent in the past 2 fiscal years. And the AOC has identified projects 

capable of meeting its 30 percent energy reduction mandate by 

2015. 

However, the AOC estimates that it will cost $300 million to 

carry out these projects. And most of these projects remain unfunded. The authority granted to the Chief Administrative Officer 

in H.R. 1196 conflicts with the Architect of the Capitol’s clear responsibility for energy infrastructure in the Capitol Complex. The 

Chief Administrative Officer has neither the statutory responsibility nor the organizational capability to manage the Capitol Complex energy infrastructure. 

Given the nature of the business in the House of Representatives, it is essential that the energy services are reliable and operate without unscheduled disruptions. While the Architect of the 

Capitol has demonstrated a capacity to properly identify, document 

and measure energy-saving projects based upon the best value for 

the taxpayer, the Chief Administrative Officer has demonstrated no 

such capacity. 

In the CAO’s lone foray into executing a project to increase energy efficiency, the House spent nearly $700,000 to study the relighting of the Dome of the Capitol. A Washington Post analysis revealed that when factoring in the costs of the construction and installation, the CAO’s project is likely to have a payback period of 

well over a century. As such, our confidence in the CAO’s ability 

to deliver value to the taxpayer is justifiably weak. 

H.R. 1196 is deeply flawed in its structure and in its spending 

authorization. Its enactment would result in organizational confusion and implementation risks that would undermine the collective 

goal of reducing energy consumption in the House. The CAO’s demonstrated record on engaging in high-profile but poor-value projects 

undermines the credibility of the Congress, and should not continue to be encouraged. 

Thank you, and I reserve the balance of the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 1196. Without objection, the first reading 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

31 

of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

32 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 52325A.021
33 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 52325A.022
34 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 52325A.023
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. We have amendments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

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

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

36 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 52325A.024
37 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. HARPER. I recognize that the Majority is intent on moving 

this deeply flawed bill through the committee and that the votes 

exist to do so. However, I want to bring forward an amendment 

that I hope would find some bipartisan support, as it strengthens 

the authority of this committee to ensure proper controls are in 

place to avoid abusing this $25 million authorization. 

This amendment serves two primary purposes. The first is to require that any action taken under this authority be formally approved by the committee, regardless of the dollar threshold. This 

brings an essential accountability to the process and mitigates concerns that the committee Republicans have about a repeat of past 

procurement activities that circumvented the committee’s rightful 

authority. 

The second objection is to ensure that the contracts awarded 

under this authority result from an open and competitive process. 

It would be an unacceptable outcome were the CAO to award $25 

million worth of sole-source contracts under this authority, selecting contracts without the benefit of any competition or determination of best value for the House, and most importantly, the taxpayer. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit with which 

this amendment has been offered, but I would urge the committee 

not to agree to the amendment. The amendment is really duplicative I think of language already in the bill on page 2, line 18, which 

requires the CAO to enter into contracts consistent with House Administration regulations. And in fact, that does include competitive 

bids. 

So I think the net result of the amendment would be to add a 

layer of delay, and really no net value to the process. This is a pilot 

process. And I hope that we can avoid delay. Part of the reason for 

having the pilot is to have an ability to move quickly and not to 

bog down in bureaucratic delays. So I appreciate Mr. Harper’s intent, but I would hope that the committee would reject the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate on the amendment? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I could speak to the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would hope we would pass this amendment of 

a little accountability, because as I go through and as I analyze 

when I read the former CAO’s report, February 2007, I find here 

a lot of details of what it is working on, from audiovisual cabling. 

I mean, it goes into 50-some pages. When I read the current CAO’s 

annual report, I get a lot of nice big pictures about staff, and I do 

not get the accountability of what we are actually working upon. 

So this amendment does not stop the bill. This amendment just 

brings the accountability that if this committee has the jurisdiction, this committee should actually see what is transpiring, especially at the dollar figure we are talking about; because I think everybody on this committee believes in the ability for greater energy 

efficiency here and would gladly support it. I would just believe 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

38 

that accountability is a greater opportunity here and ask for an aye 

vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional debate on the amendment? If not, 

the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes have 

it, and—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I ask for a recorded vote? 

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The vote is two ayes, four noes. And the amendment fails. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

39 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 52325A.025
40 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any additional amendments? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I apologize for being a little delayed here. I am 

trying to help out Mr. Lungren too. Mr. Chairman, I have an 

amendment at the desk. I believe it was under Mr. Lungren’s 

name. Does everyone have it? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

41 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 52325A.026
42 

Ms. LOFGREN. Which one is it? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Page 2, insert after line 21 the following: 

Role of Architect of the Capitol. 

The CHAIRMAN. Number two. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that I disagree 

with this bill. Given its underlying flaws, this amendment seeks 

only to provide modest changes designed to simply prevent a bad 

bill from becoming an operational calamity. The Architect is clearly 

responsible for the infrastructure of the buildings and providing 

the heating, cooling, and electrical systems as part of this infrastructure. 

This amendment ensures that any activities pursued under this 

authorization are coordinated through the AOC so that we can 

avoid disrupting the essential services provided by the AOC. The 

process outlined in this amendment will avoid the type of scenario 

that the members and staff experienced last fall when the CAO 

failed to properly coordinate with the AOC, overloaded a circuit in 

the House computing facility, and caused a lengthy disruption in 

the access to e-mail and Web services. 

When dealing with our essential heating, cooling, and electrical 

system, such a disruption could severely impact members and committee officers to function. As I stated earlier, this is just an 

amendment seeking only modest changes, asking that the CAO coordinate with the AOC so we do not have disruptions as we make 

fundamental changes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any additional debate on the amendment? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would note that as with the prior amendment, 

this is actually not a necessary amendment. It would require the 

CAO to get permission from the AOC before modifications to buildings or grounds. That is not necessary. The CAO already works 

with the AOC if there are any changes made to buildings or 

grounds. And so I would urge that the amendment be declined. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the lady. Any other additional debate on 

the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

All those opposed, say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. May I ask for a roll call vote? 

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

[No response.] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

43 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The ayes are two, the noes are four. And the amendment fails. 

Are there any additional amendments? 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

44 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 52325A.027
45 

Mr. MCCARTHY. There are no additional amendments. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no additional amendments, the Chair 

now moves to report H.R. 1196 favorably to the House. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

The next item of business is H.R. 1604. H.R. 1604, the Universal 

Right to Vote By Mail Act of 2009, introduced by our colleague, 

Representative Mrs. Davis from California. H.R. 1604 would give 

all the voters the option to vote by mail in Federal elections for any 

reason. 

The bill removes restrictions like notary signatures and doctors’ 

notes requiring imposed by some States on voters requesting absentee ballots. Some States do not allow travel, work, school, illness, or jury duty to count as valid excuses to request an absentee 

ballot. This bill does not require anyone to vote by mail. It just 

gives voters an option to vote by absentee ballot free from pointless 

hassles. 

Making voters jump through unnecessary hoops to vote absentee 

does nothing to increase security. It only decreases participation 

and convenience in voting. 

I would now like to recognize Ms. Davis for an opening statement. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you very much. And thank you 

very much for bringing the bill forward. 

My interest in improving our elections goes back to the first 

major political experience that I had, which was serving as president of the San Diego League of Women Voters. I was active in the 

League because I believed our democracy is furthered through increased participation in the voting process. Democracy flourishes, 

we all know, when all Americans have an equal opportunity to participate in elections. 

Historically, the Federal Government has opened the doors to 

those shut out of the voting process, and our country has been 

much the better for it. So we should be proud of our Nation’s history of removing obstacles for voters who have been left out of the 

voting process intentionally or unintentionally, whether they be 

women, racial minorities, members of the military, Americans living overseas, 18- to 21-year-olds fighting for their country, or voters 

with disabilities. 

But we know that there are hardworking Americans that are 

still unable to vote for any number of reasons. And the next step 

is to give those who choose to participate and plan to vote the best 

chance to vote, no matter what comes up on Election Day. And we 

should remove unnecessary impediments to their participation by 

freeing them from such burdensome obstacles—and Chairman, you 

have noted this—to voting as notary requirements, doctors’ notes, 

and invasive public record questions about vacation location, illnesses, pregnancies, religious obligations. 

Over half the States have no-excuse absentee voting. And millions of votes have proven it to be secure, successful, and popular. 

As Members of Congress and of this committee, we have a constitummaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

46 

tional calling to allow States to administer elections, but to step in 

when there is a need, as there is here. 

H.R. 1604, the Universal Right to Vote By Mail Act, will correct 

what I believe is a glaring inequity, and I look forward to our discussion as we markup this bill today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I have letters in support here, and I 

will submit those for the record. Do you want me to read them all? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, just submit them. That would be fine. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

47 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 52325A.028
48 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 52325A.029
49 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 52325A.030
50 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 52325A.031
51 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 52325A.032
52 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 52325A.033
53 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 52325A.034
54 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 52325A.035
55 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 52325A.036
56 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 52325A.037
57 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 52325A.038
58 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 52325A.039
59 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 52325A.040
60 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. For an opening statement? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am figuring out 

this microphone. 

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the committee has failed to 

hold a hearing on this legislation, H.R. 1604, that makes significant changes to voting procedures in 22 States. Each of these 

States likely enact their absentee voting requirements with a particular goal in mind, possibly preventing absentee voting fraud of 

the nature for which two individuals were arrested last week in 

New Jersey, or promoting civic engagement through in-person voting. Yet this committee is making a determination that any possible reasoning for justified absentee voting is inadequate and baseless, without even taking the time to consult those who would be 

affected. 

We know that last year the National Conference of State Legislatures expressed grave concerns in a letter commenting on the legislative predecessor, H.R. 281. In addition to asking this committee 

to consider the many financial costs this unfunded mandate would 

bring to the already overburdened election official, the NCSL 

stressed that there has been no showing that the State system utilizing procedures other than no-excuse absentee voting are dysfunctional or broken. 

In their letter they ask this committee to reconsider its decision 

to move this bill without consulting those who would bear the burden of implementing this legislation. At a time when so many State 

budgets are strained, we all know that election officers, most already operating on shoestring budgets, are one of the first agencies 

under the knife. It is highly doubtful that adequate resources 

would be allocated on the State level to accommodate the new Federal mandate created by this legislation. 

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that before we jump in and start 

telling local governments how they should run their elections, we 

should probably let them tell us what they think about our ideas. 

Currently, H.R. 1604 looks like a solution in search of a problem. 

And I would hope that before this committee takes any action on 

this legislation, we would undertake our due diligence and hold a 

hearing on this issue. 

Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 1604. Without objection, the first reading 

of this bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

61 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 52325A.041
62 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 52325A.042
63 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 52325A.043
64 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 52325A.044
65 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 52325A.045
66 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? Are there any amendments? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes, sir, I have an amendment at the desk. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

67 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 52325A.046
68 

The CHAIRMAN. Recognize Mr. Harper for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. In the findings section of this legislation there are a number of assertions of fact that I think are simply 

wrong and that suggest States are creating rules without any reason. Finding number eight states that no evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud in absentee balloting is greater than 

the potential for fraud by any other method of voting. Yet much of 

the vote fraud that we see prosecuted in this Nation comes from 

fraudulently requested or returned absentee ballots. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an Associated Press article from Friday, June 5, 2009, just 5 days ago. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

69 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 52325A.047
70 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 52325A.048
71 

Mr. HARPER. The article states that two former campaign workers were charged with absentee voting fraud in a recent mayoral 

race in Atlantic City. I would like to quote to the committee a pertinent section of the article which states the claims of absentee voting fraud, quote, increased in recent years when friends and relatives of Craig Callaway, the former city council president, now 

serving a Federal prison term for bribery, perfected the art of collecting and delivering hundreds of absentee ballots, close quote. 

I believe logic and common sense tell us that it is easier to vote 

fraudulently when voters do not have to show up in person. And 

the evidence backs that theory up. 

Finding number nine states that the excuses that many States 

require in order to request an absentee, do nothing to prevent voter 

fraud, yet we have not had a single hearing on this bill. We know 

the Supreme Court takes congressional findings seriously, and I believe we should take them seriously enough to have hearings before 

we make them. 

This amendment would remove these objectionable findings and 

other findings that make conclusory statements without offering 

proof to support them. I urge the committee to adopt this amendment. 

Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Any other—I would like 

to recognize Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just 

like to respond for a second, because I think that if my colleagues 

read that statement, I mean it basically says that there is potential 

for fraud. We have not been able to—we have zero tolerance for it, 

but at the same time we have not had zero accounts of it. 

However, it says there is no greater possibility than from other 

methods. And I think clearly, as we look at registrars, if we look 

at States, there is far greater fraud that we have discovered in 

those situations. 

The case quoted here is from Atlantic City. This is not a Federal 

election. And the possibility of suppression of votes is so far greater 

than the possibility of fraud in this instance. And that is why that 

statement is there. You may not agree with the statement, but I 

think in fact there is nothing that is not factual about the statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note that there were two hearings 

held on this subject in the last Congress as well. And I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. That is true. And Mr. Chairman, I 

know we are going to be hearing a bill today which has not had 

a hearing as well. And I think sometimes we have that opportunity. We also had another hearing earlier this year, and the 

issues of absentee voting were also brought up at that time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any additional 

debate on the amendment? 

If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor by signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

72 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes have it, 

and the amendment is not agreed to. Any other amendments to the 

bill? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes, I have one amendment. Amendment number two. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

73 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 52325A.049
74 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 52325A.050
75 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Everybody have it? This one is pretty straightforward. In essence, it does two things. It would require the State 

to have the voter’s signature on file before they send out the ballot. 

And it would require that the State verify the signature matches 

when they receive the returned ballot. Again, a verification process 

that is already common practice for most States. 

I know in California, when you go to my election office, they will 

pull up, as the absentee ballot comes in, your actual signature of 

your voter registration. So it is just making sure that we have accountability as we go forward. 

And just to repeat again, it does two simple things. It requires 

the State to have a voter’s signature on file before they send out 

the ballot, and it requires the State verify the signature match 

when they receive the returned ballot. 

Thank you. I would ask for support. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could 

say, I certainly appreciate the concern of my colleague, and California has that. And I think that what he is stating is that the use 

of a signature is a very valid way of telling whether or not the person is in fact that individual. 

In California, in addition to the fact that people are hired for this 

purpose alone, there are cameras, it is really a very secure way of 

checking to see if that is an accurate signature. 

And I think I said this before. My husband had a call from the 

registrar because his signature is not quite the same as it used to 

be, and so they asked him to give them a new signature. So I know 

that this is important. And I am happy to accept this amendment. 

But I also want to share with my colleague that in fact it is a 

tougher mandate for some States than the process without that signature. Many States that have no-excuse voting use a signature, 

some do not. Some have chosen not to do that. So we are putting 

some additional—what you would consider a mandate I think; although I will share in my comments, if it does arise, that this is 

not considered a mandate, it is a voting right, and so therefore it 

is not considered a cost mandate by our government. 

But the signature issue is one that I happen to think is important, so I would support it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. Any additional debate on 

the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. And for the 

record, my signature is getting shorter and shorter the older I get. 

Any other additional amendments? 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

76 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 52325A.051
77 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. It is of great concern to me that at a 

time when our States are facing millions, sometimes billions of dollars in budget deficits, this committee is considering adding another unfunded Federal mandate for them to have to absorb. This 

amendment would help allay these concerns by allowing States to 

opt out of the new requirements of this legislation if they, A, make 

a showing that implementing this legislation would increase their 

costs of election administration, and B, they are not able to pay for 

those costs out of existing grant funding or other money provided 

by the Federal Government in support of this bill. I think this is 

a reasonable and responsible amendment, and I urge its adoption. 

Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Is there any additional debate on the amendment? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CBO 

has determined that this bill is not an unfunded mandate. And in 

fact, it wrote last year the following about H.R., at that time, 281: 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 281 would have no impact 

on the Federal budget. Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has 

determined that H.R. 281 would fall within that exclusion because 

it would protect individuals’ voting rights. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to cost, the Virginia 

Registrar, Rokey Suleman’s letter—and he spoke here just a few 

months ago about the fact that he has got a drawer full of applications from individuals because of the restrictions in their absentee 

voting. And it takes thousands of dollars, he said, out of his budget 

for the increase in man-hours, postage, and supplies needed to 

process these applications. There is a tremendous waste of valuable 

tax dollars. And no-excuse access to a ballot through the mail will 

save my office thousands of dollars in processing and overtime 

costs. I submit that it is not a factor in this case. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the lady. Is there any additional debate 

on the amendment? 

Mr. HARPER. May I be recognized, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. HARPER. If I may ask a question of the author of this bill, 

you argued this bill is not an unfunded mandate because it would 

enforce a constitutional right. And I see that you have a CBO 

statement which backs that up. But I am wondering where you 

find this right to an absentee ballot in the Constitution. And I say 

that because the U.S. Supreme Court has not been able to find it. 

In fact, in 1973 in Prigmore versus Renfro, the opinion stated the 

right to vote is unquestionably basic to a democracy, but the right 

to an absentee ballot is not. Historically, the absentee ballot has always been viewed as a privilege, not an absolute right. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Well, thank you. I appreciate my colleague bringing that forward, because it has said there is no fundamental right to vote by absentee except to the extent that Congress 

has created such a right in Presidential and other Federal elections. And in fact, that is why we are here. I mean that is the obligation that we have; that when we see inconsistencies, when we 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

78 

see disenfranchisement of voters, when we see that there is no 

longer a rational basis for allowing some people to vote and others 

not to, then I think it is important for the Congress to step forward. And that is what we are doing, we are trying to create that 

right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Any other additional debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes have it, 

and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any additional 

amendments? 

If not, I now move to report H.R. 1604, as amended, favorably 

to the House. The question is on the motion. 

All those in favor, vote aye. 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill, as 

amended, will be reported to the House without objection. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The ayes have it. Four ayes, two noes. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill, as amended, will be reported 

to the House. 

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

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

79 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 52325A.052
80 

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to request, the members have two additional days provided by the House rules to file. We are going to 

recess now. We have a vote on. We have no time left, so we have 

to scurry on down. And we will recess for hopefully about a half 

hour. We will be back. And the committee is now in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration back to order. And the first order of business will be 

H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity Act introduced by Mrs. 

Davis. 

H.R. 512 will prohibit chief State election officials from actively 

participating in electoral campaigns. Across the country, recent 

elections have exposed some State-elected officials with disturbing 

conflicts of interest. Certain State-elected officials have participated in partisan political activities or have held positions on campaign committees of Federal candidates even as those State officials administer elections. This has damaged America’s faith and 

the integrity of our electoral system. 

H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity Act, is a straight-forward good government bill that will prohibit chief State election officers from taking an active part in campaigning for or managing 

a Federal candidate’s political campaign in any election of which 

the official is supervising the authority. It does not prohibit State 

election officials from overseeing elections in which they are candidates. It simply prevents the State election official from unfairly 

acting like a coach and a referee in the same game. 

I understand that Representative Davis has been working with 

interested stakeholders and will be offering a substitute for this 

bill. And I would now like to recognize Representative Davis for an 

opening statement. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you again for bringing this forward. 

Democracy flourishes, we know, when voters have confidence 

that the electoral process is fair and their chief election officials are 

above reproach. Public confidence in elections is undermined when 

election officials are accused of favoring their political party or 

playing politics with election administration. 

The passage of H.R. 512, the Federal Election Integrity Act, 

would serve to remove the threat of such political posturing by limiting partisan activity by chief State election administrators. Since 

its introduction, I have made some changes to improve the bill in 

response to recommendations from election officials and the Federal Election Commission, and I will be introducing a substitute 

shortly. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. Mr. McCarthy, opening statement. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, an opening statement for Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am troubled 

by the suggestion and implication that this bill, that Congress 

should restrict a citizen’s First Amendment right to participate in 

the political process where there has been no showing of malfeasance or nonfeasance to warrant such a sweeping restriction on 

speech. I am suspicious anytime that Congress seeks to deny a citizen the right to actively support a candidate of his or her choosing. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

81 

However, even more troubling is the underlining tenor of this 

bill, which seems to presuppose that the State’s election officials 

are incapable of demonstrating impartiality and fulfilling their 

oath of office. If it is accepted, then we set the stage for excluding 

a whole host of election officials from Secretary of State down to 

the Registrar of voters and poll workers. If we cannot trust Secretaries of State, why should we trust anyone to show impartiality 

in the administration of elections when they have shown a political 

predisposition? 

However, if we accept as fundamental the lack of impartiality 

that this bill suggests, why should we believe that an absence from 

formal participation in campaign activities would do anything to 

lessen election officials’ propensity for misconduct. We must be vigilant protectors of both the integrity of Federal elections and the 

rights of our citizens to participate in the election of their Federal 

officials. 

I am concerned that this bill endangers both those fundamental 

principles, while at the same time trampling on the civil liberties 

of our elected officials without cause. For these reasons, I hope the 

committee will join me in opposing the legislation. Thank you and 

I reserve the balance. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 512. Without objection, the first reading of 

the bill is dispensed with and the bill is considered as read and 

open for an amendment in a point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

82 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 52325A.053
83 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 52325A.054
84 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 52325A.055
85 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 52325A.056
86 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 52325A.057
87 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would now like to recognize the gentlelady 

from California to offer an amendment. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute which is in the members; 

packets and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

88 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 52325A.058
89 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 52325A.059
90 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 52325A.060
91 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 52325A.061
92 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any additional 

debate on the amendment? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think that the manager’s amendments will really help to sway any of the concerns 

that my colleagues have on this bill because it is very specific about 

prohibiting campaign activities by chief State election and administration officials. This is not sweeping. We have worked with the 

FCC on this, and I think we would all agree that when it comes 

to Federal elections and the chief election official of that State, that 

there needs to be utmost integrity and perception that this is a fair 

process. I ask for members’ support on this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. Any additional debate on the 

amendment? Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I may ask the author just a question. Knowing 

that it says the chief State officer, what about if your county election officer, which is elected countywide, what was the rationale for 

excluding them in the process as well? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. In working with the FCC on this, that 

is the determination that we made; that that is our authority, that 

is our jurisdiction. So that is why we wanted to do it in this fashion. This is the jurisdiction that we have. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Did you think, originally writing the bill, that 

you would include county election officers as well? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. The original bill was not as specific, 

and that is why when we started working with them, we felt that 

we wanted to stay within our jurisdiction on this bill. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And then what if the election officer is going to 

run for office but run for a different office? They are fine— 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. This does not exclude in any way that 

individual from running for State office, for an office themselves. 

And, in fact, we have seen that. They are allowed to do that. While 

they are still holding that office, they can still file for a different 

office. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. So if I am Secretary of State of my State 

and I have a family member running for Governor or something 

else, I can help with that one? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. The bill actually does have an exclusion 

for family members. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Even though that family member is running for 

Governor or running for any office, it is okay for family, but not 

to participate in any other. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. I just wanted clarification. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional debate on the amendment? No 

further debate. The question is on the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. 

All those in favor, signal by saying aye. 

Any opposed, say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

I now move to report H.R. 512, as amended, favorably to the 

House. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

93 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill, as 

amended, will be reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

We will now consider H.R. 2393, the Military Voter Protection 

Act. 

I share in Mr. McCarthy’s commitment to ensure that all ballots 

sent from the military and overseas voters abroad arrive on time 

and that their votes are counted. In fact, we met with the United 

States Postal Service and the Military Postal Service this week to 

discuss the process they have in place to expedite these ballots. We 

have learned that over the past few election cycles, the postal service had been offering free express mail and tracking service to all 

voters who send their ballots back to the U.S. Within one week of 

election day. 

I would like to recognize now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. First, I just want to thank the Chairman for 

working with us on this bill, and I appreciate his wisdom as we 

move forward. For over a year, I have been working with our colleagues here in the House, as well as those in other Chambers, to 

pass legislation that would help make those votes count of our heroes serving and protecting our Nation abroad. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful you scheduled my bill, H.R. 2393, 

the Military Voting Protection Act, to be marked up today. Since 

the enactment of UOCAVA in 1986, which provides overseas voters 

backup Federal write-in absentee ballots, there has been report 

after report detailing the disenfranchisement of military personnel 

to inadequate ballot delivery methods. The most recent in 2007 by 

the EAC reported that out of 992,000 ballots sent to military and 

overseas voters for the 2006 election, over 660,000 were never returned to election officials to be counted. 

We don’t need another report, nor can we stand idly by as we 

watch more of our troops’ votes go uncounted. We must take action. 

I am pleased that this bipartisan commonsense legislation that 

I introduced, along with our colleague from Oklahoma, Dan Boren, 

will establish procedures for the collection, return transportation 

and tracking of marked absentee ballots of our troops serving overseas. This bill will use express mail delivery services of the postal 

service to help ensure those who fight for our freedoms can have 

their votes counted. 

This will help our troops, and I am pleased that the MVP has 

been endorsed by the Military Coalition, a consortium of 31 military and veterans organizations. With that, I urge an ‘‘aye’’ vote 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2393. Without 

objection, the first reading of the concurrent resolution is dispensed 

with. And without objection, the concurrent resolution is considered 

as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

94 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 52325A.062
95 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 52325A.063
96 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 52325A.064
97 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 52325A.065
98 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 52325A.066
99 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 52325A.067
100 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 52325A.068
101 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 52325A.069
102 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 52325A.070
103 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 52325A.071
104 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? Mrs. Davis from California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, did 

we have a hearing on this bill? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I appreciate the question. If I can answer 

for the Chairman. In March, we had a hearing on the 2008 elections where the military votes were prominent. Last month we did 

have a hearing specifically devoted to military and overseas voting 

where H.R. 2393 was discussed. The committee explored the issue, 

and I am pleased we are acting today. And in the last Congress we 

did have a hearing before the committee as well on the bill itself. 

And the only changes from the past bill to present were the ideas 

that it was going to be the postal service with the help of the 

Chairman advice on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other debate? Are there any amendments to 

the bill? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if I will, I just wanted 

to ask that question really for the record, but also to represent to 

the author that I am in support of this bill. I think it makes it easier and quicker for us to process those absentee ballots and that 

having more standardized absentee ballots throughout the country 

also would be an assist to our military. So I hope that we can continue to work on this issue in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. I now move to report H.R. 2393 

favorably to the House. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the bill will 

be reported to the House, without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I don’t want to bring this bill up, especially when the sponsor is 

on her way, right down the hall. So if we could just hold off for a 

moment or two, hopefully for like about a 1-minute recess, and Ms. 

Lofgren will be here. And I appreciate your indulgence. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call our committee back to order 

again. The next item on the agenda is H.R. 2728, the William 

Orton Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act, sponsored 

by Vice Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Lungren. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

105 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here 52325A.072
106 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here 52325A.073
107 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here 52325A.074
108 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here 52325A.075
109 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here 52325A.076
110 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here 52325A.077
111 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here 52325A.078
112 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here 52325A.079
113 

The CHAIRMAN. The law library of the Library of Congress, established in 1832 with a collection of over 30 million volumes, is the 

largest law library in the world. The books housed in the Library 

cover almost every adjudication in the world. I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record for brevity because I know 

we have a lot of other things to be doing. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

114 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here 52325A.080
115 

The CHAIRMAN. And I will now recognize Mr. McCarthy for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in light of your 

last statement, I would like to just submit for the record Mr. Lungren’s comments on this bill which he is very supportive and a coauthor of. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

116 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 52325A.081
117 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 52325A.082
118 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren, would you 

like to make an opening statement? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the committee’s pausing so I could get over here from chairing the California delegation meeting. And I am pleased to have authored this 

bill with our colleague, Mr. Lungren. 

The bill is named after William Orton, a Member of the U.S. 

House of Representatives in Utah’s Third District from 1991 to 

1997, who passed away in April of this year. Bill was a tireless advocate for the law library and we think this legislation is a fitting 

way to honor his memory. 

The law Library of Congress maintains a unique and world-renowned collection. This bill will help ensure that the law library 

will have the resources needed to maintain and expand its collections while at the same time modernizing its system. 

The act includes authorizing 3.5 million for maintaining and administering the operations of the law library, including the cataloging of the collections—without the catalogs, the collections are 

not accessible; a line item for the law library to ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the law library and creation of the William Orton program. 

The donations are provided for in-kind contributions in support 

of the program, and the bill also requires an annual report. It authorizes to be appropriated for the program an amount—this is the 

Orton program—of 40 percent of the amount of the donations accepted by the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board. In support of 

this legislation is the American Bar Association, the American Association of Law Libraries and the Northern California Association 

of Law Libraries. 

And the American Association of Law Libraries and the Northern 

California Association of Law Libraries have letters that I would 

ask unanimous consent be—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Submitted to the record. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

119 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here 52325A.083
120 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 52325A.084
121 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do have one amendment that I believe Mr. Lungren concurs in. It is a minor matter of when that is appropriate. 

And with that, I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 2728. Without 

objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill 

is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

122 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 52325A.085
123 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 52325A.086
124 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 52325A.087
125 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 52325A.088
126 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 52325A.089
127 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 52325A.090
128 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 52325A.091
129 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 52325A.092
130 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the Vice Chair, Ms. 

Lofgren, to offer an amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment. 

I think it is before the House. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING

131 


mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175/300 here 52325A.093
132 

Ms. LOFGREN. Basically the amendment changes the name of the 

law Library of Congress to the National Law Library. It is a simple 

change, but, coupled with a full bill, would do much to increase the 

role and status of the law library. I believe that the library has no 

objection to this name change and that Mr. Lungren concurs. 

The bill and this amendment are a great step forward in making 

the National Law Library a first-class library that Congress, legal 

researchers, and members of the public deserve. And I would just 

like to note this is an issue that I think is enormously important 

for the country, but it is not one that everybody pays attention to. 

Certainly the Bar Association and the advocates, the law librarians, and the late Bill Orton spent a lot of time in promoting this. 

And I really am grateful to them for putting in the volunteer time 

to get us to this point today. And I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Is there any additional 

debate on the amendment? 

If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor say, aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there any additional amendments? If not, I now move to report H.R. 2728 favorably to the House, as amended. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill, as 

amended, is ordered reported to the House without objection. The 

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I now ask unanimous consent to include in the record various 

correspondence relating to the legislation we considered today. 

Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical and 

conforming changes to the various measures considered today. 

We had also anticipated a committee resolution to implement 

recommendations from the House Inspector General, but staff is 

still working to clear the language with all the interested parties. 

We will take that up at our next meeting. 

The Committee on House Administration stands adjourned. 

Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

mmaher on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING