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

42–897 2009

MARKUP OF H. RES. 1068, H.R. 5493, H.R. 

3032, H.R. 281, H.R. 5036; AND AN AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE 

OF OFFICIAL FUNDS 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 2, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 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 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILL PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

(1) 

MARKUP OF H. RES. 1068, H.R. 5493, H.R. 3032, 

H.R. 281, H.R. 5036; AND AN AMENDMENT TO 

REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF OFFICIAL FUNDS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:22 p.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Thomas Hicks, Senior Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative 

Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Jamie 

Fleet, Deputy Staff Director; Gineen Beach, Minority Election 

Counsel; Ashley Stow, Minority Election Counsel; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional 

Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting of the House Administration Committee will now come to order. 

We have several matters to mark up today. 

The first order of business is a housekeeping resolution, Committee Resolution No. 6, which is before the members. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

2 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio here 42897A.001
3 

The CHAIRMAN. This will modify the majority membership of the 

Subcommittee on Capitol Security so that Mr. Capuano will now 

chair that subcommittee and I will serve as a member. 

Without objection, the committee resolution is considered as 

read. The resolution is agreed to without objection. The motion to 

reconsider is placed upon the table without objection. 

And one caveat to that is I was approached by Mr. Lungren to 

have a private meeting with the Capitol Hill Police and the Sergeant at Arms. I agreed to do that, and I hope that the new subcommittee chairman would agree to do that, too. 

So, without objection, the motion is laid upon the table; and, 

Mike, you are now the new subcommittee chairman. Would you 

like to make a speech? 

No, you don’t want to? Fine. 

The committee will now turn to H.R. 5493, a bill to provide that 

the day for paying staff salaries in the House of Representatives 

may be established by regulations of the Committee on House Administration. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

4 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio here 42897A.002
5 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio here 42897A.003
6 

The CHAIRMAN. I will make just a brief opening statement on 

this bill. 

The House of Representatives currently pays the staff once a 

month. The executive branch, the Senate and most private companies pay their employees twice a month or every one or two weeks. 

I believe we should make the change because once a month pay can 

be very difficult for staffers budgeting on a tight paycheck. 

Unfortunately, the committee can’t change the pay schedule for 

House employees until we change the law. The bill will give the 

committee the authority to change the day the staffers are paid. It 

won’t change their pay schedule right away once this bill is enacted. The committee will adopt regulations that change the paydays. 

And I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Ehlers, for co-sponsoring this bill; and I would like to recognize him for any opening 

statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, I do support it. But I also want to make it clear that this 

particular bill establishes the authority of this committee to make 

the determinations. I want it to be clearly understood that this 

does not mean that we will automatically and soon alter the current House pay schedule. 

I also want to make it clear that this particular bill makes it 

clear that we have the authority and that the CAO could not take 

any action on this without the approval of the committee. That was 

not clear before this law was passed. 

So because there are obvious administrative challenges that 

would impact the CAO and a number of cultural implications within the House population that have to be addressed prior to making 

such a change, we have to proceed thoroughly and carefully just to 

make sure it absolutely works and the employees agree to it, because it is going to affect their pay in some ways. Many employees 

pay their mortgages, utility bills and other financial obligations in 

concert with the monthly pay schedule. We have to investigate to 

what extent the employees, how they will change their monthly pay 

schedule into a bimonthly pay schedule. So there are a number of 

issues that have to be addressed. 

And as I say, I am not opposed to it at this time, but I am opposed to just jumping into it without the committee fully looking 

through these efforts and working with CAO on it and make sure 

that this bill does require a final vote of the committee before that 

goes into effect. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

7 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio here 42897A.004
8 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.005
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Would anybody else like to speak on this? 

Mr. EHLERS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call up H.R. 5493. Without objection, the 

first reading of the bill will be dispensed with; and without objection the bill is considered as having been read and open for amendment at this point. 

Is there any debate? 

If not, I move the committee report H.R. 5493 favorable to the 

House. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Without objection 

the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table and the bill is reported to the House. 

The next item of business, House Resolution 1068. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

10 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.006
11 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.007
12 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I will make just a few brief statements. 

We received a specific request from the liaisons who serve in 

each of the branches of the military and assist us daily in the 

House of Representatives. They have just a simple favor to ask, 

that they be allowed to use the House staff gym since they work 

here far away from their ordinary military physical fitness facility. 

In order to ensure that these military liaisons can maintain their 

physical fitness and readiness while they serve here in the House, 

this House resolution will allow them to use the House staff gym. 

The committee will adopt a resolution for use of this facility. 

Again, I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Ehlers, for co-sponsoring this resolution. I recognize him for any opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly. 

I think this is a good idea. I heard many years ago, and I have 

always remembered the statement, that an Army travels on its 

stomach, indicating the importance of food to an Army. However, 

I want to make sure that the stomachs of the military liaisons 

don’t get too big, and so this will very neatly help them retain their 

trim shape that they need if they are called back to active duty. 

So I support it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. 

Anybody else have any comments? 

I call House Resolution 1068. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, this resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I offer an 

amendment to make a minor change to ensure the Coast Guard liaison can be included, also. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

13 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.008
14 

The amendment is considered as read. Is there any discussion on 

that amendment? 

If not, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say 

aye. Any opposed, say no. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

I move that the committee report House Resolution 1068 as 

amended favorably to the House. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? 

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the 

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

The final item of business is approval of an amendment to the 

regulation governing use of official funds by Members, committees 

and officers of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Alternate 

Ride Home amendment, which is before the members. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

15 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.009
16 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.010
17 

The CHAIRMAN. This regulation will help staffers who travel to 

work by carpool, mass transit or anything other than a single passenger car. For example, when the House is in session late and 

travel home is not safe or sometimes not even possible after the 

Metro closes, this regulation would reimburse their taxi fare. The 

employees will fill out an Alternate Ride Home form, which we will 

make available on HouseNet, and that form will then be attached 

to the voucher submitted in support of the payment of the taxi fare. 

The employee authorizing will sign off on the validity of the expense and the cost of approval of the voucher. 

Because this regulation authorizes a new category of reimbursement expense, I have agreed to ask the House Inspector General 

to review use of this for up to 6 months so we can see how often 

it is being used or whether additional controls are needed. 

We had first planned to adopt this regulation at a business meeting on February 12, but our Republican colleagues expressed concern about whether the rule might be abused, and I agreed to hold 

off and to try to reach an agreement. Over the last 6 weeks or so, 

we have exchanged numerous drafts; and we have agreed on 9 out 

of 10 issues. 

We still have one minority disagreement about whether a taxi 

fare should be repaid on days when the House is not in session. I 

have decided we should go forward with this resolution without 

that limitation, rely on the discretion of our colleagues to use this 

authority appropriately and keep the staff safe. 

Too often, we ask our staff to stay late at night when a bill must 

be considered or to negotiate conference reports throughout the 

weekends; and the need for safety is not just a function of when 

the House is in session. 

This is a new regulation that will seek to review advice from the 

IG on the issue. I know the Republican colleagues are concerned 

that it might be abused, but I hope that they will trust that we can 

add further controls if that turns out to be necessary. 

And now I would like to recognize again Mr. Ehlers for any statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Chairman Brady. 

I commend you for making the safety and security of the House 

staff a priority. Those employees whose work requires them to be 

present when mass transit or their arranged method of transportation is unavailable should not be penalized financially. 

That being said, however, I have strong concerns that the language of the Alternate Ride Home program is fairly broad and is 

vulnerable to the possibility of abuse. We have seen before that the 

ill intent of a few can ruin a benefit for the many. With that in 

mind, I join you in your request that the House Inspector General, 

Jim Cornell, review this program in 6 months to ensure that it is 

being used in the spirit in which it was intended. 

Let me also add, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned the factor 

that we had suggested it not apply when we are not in session. And 

I understand the reason for your objection; and, frankly, I think 

you are right. 

I do have a suggestion for you to consider that perhaps we could 

add in mutual agreement when it goes to the floor, and that would 

be that this would not apply when Members are at home in the disrfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

18 

trict work period. Because very, very rarely I think do any staff 

members have to work late when we are not in town. So if you just 

consider that, and we can talk about adding that later when it hits 

the floor. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

19 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.011
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I call the amendment to the regulation. Is 

there any debate? Any debate on any of that? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Not so much about this, but this would open up the Member’s 

Handbook. And the only thing I want to do is take the opportunity, 

because we may be doing some more work on that, and praise Mr. 

Capuano on our Franking Commission what we are doing looking 

on other items when it comes to computers and the Web sites that 

we may be dealing with the handbook as well, so there maybe some 

other stuff to move. And I appreciate all the work you have done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Is there any further debate? 

Without objection, the previous question is ordered. The question 

is on approval of the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Any 

opposed? 

The ayes have it. The amendment to the Regulations is adopted, 

and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 

table. The staff is authorized to make the technical conforming 

changes. 

Okay. The next item on the agenda H.R. 3032, a bill to amend 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to permit candidates for 

election for Federal office to designate an individual who will be 

authorized to disburse funds of the authorizing campaign committees of the candidate in the event of a death of the candidate. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

21 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.012
22 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.013
23 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.014
24 

The CHAIRMAN. H.R. 3032, sponsored by Mr. Jones of North 

Carolina, will assure candidates for Federal office that the funds 

raised by the campaign commission will be distributed only in accordance with the express wishes after they are deceased. It would 

permit a candidate for Federal office to designate a person to disburse the funds of the candidate’s campaign committee in the event 

of the candidate’s death. The bill will make no other changes in the 

terms and conditions that govern the disbursement of funds under 

the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

I would now again like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Ehlers, for any statements. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking this bill up. 

I think one of your staff members commented that this really 

didn’t need to be done and anyone could do it. The fact is that 

many Members don’t do it, and there have been cases where there 

have been disputes after the fact. 

I have taken care of it myself by just having, when we had wills 

prepared, just having the attorney draft a letter, and I indicated 

in the letter how I wanted the leftover campaign funds disbursed, 

and this would be notarized by my wife and myself. But I would 

much prefer this bill, which is Congressman Jones’ bill. 

The reason he developed it and came to me is because they had 

the similar situation when his father, who was in office, died; and 

the big question arose who controls where the money goes, who decides? And under current law the treasurer has total and complete 

freedom. The treasurer of the campaign has total and complete 

freedom to do whatever he wants with the money. That made the 

Jones family very nervous in terms of what could happen, not in 

their particular case, but in other cases. 

So this is, I believe, a very good bill which will make it clear. 

Each one of us will be given the opportunity to designate someone 

to make the decision on the disposal of our leftover campaign funds 

and instructing the treasurer how to do it and how to disburse 

them. 

It also provides that if you wish to designate two individuals in 

case one of them is deceased—if, for example, you name your wife 

and you and your wife are killed simultaneously, then someone else 

who understands your wishes could take over. 

The registration would be with the FEC. And again not mandatory. But you would be given an opportunity when you file your 

campaign statement of organization to specify this. It would remain 

on record until you change it or remove it. 

So I think it is a good bill because it removes an impending argument that might develop or dissatisfaction with the treasurer’s discretion when you reach this point. And someone said, well, if you 

don’t have faith in the treasurer, go get another treasurer. It is a 

little hard to do once you are dead. So I think this is a much better 

approach to take, and I urge adoption of the bill. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

25 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.015
26 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.016
27 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Capuano, I would like to recognize you, because I think that Mr. Ehlers probably incorporated your amendment along with one of his. But I know that you wanted to say a 

few words on it because you just can’t help yourself. 

Mr. CAPUANO. It is a good amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to backtrack again. I missed an amendment that Mr. 

Ehlers also has, and I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chair; and I apologize I didn’t mention it before. 

I have a simple amendment that just clarifies the original Jones 

bill. When I made my comments earlier, I was referring to the content of both the Jones bill and my amendment. I would be happy 

to answer any questions anyone might have. But the amendment 

has been placed before everyone. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

28 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.017
29 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.018
30 

The CHAIRMAN. We have no other questions on that amendment. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. None opposed. Then 

that amendment also passes. 

Mr. Capuano is recognized. Your amendment was incorporated 

with Mr. Ehlers. We have already voted and passed on that. 

Without objection, the staff are authorized to make the technical 

and conforming changes to H.R. 3032. 

And now I would like to move the committee report favorably, 

the bill H.R. 3032. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? No. 

The ayes have it; and, without objection, the staff will be authorized to make the technical and conforming changes to H.R. 3032. 

The next order of business today will be consideration of H.R. 

281, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

31 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.019
32 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.020
33 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.021
34 

The CHAIRMAN. Rather than making an opening statement, I 

would like to recognize the bill’s sponsor, Mrs. Davis, to explain the 

bill. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Ehlers. I want to really appreciate your bringing this 

to the committee, H.R. 281, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail 

Act. I want to thank Election Subcommittee Chairman Lofgren for 

her outstanding leadership; and, also, I want to acknowledge Ranking Member McCarthy, who has helped me talk this through and 

work with me across party lines. 

Since the Election Subcommittee has already held two extensive 

briefings on this topic, I am going to try and be very brief. 

As we all know, this straightforward bill would simply give any 

eligible voter the option of voting by absentee ballot. No longer 

would an antiquated patchwork of State laws prevent voters from 

voting because they have work, family or other commitments. No 

longer would any voter in this country have to find the money or 

the time for a notary to sign an absentee request form. No longer 

would any American voter have to compromise personal privacy by 

having to list vacation destinations, medical information or employment details just to vote absentee. And no more doctor notes. This 

bill would level the playing field by allowing voters in the States 

that do not have no excuse absentee voting to catch up with the 

29 States that do. 

As a former school board member and State legislator, I certainly 

adhere and believe strongly in States’ rights. But let me be clear 

about this bill. It does not alter State absentee processes and time 

lines. It does not place an undue burden on election officials. It 

does not make them do something new. All it does is expand the 

pool of people eligible for something they already do. 

We are a Federal committee and we are not doing our jobs if we 

accept that some States are allowing some people to be more eligible to vote than others when we are all voting for the same President. 

I wanted to just close by quoting from a letter to the editor from 

the New Orleans area Times-Picayune by a voter named Megan 

Boyle. 

In it she says, I will be out of town during the runoff election. 

Since I will also be out of town during early voting the week before, 

I am required to go to the office of the Jefferson Parish Registrar 

of Voters between 8:30 and 4:30 for early voting at the Elmwood 

location because I live in East Bank. I work from 8 to 5, she says, 

on the West Bank and would have to miss work in order to vote. 

And she underlines, voting should not be so inconvenient that a citizen would choose not to vote. 

We can wait for every State to adopt no excuse absentee voting 

or we can take what I think is a very simple step today. 

I also want to move forward and just share with you that I would 

accept the amendments from some of my colleagues and have 

agreed to accept Mr. McCarthy’s amendment requiring signature 

verification, which is something that most States already do. I 

think that is important, and I certainly would move forward with 

it. I visited our election of voters on numerous occasions and 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

35 

watched them do this, and they are professional and experienced 

at it. 

And I am also willing to take Mr. Ehler’s amendment extending 

the date of implementation to 2010. I agree that States should 

have time to phase this in, but I hope that many would start by 

2008, which may be the highest turnout election in our Nation’s 

history. Moving to no excuse absentee voting will actually assist 

their processes. 

I hope that my colleagues on the committee will join me in passing this important measure, and I want to thank you all for your 

attention on it and the time that you spent in taking a look. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers’ for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Chairman Brady, and also thank you to 

Representative Davis for her work on this bill. 

While I personally think it is important that we make voting as 

accessible as possible, my primary concern regarding this and other 

legislation relating to absentee voting is that we must put in place 

at the same time the appropriate safeguards to ensure that legitimate votes are not cancelled by fraudulent ones. Opening up such 

a wide breadth of jurisdictions to no excuse absentee voting may 

provide more citizens with an opportunity to vote, but it may also 

present those with dishonest intentions a new opportunity to commit fraud. 

And I might say I am not castigating absentee voters by my 

statement. It is just that it leads to the opportunity for others to 

manipulate absentee ballots and absentee voters to achieve nefarious ends. 

To that effect, I am offering several amendments to the bill; and 

I believe my colleagues on this side of the aisle have others to offer. 

As with all of our elections legislation, we must monitor the implementation of these provisions carefully to ensure that, in the interest of making voting easier, we are not sacrificing the security of 

our election system. 

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

Although, Mr. Chairman I have received a letter—I believe everyone on the committee has received a letter from the National 

Conference of State Legislators, which has written a letter expressing serious concerns about H.R. 281. I ask unanimous consent that 

that letter be placed in the record of today’s markup. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

[In addition, pursuant to a unanimous consent request by Mrs. 

Davis of California, and Mr. Ehlers on page 143 of this transcript, 

six letters of support and one letter in opposition of H.R. 281 follow:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

36 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.022
37 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.023
38 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.091
39 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.092
40 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.093
41 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.094
42 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.095
43 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.096
44 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.097
45 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.098
46 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.099
47 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.100
48 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.101
49 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.024
50 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.025
51 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other members who would like to make a 

statement? 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 281. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with. Without 

objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. 

Any amendments? 

Mr. EHLERS. All right. The first one I have, Mr. Chairman, is a 

very simple one, which the author of the bill has already agreed 

to. This amendment postpones—it is Ehlers Amendment No. 1. It 

postpones the effective date of the Act until the year 2010. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

52 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.026
53 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. I think it is so simple it will be accepted. I won’t 

spend any time discussing it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment to the 

bill. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? No. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Any other amendments? 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Ehlers Amendment No. 2. This amendment provides that a State shall, before providing an individual with an absentee ballot, pursuant to this Act, require such individual to sign 

under penalty of perjury a statement attesting that the ballot was 

requested voluntarily and without coercion and that, should such 

ballot be voted, it will be voted freely and without undue influence. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

54 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.027
55 

Mr. EHLERS. And I move the amendment. I think it is very clear 

and straightforward. It gets at one of the fraud aspects that we are 

concerned about, and it does not in any way impose a great burden 

on the voter. It simply asks them to sign an attestation that it has 

been voted freely and without undue influence. That is trying to 

get at the possibility, as I mentioned earlier, of fraud where someone is trying to induce a voter to do something wrong. And if they 

sign this they are saying simply no one has tried to unduly influence them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I would be happy to speak to that. 

I appreciate Mr. Ehlers’ concern, but I think that, you know, we 

have—in many, many States that already do have no excuse absentee voting, this has not been a problem for them. They know that 

people sign under penalty of perjury and a fine and imprisonment 

for up to 5 years if there is anything in that absentee ballot that 

is not accurate. We don’t ask people that question under other circumstances. So even though I appreciate the intent of it, I certainly 

don’t think that people in States that are not included in no absentee, no excuse absentee voting today are any less forthright than 

in other States; and we would be putting a burden on them perhaps that is not in other States. And so I, in due consideration, 

don’t think that would be applicable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I want to echo what Mrs. Davis said and then raise one other 

practical concern to the ranking member. It would seem that under 

your amendment that someone could potentially challenge a ballot 

that didn’t have the attestation on it. And ordinarily in the normal 

context obviously no one should be unduly influenced in any kind 

of election, whether it is an absentee ballot or not. So it would 

seem that Mrs. Davis is correct that you may be adding an extra 

layer of certification here that is not ordinarily applicable; and, because of that, I wonder if someone could potentially challenge a 

written or absentee ballot. Though there was no basis whatsoever 

to question the validity of that ballot, the failure to have the attestation could become a basis of challenge; and I am not sure if that 

would be the intent. I am not sure if that is your intent or not, and 

I will yield to you to answer that. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I appreciate you yielding. 

That is certainly not my intent, and I would assume that this 

would just be—well, just use the example we have in Michigan. We 

are required to sign the ballot that we send in. I think almost 

every State that has absentee voting requires the voter to sign the 

ballot. And, in fact, an amendment we will have later will require 

the local elected officials to compare the signature on the ballot 

with the signature on record with the registration just to make 

sure that they are the same. 

I do not intend for this to be a separate statement which requires 

a separate signature. It is an assumption of mine that it would just 

be under the current statement that the voter has to make that 

they are signing this, that this is their ballot and so forth, that 

they have done it without help. Just add the statement under there 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

56 

and they still have one signature, the same signature, just adding 

an additional statement to make it clear to the voter that if there 

is someone leaning over their shoulder or someone saying I will 

give you five bucks if you vote this way they recognize they are not 

supposed to do that and certainly wouldn’t sign it if they had done 

it. 

So I don’t think it is any greater burden on the voter at all. They 

are still signing it. It just increases the length of the statement 

slightly. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I will just reclaim my time. 

I take the gentleman’s point in good faith. The only concern that 

I would raise, as you are well aware, a lot of these challenges to 

ballots play out at the local level, county level, as opposed to the 

State level; and it would not strike me as being beyond possibility 

that in future elections that if your provision were added that 

someone who wanted to challenge a ballot for whatever reason 

could at least cite as an evidentiary point that the attestation was 

not signed. So I take your point that that is not your intent, but 

I am concerned it could become yet another thing that could be a 

subject of dispute in some elections. 

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman would yield again. The signature 

is currently there. They could challenge it at this point, too. I don’t 

recall in my years of being involved with polling that anyone has 

challenged on the basis of a lack of signature. But it is possible 

that the clerk of the unit of government may just automatically 

rule them out if they send in a document without the signature. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, reclaiming my time just to finish on 

this point, I agree with you about the need to have a signature so 

someone could attest the person is whom she claims to be. I am 

simply making the additional point that if you have another requirement that someone attest that they weren’t subject to undue 

influence, the failure to make that attestation could potentially be 

cited as proof if that ballot were challenged. And I would just—I 

don’t want to prolong this, but just by making that point that that 

could become an extra layer of contest, and I think that would not 

be our intent as supporters of the bill. 

Mr. EHLERS. If I may, if you will yield to me one last time, I just 

would reiterate this is just an additional statement, not an additional signature. I don’t think it provides any additional grounds 

for rejecting it. If the signature is there, what can you say? They 

are not going to stop it for that reason. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else? 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I respect what the ranking member is trying to do, and I am not worried about an extra signature. 

Have them sign 10 times. My concern is that the basic—if someone 

is under coercion, you are forcing them, for all intents and purposes. If somebody has a gun to my head and says ‘‘sign this’’, I 

am signing it; and now I have broken the law because I have committed perjury. 

I would argue that if the goal was to stop coercion, inappropriate 

activity, then we should go after the people who are causing the 

inappropriate activity and make it a crime to coerce someone. And 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

57 

that I think is fine. But to make, under the scenario, the victim 

also now a criminal strikes me as targeting the wrong person. 

And as far as—I think there should be some discussion, what do 

you mean by coercion? I know what it means in the vernacular, but 

when you get into a law I don’t think that taking a bribe is coercion. It is a bribe, but it is not coercion. Is it coercion when you 

are getting an absentee ballot because somebody gave your cousin 

a job? What is coercion? 

And I am not arguing that we shouldn’t have that discussion. I 

think it is a fair discussion. I agree with you. I am not looking to 

allow or encourage or enable anybody to coerce anyone. I totally 

agree with that. But I don’t think this does it. 

What this simply does is, if someone is truly under coercion, gun 

to the head, they are going to sign this thing. And now they have 

broken the law. They have committed perjury. And I don’t think 

that is the right goal. I think we should have an amendment at 

some point along the process that says, if you coerce someone, you 

are the one breaking the law, not the victim. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CAPUANO. I certainly do. 

Mr. EHLERS. So far as I know, that is already contrary to the 

law. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I think it is, too. 

Mr. EHLERS. I would hope that anyone who is coerced would immediately report the crime to the appropriate authorities or somehow refuse to sign it. I know people feel strongly about the secret 

ballot and not being coerced. My wife doesn’t let me see who she 

votes for, and I have been unable to coerce her. 

Mr. CAPUANO. My wife requires me to show who I am voting for. 

I have to get approval. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, so far as I know, my wife may vote against 

me every time, and I don’t expect that she has, unless she wants 

me to stay home more. 

But my point is simply coercion is going to be rare. But this will 

just call the voter’s attention to it and say, hey, if you are coerced, 

don’t sign it; or if you are forced to sign it, report it. 

Mr. CAPUANO. In that case, I have no problem. But I don’t like 

the concept of committing perjury, under the pains and penalties 

of perjury, and now subjecting them to criminal penalties. I have 

no problem with putting a statement there saying, yeah, I signed 

this on my free will. That doesn’t bother me. That is just another 

statement. I have no problem with it. 

If the idea is to draw the attention to the voter, that is fine, but 

that can be done by a statement, as opposed to signing something 

under the pains and penalties of perjury, which is a different matter. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the arguments. I guess 

we can put it to a vote. But I would be happy to pursue this with 

the other committee members later. 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Will the gentleman yield for just one 

point? Mr. Capuano, I think actually in some way is underscoring 

a point that I made. I take your point that you are not requiring 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

58 

a separate line of attestation and a separate signature. You have 

made that clear. But I think Mr. Capuano’s point is still important. 

This may seem like a farfetched scenario to the ranking member, 

but I could imagine that in a contested election some individual 

could say I was part of a meeting or part of a hearing and these 

folks said they were going to go out and get these absentee ballots 

out at a nursing home and it sounded to me if they were going to 

coerce these older people to sign these ballots. 

And, right now, under the current law, under this bill as it currently stands, no one could really challenge a ballot on the theory 

that they had proof of coercion unless there was some direct problem with the ballot itself. Because you are adding a requirement 

that some one state under penalty of perjury that they were not coerced, arguably someone making a false statement would subject 

themselves to a challenged ballot. That controversy could be triggered if someone made an allegation that a group of people were 

engaging in coercive activity. 

And, again, it may seem farfetched to us today, but in this day 

and age of hyperlitigation and partisanship back and forth I could 

imagine someone saying, ‘‘I know that the citizens for good government in Johnson County, Texas, are trying to coerce people to vote, 

so therefore I am going to challenge all of these ballots because this 

is where I know they were working that day.’’ And it becomes one 

more thing that could be challenged in the context of an election. 

You couldn’t do that kind of a challenge today. 

And, with that, I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question one is on Mr. Ehlers’ Amendment 

No. 2 to the bill. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those 

opposed, say no. No. 

Mr. EHLERS. Ask for a roll call vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have a roll call. Will the clerk 

please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano votes no. 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California votes no. 

Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren votes aye. 

Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy votes aye. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

59 

Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady votes no. 

The CHAIRMAN. The ayes are three. The nays are four. The 

amendment fails. 

Mr. Ehlers, do you have another amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Ehlers for an amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Sorry for the delay, Mr. Chairman. Somehow my 

things got out of order in the notebook. 

I offer Ehlers Amendment No. 3. This amendment provides that 

no provision of this Act shall restrict the right of any State to continue to enforce any condition or requirement concerning the eligibility of an individual to obtain an absentee ballot by mail provided 

that such condition or requirement is in effect as of the enactment 

date of this Act. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

60 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.028
61 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, that is basically a response to the 

letter I previously entered into the record from the National Conference of State Legislatures who are objecting to us imposing more 

Federal requirements on local and State elections. 

As you know, for many, many years all the elections in this country were controlled by State or local officials; and it wasn’t until we 

passed HAVA that we had direct Federal involvement in running 

elections. And theoretically our only basis for doing that is for Federal candidates. 

The folks from the National Conference of State Legislatures are 

basically saying, look, we have been running elections for over 200 

years. We know how to do it. We don’t like the fact that you are 

going to tell us how to do it. And so this amendment would honor 

that protest by saying we will grandfather in all those who are currently doing it in their own way and not following the principles 

of this bill; and that constitutes, I believe, some 22 States. 

And I would hope that eventually they would agree with all the 

provisions of the bill, but I think we really are going to have to 

work with them for a while and point out to them the advantages 

of Congresswoman Davis’s bill. And eventually I think they would 

be on board. 

But as a former elected official at the local level and the State 

level, I know how much resentment there is against the Federal 

Government coming in and saying, we are from the Federal Government. We know better. You are going to do it our way. So this 

is an attempt to honor that and just say, okay, you can keep doing 

it your way, and then continue to work with them to try to persuade them that our way is better. So I offer that amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, once 

again, I appreciate Mr. Ehlers’s concern here. 

I was, obviously, a member of NCSL for a period of time. But I 

think that what we are saying is that we want people to be able— 

it is the ‘‘who’’. We are not telling them how. We are just telling 

them who. People should be able to do this. And what I think your 

amendment does is essentially gut the bill. Because it says if you 

have to list excuses, if people have to engage in that process, that 

we are not going to ask them to proceed at least until initially 

2010, I think, to bring them on line with other States. 

And in Michigan, of course, people would still have to respond in 

terms of whether or not they can attend because of tenets of their 

religion, whether they are going to be out of the community for the 

entire time on election day. There are just a number of things that 

they have to do, and it is in the best interest of moving this forward to not allow States to continue to do what they have always 

been doing without pushing them forward. And I think that is 

what we are doing. We are doing it within a reasonable time frame 

as we accepted your amendment. 

And I think that NCSL will come on board. I think they weren’t 

paying attention earlier. They are very happy to work with us. We 

have spoken with them, and I think that we can move them along 

as well. I think they are very happy to do that. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentlewoman yield? Will you yield? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes, sir. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

62 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for yielding. 

I recognize that argument, and I have some sympathy for it. But 

I would much prefer that we work out the problem earlier, rather 

than simply impose this on them. 

I have great respect for NCSL, and I don’t think they wrote the 

letter in haste or anger or by accident without knowing the facts. 

I think that it accurately reflects their feelings, and I would much 

prefer that we adopt the amendment and over the course of a few 

years work with them to change the systems they are using. In 

other words, I am saying let us use a soft leather glove instead of 

a boxing mitt to try to change their laws. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other discussion? 

The question on Mr. Ehlers’ Amendment No. 3 to the bill. All 

those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. No. 

In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I would ask for a roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I am a no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano votes no. 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California votes no. 

Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren votes aye. 

Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy votes aye. 

Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady votes no. 

The CHAIRMAN. The ayes are three. The nays are four. The 

amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, that is the first time I have ever lost 

a vote because a ghost pops out of the closet. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to recognize for an amendment Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to first thank Congresswoman Davis for working on this 

legislation. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

63 

I have an amendment. It would be McCarthy Amendment No. 2. 

This amendment provides that the State shall implement a voter 

signature verification system, that the voter signature on each absentee ballot shall be verified by such system prior to the acceptance and processing of any voted absentee ballot cast pursuant to 

this Act. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

64 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.029
65 

Mr. MCCARTHY. It is mainly saying, and one thing that happens 

within California, in our hearing that we found the biggest form of 

fraud that you ever get is with absentee ballots. Because a person 

can go and apply, never seeing an individual, put in an address, 

and apply for an absentee, never, ever making a verification. 

So what happens here in this process would be, much like within 

California—and in Michigan they are going to a digital—that an 

absentee ballot comes in. You have to sign the back of the ballot. 

The individual at the elections office that is working year round, 

not a one-day individual, pulls it up, if they have training, and 

digitally would see the signature of the registration and verify that 

against the absentee ballot outside signature before you open up 

and cast the ballot. 

So it is a step of protecting the fraud which I know individuals 

have the fear of within here. I think this goes a long way to help 

in that procedure, and we allow the States to adapt signature 

verification which they select. 

I would ask for a vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I appreciate Mr. McCarthy’s amendment, and I agree with it. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You agree with the amendment? You agree with 

the amendment being accepted? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Is that actually No. 1? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. That was No. 2. I just went out of order because 

I wanted to start on a positive note. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Okay. But it is 1 on mine. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Is that 1 on yours? It is 2 on mine. 

The CHAIRMAN. They do that from time to time, and it works 

from time to time, but we are accepting it. I think this is the one 

that we are accepting. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If we accept both, that is all right with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor accepting—wait. This is No. 2. 

He is taking the signature verification, which is No. 2. All those in 

favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Now we have before us McCarthy amendment No. 1. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

66 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio_____here 42897A.104
67 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now this amendment takes from kind of what 

Mr. Davis was saying earlier. When you deal with legislation like 

this, there could be some unintended consequences based upon the 

language within the bill. And the intent with the hearing and what 

I have heard from Mrs. Davis has been you have these roadblocks 

for individuals to get an absentee ballot based upon the process 

that they are going to be out of town. New York makes a doctor 

do seven different ones. In Virginia, you have to sign your business 

hours and your business address. Those are little roadblocks, so we 

are trying to knock that down. 

But I would never want an individual to take—and if you read 

the language in page 3 of the bill, line 5 through about line 9, it 

says, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in 

such election. 

What could happen here is kind of what Mr. Davis was saying. 

Someone could say that with this bill we are now waiving any 

rights of the States to have eligibility on a person to cast the ballot. 

Because I am viewing it as twofold, I want to knock down any 

roadblock a person has to apply. I still want to empower the State 

to be able to check before the ballot is cast, is this person eligible 

to do that vote. I don’t want to take away any rules or laws that 

current States have. 

As we have these other hearings, we know Indiana has a different law on the eligibility because States have the power to do 

that on who is eligible to vote in that process. So I believe this 

clarifies the intent of what Mrs. Davis was trying to do, and it 

clarifies what I believe we were trying to do through the hearings 

and still empowers the State to have that ability for eligibility in 

what they have and someone take the language here and applies 

it different than what we are trying to. That is what the intent of 

this amendment does. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I appreciate that, Mr. McCarthy. The 

bill is really silent on that, and so I don’t think that there is anything that is added here. 

I am not sure the clarification is needed to suggest that the 

States couldn’t do that if they have already chosen to do that. What 

we are just trying to do is define the fact that there is no excuses 

for absentee voting and that we want to verify, of course, the fact 

that that is the person and that is what most States are doing. So 

it is really silent on that. I don’t think it puts any more pressure 

on States to either increase that or to take that away. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If the gentlelady would yield for just maybe a 

colloquy here. In lines 7 and 8, if you read on page 3 of your bill, 

a State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements 

on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote. By using the 

word ‘‘cast’’ the vote—and this may be a place where Mr. Davis, I 

believe he is an individual who has a great brain when it comes 

to legal issues and looking down the road—by using the word ‘‘cast’’ 

the vote, couldn’t we say—couldn’t someone take this from a legal 

manner and wipe away any requirements that a State may have 

by basing on casting that vote, such as a person would say, because 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

68 

you applied by absentee mail, that you mailed in your voter reg, 

some States say the first time you do that and you are a first-time 

voter they just want to check an ID ahead of time. That is to apply 

for—to apply to even register to vote within there. 

Could you not take that by using the word ‘‘cast’’ the vote and 

take this a step further beyond the intent of what this bill was 

really trying to accomplish? That is my only fear, the language that 

we use. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I am trying to understand the gentleman 

from California’s point. Certainly the intent of the bill that I have 

co-sponsored and that Mrs. Davis has introduced is that, obviously, 

we are not trying to prevent States from putting any normal requirements on who is eligible to vote. The bill is simply saying that 

there are no excuses any longer required for absentee voting. 

So a State can’t say you have to prove that you are not going to 

be in the jurisdiction. A State can’t require you to put forward any 

proof as to why you should be able to vote absentee. You are just 

allowed to do it by mail. 

So I am not following the gentleman’s argument. Is it your contention that the language in lines 7 and 8, 9 and 10? I will yield 

to the gentleman, because I am not clear what it is you are saying 

that it does, frankly. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am saying we have a couple of cases before the 

Supreme Court. We have States that require different—just like we 

had a hearing the other day. One State would put on their voter 

reg requirements asking if somebody is a citizen or something else 

or if you are a first-time voter registration and you are doing it by 

absentee mail, you have to show an ID. 

If I used the word ‘‘cast’’ the vote—because I believe there is two 

processes in this. First, you put in an application for voter registration by mail. That is one action. Then when you send it in and you 

cast a vote, that is the second action. I believe this bill is dealing 

with the voter registration knocking down the roadblocks to getting 

that application to voting by mail. By using the word ‘‘cast’’ the 

vote, I believe this bill is going further, that someone could take 

that language, go beyond the intent of what we meant this bill to 

do and now apply that to other abilities for a State to use anything 

they believe on the eligibility to be able to be registered to cast the 

vote to go further. That is my fear. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I think it is still really—I think it confuses it more than anything else, and I think that the intent here 

is to make it clear that the State can’t impose additional conditions. I am still unclear exactly what you are trying to do. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I have the fear—— 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. It adds an extra burden that is not 

available for people who vote in person, and I think the idea is to 

make sure that it is—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. This would take away all the burdens, but it 

would also say from the intent that you keep the integrity of it. So 

can I take this bill and now say a State goes out, such as Indiana 

and others, and has to have proof of citizenship and others and 

take this bill to say they no longer can do that. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

69 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, if the gentleman would yield, the 

intent of the bill is to, in a Federal context, create something close 

to a nationalized standard. So if the goal of a State is to put some 

extra layer in place, then I think the bill does seek to undercut 

that. That is a policy judgment the bill seeks to make. 

I think Mrs. Davis is exactly right. The very specific example you 

give, your argument is that the kind of restriction you identify 

doesn’t go to eligibility, that it goes to verification. Frankly, that 

is the kind of argument U.S. District Courts resolve all the time. 

The fact that the bill is silent on that point I suppose could be 

litigated or debated. But the clear intent of the bill is to say that 

if you want to vote by mail you can do it. 

Now, I think I understand your point. Your point is that a State 

may want to go beyond that and put some extra verification means 

in place. But, frankly, one response to that is, I doubt very many 

States have those kinds of provisions, so it is hardly a prevailing 

national standard and it doesn’t appear to trouble us too much that 

most States don’t have that now. 

And the second and last point that I would make is, once again, 

I am certain there could be some basis if a State wanted to put 

some extra verification requirement in place. But, once again, I 

think the bill, frankly, would err on the side of having a nationalized standard for voting by mail. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I think maybe if we stated publicly the intent of 

the bill that in no way if someone votes by mail that they would 

get to waive any requirements that a State would put on all voters, 

such as if I register to vote and they had some requirement on the 

registration, I am thinking more in the tenth amendment here, 

that somehow you had to prove something to be a registered voter 

whenever you meet their criteria. I met it. Somehow if I voted by 

mail I was able to waive that. 

And that was my only fear, by using the word ‘‘cast’’. And if that 

is not your intent, which I don’t believe it to be, I believe the intent 

to be—and I support any of these roadblocks. 

People are busy. They want to apply for an absentee application. 

Why do we make it so difficult that I have to say not only am I 

sick but my doctor is going to sign it and someone is going to notarize it? I can’t vote that day. I am going to vote by mail. I am going 

to have a verification, so I take away from the fraud. That is the 

intent of the bill, not to change the eligibility that the State can 

put on anybody else. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. And, Mr. McCarthy, I appreciate that. 

Because, basically, that is what we are trying to do, to keep it a 

clean bill in that regard. And I think when we add additional language that opens things up in a different way, goes a different direction, then we begin to confuse the bill. And that is why I think 

if we can stick to the excuses issue that is what the intent of the 

bill is. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. It really doesn’t speak to the other 

issues. That is really—States, actually, as we know with Indiana, 

can do something. They may end up hearing that in the courts, but 

at the same time they can do that. That is their option. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

70 

What we are trying to do is deal with a pretty narrow issue here, 

which is don’t impose the excuses on the individual who chooses to 

vote if they are going to vote absentee. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. If the gentleman would yield, just to reinforce Mrs. Davis’ point. Your amendment goes much further than 

you would need to go. Perhaps if you were trying to add some report language about the intent of the committee, but you are trying 

to remove altogether one of the most important sections in the bill. 

If you take this section out, as you purport to do—you are not 

trying to slice it. You are trying to move it altogether. If you remove the subsection A altogether, then any State could go in and 

interfere with eligibility or—I am sorry—in effect put an excuse requirement in place. 

This provision of the bill is the only thing that preserves the no 

excuses character of the bill. So if you remove this particular section there is almost no point in having this bill. That’s why I say 

your amendment goes much further than it needs to. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is not my intent. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to wind this down now. It has gone 

much past 5 minutes. But go ahead. I will let you have your answer. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I appreciate the chairman indulging us. 

What I would do is I would not ask for a vote on my amendment. 

Having Mrs. Davis state what the intent is, and I think that is 

really for the public to know putting it out there, I would just like 

to work with you. Because I think, in the end, maybe it is changing 

a language of a word so it is clarified further, but I will work with 

you as the bill moves forward. And I appreciate the dialogue and 

the colloquy it allowed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his amendment? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I now would like to recognize Mrs. 

Davis for the purpose of offering a motion. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee 

report the bill favorably to the House as amended. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to strike the requisite 

number of words to be able to speak. I haven’t spoken on this yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize. How could I overlook you? You can 

certainly speak. 

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

When Mrs. Davis came to me on this bill, I decided to take a serious look at it, not the least of which reason is that, in 1990, when 

I ran for Attorney General in California, I actually lost on election 

day but won with the absentee ballots. Subsequent to that, my opponent supporters had six different lawsuits to try and invalidate 

600,000 absentee ballots because the election officials in those 

counties had followed the advice given to them by the Secretary of 

State which turned out to be somewhat erroneous. 

I declared a victory 13 days later. My opponent conceded two and 

a half months later, just before I was sworn in. So I have a strong 

place in my heart for absentee ballots. 

However, I am concerned about the concerns raised by Norm 

Ornstein, a congressional scholar, about absentee ballots. He has 

indicated that once a ballot leaves the security that is provided by 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

71 

the traditional polling place it is much more difficult to guarantee 

that the intended person is voting his or her selection, is made 

without outside or undue influence and that the voted ballot makes 

it safely back to the elections official for tabulation. 

Additionally, I am old enough to remember a TV show when I 

was a kid called Father Knows Best. It sounds to me like this is 

the father or the mother of all governments, the Federal Government knows best. 

I was raised on the idea that our States are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, meaning that they could have different approaches to the same end. And in the very first finding in this bill 

we make a blanket statement, the inequity of voting rights exist 

in the—an inequity in voting rights exists in the United States because voters in some States have the universal right to vote by 

mail, while voters in other States do not. That is a flat statement 

that because some States make it far easier for absentee ballots 

than others, therefore there is inequity which exists. I don’t accept 

that. 

There is something we are losing in this country called the communal nature of this country, the idea that we are all in a country 

together. That while we have other things to do maybe it is important enough for us to take the time to vote. That is to actually go 

and vote as a communal activity, where you go down to the polling 

place and you actually exercise your right to vote and you see other 

Americans voting. 

And what we are saying is that is a quaint idea that has no justification. Not only are we saying there is no justification, we are 

saying that is a quaint idea that is now going to be illegal because 

we know best. 

And it is tough enough in this country made up of people that 

come from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of ethnicities, all sorts 

of religions, all sorts of cultures. We are, by and large—with the 

exception of our Native American friends, we are, by and large, 

sons and daughters and descendants of people from other countries. We are basically a country of immigrants; and we need certain things, certain anchors to hold us together. And I think the 

grand exercise of the right to vote exemplified by people coming together at the polling places is one of those symbols that assists in 

that. 

Now some people just can’t be able to do that. But what we are 

saying here is don’t even make an effort to do that. We on the Federal level have decided that no excuse absentee ballots is the preferable way of doing things. 

And I appreciate the fact that it is more convenient. I appreciate 

the fact it means that you don’t have to make the same sort of effort to try to get there. But, my golly, if we don’t think in this country it is worth making an effort to vote that may be inconvenient, 

are we depreciating that exercise in our constitutional democracy? 

So, with all due respect, I looked at your bill, I understood what 

you were trying to do, and I understand what we have done in 

California. I have benefited from absentee ballots. But I just find 

it hard for us to make the decision that this is, as a matter of law, 

the preferred way of doing things. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

72 

The Supreme Court has made it very, very clear that there is a 

right to vote, as there should be. But as far as I know the Supreme 

Court has never said or ever suggested that we have a right to absentee ballot. And I know that is what we are saying here, and I 

just think it is another example of overreach and that we may not 

know best. I know that is a terrible thing for us to consider as Federal elected officials. But I found that to be the case at times when 

I was a California Attorney General. 

So with all due respect to the gentlelady’s efforts and her acceptance of amendments on our side of the aisle, and I appreciate that, 

I just can’t support a bill that makes that absolute declaration that 

there is an inequity because some States have made the determination we ought to encourage people to actually go to the polls unless 

they cannot make it. 

So, with that, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and now recognize the 

gentlelady from California. 

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

And I just want to respond really briefly, because I think that 

there is no attempt in this bill to say to people that this is not an 

important communal activity. I go to the polls. You go to the polls. 

But do you know what? Under existing conditions in some States, 

a Member of Congress would have to put in a special letter saying 

that they need an excuse in order to vote by mail. So it is inequitable. 

I think in Mr. Ehlers’ State if you are 60 years old that is an 

excuse. If you are 59 or under, it is not. I mean, what is equitable 

about that? 

So I think that we need to be careful that we narrow this bill 

as we have done. We are allowing people who have circumstances 

that they can’t necessarily control and get to the polls. We want to 

make that equitable for everybody. This in no way undermines the 

communal responsibility. In fact, we know that in those States that 

have gone to vote by mail it has actually created more interest in 

voting. It hasn’t depressed voting there. 

So I would just hope that you would perhaps over a period of 

time take another look at this, and maybe it will help you out in 

the next election as well. 

We wouldn’t want to go backwards in California. We are not asking people to do that. But, essentially, by saying we are not going 

to move forward, we are saying to some States that maybe they 

don’t need to do this, and I think they have made the determination that they do. We just want to make it equitable for all States 

to be able to do this. And we are giving them plenty of time. I 

think we are putting the security provisions in there, and I hope 

that we can move forward with this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will the lady make a motion? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee 

report the bill favorably to the House, as amended. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying 

aye. All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion is 

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

the table and the bill reported to the House. Without objection, the 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

73 

staff are authorized to make technical and conforming changes to 

H.R. 281. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right and I would like 

to move that I reserve the right to include minority views in the 

final report to the House. And also simply want to comment that 

I am still very concerned about the concerns raised by local governments to the National Council of State Legislatures. I hope that we 

can resolve that as we go through the process, because, otherwise, 

I presumably would vote no on the floor. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Members will have 2 additional days provided by 

the House rules to file views. 

Next, the committee will turn to H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008. 

[The information follows:] 

[Additionally, pursuant to a request by Mr. Ehlers under unanimous consent on page 143, a letter pertaining to H.R. 5036 follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

74 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.030
75 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.031
76 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.032
77 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.033
78 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.034
79 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.035
80 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.036
81 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.037
82 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.038
83 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.039
84 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.040
85 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.041
86 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.042
87 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.043
88 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.044
89 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.045
90 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.046
91 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.047
92 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.048
93 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.049
94 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.050
95 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.051
96 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.052
97 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.053
98 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.054
99 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.055
100 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.056
101 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.057
102 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.058
103 

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

This legislation will help States ensure that the 2008 general elections will have a paper record and elections across the country can 

be audited. This legislation is voluntary for States and provides 

funds to reimburse States for the cost if they choose to opt in. 

A substitute amendment will be offered by Chairwoman Lofgren 

of the Subcommittee on Elections as several improvements to the 

original legislation. 

And I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ehlers for 

his opening remarks. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for your efforts to continue our discussion on how to 

best secure our Nation’s elections systems; and I also commend 

Congressman Holt for his passionate work on this issue, as I know 

he has been very frequently and constantly involved with the Administration of Federal Elections. 

While this bill, H.R. 5036, authorizes reimbursement for the use 

of paper-based voting systems, an important distinction that separates this bill from previous legislation is that States are not required to use paper ballots or auditing but only request financial 

support should they choose to do so. In other words, it is an optin proposal. 

With only 8 months remaining before the general election, had 

paper balloting been mandatory, chaos would have likely been the 

result at polling places across the Nation. Instead, we will provide 

States an opportunity to select the method that best fits their 

needs; and that again is in accord with my attempt to respect the 

abilities and the rights of local and State government. 

It is important, however, that we evaluate the effectiveness of 

this in all Federal elections legislation to ensure that we are supporting States in the execution of their responsibilities with respect 

to Federal elections. 

I look forward to continuing the work with Chairman Brady, the 

members of the committee and Congressman Holt to ensure that 

all citizens will continue to cast a vote with confidence, that their 

voice will be heard and that their voice will not be muted by illegally cast ballots. In that spirit, I will be offering several amendments that I believe will improve the bill. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment, I understand that 

your side is willing to accept most of the amendments; and so we 

may be able to save a lot of time by just not going into a detailed 

discussion on those, even though I can do it if you wish. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

104 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.059
105 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.060
106 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree to that, sir. 

Mr. EHLERS. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody else have any opening statements? 

I now call up H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008. 

I would now like to recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, the Chair on the Subcommittee on Elections, to offer an 

amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I don’t know 

if the clerk is prepared to read that. 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has been distributed. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

107 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.061
108 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.062
109 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.063
110 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.064
111 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.065
112 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.066
113 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.067
114 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.068
115 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.069
116 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.070
117 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.071
118 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.072
119 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.073
120 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.074
121 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.075
122 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.076
123 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.077
124 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.078
125 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.079
126 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.080
127 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.081
128 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.082
129 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.083
130 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.084
131 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the reading of the amendment 

will be dispensed with, and the gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute to meet 

some of the concerns expressed by various parties, disability 

groups, as well as State and local governments over the measure 

that was reported out by the committee last year. 

I want to commend Congressman Holt and his bipartisan cosponsors for their continued dedication to the issue of election reform. 

In 2008, the election in November is quickly approaching; and 

options must be provided to ensure the integrity of the vote. This 

substitute makes several changes to the legislation, while keeping 

the core purpose of the bill, providing a voter verifiable paper and 

auditable paper trail. 

It reimburses jurisdictions for retrofitting paperless touch-screen 

voting machines, or DREs, with systems that produce a voterverifiable paper record. 

It allows for reimbursement for jurisdictions to obtain backup 

paper ballots in the event of failure of electronic voting systems. 

It authorizes reimbursement for jurisdictions which conduct a 

manual audit of the Federal and any State and local election in November of 2008 in no less than 2 percent of the precincts. This is, 

however, 100 percent optional. Jurisdictions can pick and choose. 

It is not all or nothing. 

I would note also that the funding has been changed to such 

sums as necessary, recognizing that this is going to be an appropriations issue more than an authorization issue. 

I will say that while the NCSL, NACo, et cetera, have not come 

out yet in support of the bill, they have been part of the discussions 

on the compromise from day one. It is my understanding they do 

not oppose the bill. The changes we have made reflect some of their 

concerns, particularly the changes to the audit section of the DRE 

retrofitting and the use of funding for backup paper ballots. 

This is not a mandate. It is optional. And while we recognize concerns, significant compromises were made to the bill through the 

substitute. 

And I understand that Mr. Ehlers is prepared to offer four 

amendments; and, to expedite, I would note that his amendment 

about jurisdiction involved, his amendment requiring the election 

officials to secure the ballots, and his amendment requiring election officials conducting the hand count to be split equally down 

party lines of the two most parties receiving the greatest number 

of votes is acceptable to us. 

You may want to introduce them, but we would assume that you 

would accept our agreement to those amendments and we could 

just discuss the one amendment that we do have some concerns 

about, not the intent but the technicality. So, with that, I hope we 

can move forward on a bipartisan basis. 

Mr. Ehlers, in particular, reached out to me before the recess to 

see how we could work together in a collaborative way; and it is 

a lovely way to work in this committee. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

132 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that we have three amendments 

that we may agree to vote on en bloc. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we vote 

on the Ehlers Amendments 1, 2 and 4 en bloc. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

133 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.085
134 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.086
135 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.087
136 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.088
137 

The CHAIRMAN. 1, 2 and 4 en bloc. All those in favor, signify by 

saying aye to vote only 1, 2 and 4 amendments en bloc. Signify by 

saying aye. 

Any opposed? No. 

1, 2 and 4 are agreed to. 

And we now have Amendment No. 3. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

138 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.089
139 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Mr. Ehlers, I will now recognize you. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I think I can change 

this one so that it is acceptable, too. I didn’t realize—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We will certainly entertain that motion, sir. 

Mr. EHLERS. Amendment No. 3 provides that—because this bill 

provides that elections officials can decide to use paper and do a 

hand count, this amendment states all ballots shall also be run 

through a tabulating machine. Our intent was not to have ‘‘shall’’ 

but to put—to have ‘‘may’’, just to indicate that they could. And let 

me give the reason for this. 

It is not to double-check the hand count. It is not to double-check 

the hand count. The intent was, as a scientist, I am sitting here 

and saying, this is a great experiment. If we have a bunch of people hand counting and if there are also tabulators handy there, 

why don’t they run them through the tabulators, too, and we will 

get a comparison of the two. 

So I would suggest that if we change the ‘‘shall’’ to a ‘‘may’’ we 

accomplish what I was trying to do, which is simply to make this 

into an experiment. The hand count, as I understand, would still 

be the official one, but the main count would be to check on the 

accuracy of the count. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We are, each of us, blessed to have a dedicated 

staff on the committee that is sorting through some suggestions on 

this right now. I am wondering if we—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you wonder out loud? 

Ms. LOFGREN. It was suggested that we accept the word ‘‘may’’ 

and add at the end of the amendment ‘‘the use of the tabulating 

machine or scanner shall be solely to verify the tally determined 

by the hand count and not to substitute another tally of the ballots’’. I don’t know. I think that is consistent with what you are trying to do. And your staff is now nodding yes. This is a sausagemaking factory in action, folks. 

Mr. EHLERS. But we make fine sausage here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is that by unanimous consent? 

Mr. EHLERS. What I prefer really is to have the location jurisdiction compare the two and decide which one is more accurate. But 

I am not going to—I don’t want to require them to. The basic idea 

is, as I said, to really get a comparison of the accuracy of hand 

counting versus a tabulating count. And so I guess I will accept 

your version. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So we are asking unanimous consent then to substitute the word ‘‘may’’ for ‘‘shall’’ and this sentence at the end of 

the amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am willing to accept that and—with one caveat, 

that you and I will have further discussions on that last thing as 

it goes through the process. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is a fine way to proceed, Mr. Chairman; and on that basis we are prepared to accept this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize Mr. Capuano first. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know about anybody else, 

but I have actually run elections on all kinds of levels. And I will 

tell you that there are several parts of this bill that I don’t like, 

but it is better than the last bill we did, so I will vote for it. But 

I vote for it with all kinds of reluctance and all kinds of hope that 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

140 

we can change it further, including Ehlers 2. I didn’t like that, requiring 8 hours delay in a hand count. Fine, I am with it for now, 

but I am not really with it. 

And it is the same thing here. The only elections I have seen stolen is when there is nothing but a hand count. That is the only 

elections I have ever seen stolen. A machine count with a paper 

ballot trail to verify it, I am not aware of any that can get stolen. 

A hand count can get stolen, and I will tell you how to do it. 

I have no problem trying to work this out later on. But the concept here does not bother me. I don’t know why it should bother 

anybody who has actually ever been in a place where they actually 

count ballots. I have been there all my adult life, and there are 

ways to verify these things that are very easy. The location jurisdictions are more than capable of doing this. 

As long as you provide a question, that is what courts will do. 

Like it or not, we can’t do this. These things will end up in courts 

with well-paid attorneys arguing the intent of the voter both on the 

hand count and the machine count. 

So I think that this bill still needs a lot of work. I am going to 

vote for it today because I know that Ms. Lofgren and her staff 

have done great work on I think a very difficult bill. And I also like 

the symbolism of us trying to get to a paper trail. This bill only 

gets us a few steps down the road and I think creates other potential problems, but it is much better than the bill that we did previously. And I hope that before any of these things actually get enacted we have plenty of opportunity—I am sure we will—to actually make something work. 

Because in the final analysis I think because—I don’t know why 

we do this. But this is actually a very simple thing. I don’t know 

why we are encouraging people or allowing people, more importantly, using taxpayers’ money to allow people to go out and continue to do things that are stupid. And, on top of that, we take 

communities that have done the right thing on their own dime and 

not give them a nickel, not give them a nickel. It is just amazing 

to me that we keep throwing good money after bad without having 

certain requirements of what kind of machines they can use and 

what we say we want. 

And the only thing I want, the only thing I want is a paper trail. 

All the rest is window dressing. And I want a paper trail because 

there will be arguments, there will be debates, there will be discussions, there will be court cases, there will be recounts on hand, 

there will be recounts on machine, and it will be a mess on individual cases. But at least there will be a paper trail and the voters’ 

decisions will at least have a better opportunity to be found at 

some point. 

So I think that—and this amendment is a classic example. I 

don’t know what the concern is, but this is not the place to really 

get into the meat of it. 

At the same time, I think we need to get to the point where we 

understand the local officials are perfectly capable of making these 

decisions. People have been running these elections for a long time. 

They know how to do it. We don’t have to hold their hand at every 

step along the way. 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

141 

Again, either amendment here is fine by me, as long as—and I 

just want to be clear. I just want it at on the record that I have 

real serious concerns about what we are about to do. I am for it, 

but hesitatingly. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Certainly. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would first like to thank the gentleman. I understand your remarks and I take them quite validly, except for 

the part where you may have incriminated yourself. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I didn’t say I did it. I said I knew how to do it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. How did you learn? 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

I wanted to take exception to the comment why do we do such 

stupid things, but my first thought was maybe because we do them 

so well. In any event, I agree with much of what you say. I have 

the same feelings, and I think much in the bill is overkill. But I 

have agreed to work with Mr. Holt and try to produce a bill that 

would be acceptable. 

I am as skeptical as you are of hand counting, because I have 

been in the room, too. And you know it is not only the easiest to 

commit fraud but also the most difficult to do accurately. And that 

is why I wanted to add the—at least allow the local officials, if they 

wish to run it through the tabulator, too, it gives them some idea 

by comparing the two. So that was the intent of the amendment. 

Unfortunately, it came out as a command, rather than an option. 

But, at any rate, I think we should just go with the compromise 

we have agreed to and continue that and will work with the bill 

as it goes through. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can we have unanimous consent to change the 

wording on Amendment No. 3? Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

142 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.090
143 

And with the wording being changed, we now will vote on accepting No. 3. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.Unopposed, 

Amendment No. 3 is now also accepted. 

The question now is agreeing to the Lofgren amendment in the 

nature of a substitute as amended. Those in favor signify, by saying aye. Those opposed? No. 

The ayes have it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee report 

the bill, H.R. 5036, as amended, favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying 

aye. Any opposed? No. 

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the 

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The bill will be amended and reported to the House. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is 

the right place—go ahead. I just wanted to—I had meant to ask for 

unanimous consent to insert letters into the previous bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that is agreed to. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have one similar request, that the National Conference of State 

legislatures and Secretary of State Carnahan of Missouri have 

written me a letter expressing concerns about it; and I ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record of today’s meeting. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

[The letter from Secretary Carnahan follows. The letter from the 

National Conference of State Legislatures appears earlier in the 

transcript on page 49:] 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING

144 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.102
145 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio____here 42897A.103
146 

Mr. EHLERS. I also move that minority views—that we have the 

usual 5 days or whatever period is correct to express minority 

views in the final report. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am being told we can have 2 additional days 

to file views. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, 5 days. And then I also wanted to add a comment. 

The CHAIRMAN.Mr. Ehlers, I think it is 2 days. 

Mr. EHLERS. Two days. I am sorry. 

Then I wanted to also add a comment into the record. I had originally planned to offer a motion to sunset this bill at the end of the 

2008 elections because it is intended to be a trial type of bill. However, the legislative branch—I am sorry—the legislative service informed us it is not necessary because the bill basically sunsets 

itself because it designates this only applies to the 2008 election. 

I wanted to get that on the record so that all election officials 

across the country realize this is just a one-shot thing. 

The final thing, I also raise a question—we had discussed this, 

but for employees whose primary duty station is Washington, D.C., 

expenses are not reimbursable during the district work period. We 

had discussed that on the taxi issue. And do you need unanimous 

consent to add that? 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have disposed of that, but I think that 

is already in. 

Mr. EHLERS. If you disposed of it, that’s fine. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that is agreed to anyway, and we will make 

sure that that happens. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. That takes care of all my final business here. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to 

make the technical and conforming changes to prepare H.R. 5036 

for filing. 

Now I imagine this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING