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

43–592 2008

MARKUP OF H.R. 5803; H.R. 5893, LIBRARY 

OF CONGRESS SOUND RECORDING AND FILM 

PRESERVATION PROGRAMS REAUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 5972, U.S. CAPITOL 

POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2008 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 7, 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 PROD1PC67 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 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILL PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 5803, H.R. 5893, AND H.R. 

5972 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:05 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez, 

Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Thomas Hicks, Senior Election Counsel; Michael Harrison, Professional Staff; Khalil 

Abboud, Professional Staff; 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; 

Gregory Abbott, Policy Analyst; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Ashley Stow, Minority Election Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional 

Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration to order. 

Before we move to the first order of business, I would like to announce I received a communication from Representative Vern Buchanan, relating to a request for reimbursement for expenses incurred in the recent election contest in the 13th District of Florida. 

I am referring that communication to the task force chaired by 

Representative Gonzalez. The text of that communication will appear at this point in the record. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 43592A.001
3 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 43592A.002
4 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 43592A.003
5 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 43592A.004
6 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 43592A.005
7 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 43592A.006
8 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 43592A.007
9 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 43592A.008
10 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 43592A.009
11 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 43592A.010
12 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 43592A.011
13 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 43592A.012
14 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 43592A.013
15 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 43592A.014
16 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 43592A.015
17 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 43592A.016
18 

The CHAIRMAN. The first item of business is H.R. 5803, introduced by Vice Chairwoman Lofgren, a bill directing the Election 

Assistance Commission to establish a grant program to reimburse 

State and local elected officials for the cost of making backup paper 

ballots available in case of machine failure or other emergency situations. 

Rather than make an opening statement, I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren to explain the bill. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I introduced H.R. 5803 at the request of election advocates and 

election officials as a simple solution to deal with some of the problems jurisdictions may face on Election Day. The bill provides reimbursement through grants to jurisdictions that choose to provide 

backup paper ballots in the event of voting machine failure or some 

other emergency situation for the November, 2008 election. 

The language in the legislation has been crafted, at the request 

of the State and locals, to allow them to decide what constitutes an 

emergency situation. This could mean anything from machine failure to long lines to problems with polling place staffing. It is fully 

up to the jurisdiction to determine what justifies the use of backup 

paper ballots and how to distribute them. 

As the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers stated on the floor several 

weeks back in reference to voting machines, ‘‘As long as people are 

involved in operating, there are likely to be mistakes.’’ All this bill 

does is allow jurisdictions to have a contingency plan, backup paper 

ballots, in case there are mistakes by poll workers or another 

cause, and to determine when and how to implement that plan. 

Another provision included in the legislation allows the jurisdiction to determine when and how the backup paper ballots are distributed to voters. It also allows them to decide how voters are notified that they could be voting on a backup paper ballot. 

The bill has been drafted in full cooperation with the National 

Conference of State Legislators and the National Association of 

County Officials. These organizations have submitted letters of 

support for H.R. 5803, as has Ohio Secretary of State Brunner, and 

she called it ‘‘meaningful and respectful of State authority in election administration matters,’’ and I would request unanimous consent to submit these letters for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
19 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 43592A.017
20 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 43592A.018
21 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 43592A.019
22 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 43592A.020
23 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 43592A.021
24 

Ms. LOFGREN. The bill is supported by a myriad of election integrity groups, including People for the American Way, the Brennan 

Center, the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights, Verified Vote, and 

Counted as Cast. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit 

their letters of support for the record as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
25 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 43592A.022
26 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 43592A.023
27 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 43592A.024
28 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 43592A.025
29 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 43592A.026
30 

Ms. LOFGREN. Additionally, input was provided by disability 

rights groups, who have told us that the bill has no impact on the 

disability community, and they have approved the language. As we 

have seen, broad support for election-related legislation is not easy 

to accomplish. However, backup paper ballots are a unifying factor 

between election officials and election advocates. 

On the floor during the debate of H.R. 5036, our colleague from 

Ohio, Mr. Regula, stated, ‘‘The administration of elections is a 

State and local responsibility,’’ and the minority whip, Mr. Blunt 

of Missouri, said, ‘‘The States have handled the responsibility of 

the mechanics of election administration well for a very long time.’’ 

H.R. 5803 is a direct reflection of these statements. It is 100 percent optional, and the responsibility and mechanisms for implementation are left to the State and local officials. The bill is a 

measured and proactive step towards improving the system of election administration in November of 2008. If record turnouts in the 

primaries are an indication of turnout in November, providing 

State and local jurisdictions the option to have backup paper ballots could mitigate any challenges they may face on Election Day. 

The bill helps ensure election integrity and national electoral 

confidence and respects State and local jurisdictions’ responsibility 

to administer elections, and I hope that we can have bipartisan 

support for this bill. 

I thank the chairman, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

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

for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While I appreciate the effort of my colleague on this committee 

and I appreciate any effort to support States in carrying out the 

responsibilities to effectively administer Federal elections, I believe 

this bill provides a solution to a nonexistent problem. 

She was kind enough to quote me. I would point out that people 

not only make mistakes in the machines, they also make mistakes 

on paper ballots and I have backup evidence that would show that. 

Another problem: This bill would provide a staggering $75 million in grants to States for offering backup ballots to voters during 

emergency situations when, in fact, most States already do this. 

That is my biggest problem with this. Once again, we are trying 

to tell local governments, city clerks, county clerks, township clerks 

that we want them to do something when, to the best of my knowledge, most of them are doing it. I think we are insulting them by 

saying, ‘‘This is the way we want you to do it.’’ In my experience 

in local government, they provided backup ballots in every precinct. 

There was a survey done just recently by the Election Center; 39 

of the 42 States that responded currently provide paper backup 

ballots in the event of machine failures. So virtually all of them are 

already doing this. I am not sure why we have to specify just how 

they have to do it. Furthermore, I am not sure why we have to pay 

for it if they are already doing it out of their own pockets. 

The other factor that is striking here is that the $75 million presupposes that every precinct would print backup ballots for every 

precinct. A much easier and certainly far cheaper solution would be 

just to require that every precinct has one backup ballot, as needVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:02 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 043592 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A592.XXX A592

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
31 

ed, and they simply make photocopies. If they have to have an enumeration scheme, the clerks or the poll workers can easily write 

the number in by hand, if necessary. That is certainly a thriftier 

and better way to do it than spending $75 million. 

Our recent hearings have revealed the need for more voter education and poll worker training. And Representative McCarthy also 

introduced the Military Voting Protection Act, which will help ensure timely delivery of overseas military absentee ballots. All of 

these are good ideas and certainly, I think, are a higher priority 

than this bill proposes in terms of money spent. 

Incidentally, I had hoped that the voting bill for the military personnel would be taken up today. I hope it will be taken up soon. 

We talk a lot here about the environment and greening of the 

Capitol, greening of the Nation. Clearly, it is better to not use more 

paper than we need, and I think simply having sample ballots and 

photocopying is better than printing multiple ballots, which in 

many cases would not be used. 

Mr. Chairman, I do ask that the survey I mentioned be entered 

into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
32 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 43592A.027
33 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 43592A.028
34 

Mr. EHLERS. The final point I want to make is, although I cannot 

support this bill, I remain committed to working across party lines 

to find solutions to the challenges our Nation’s election administrators face. I look forward to continuing our discussions on this important topic. 

I really believe what we should do after the elections this year— 

and I think it is really too late to do anything, and I am not sure 

the Senate will entertain any further bills from us, but I really 

would like to see next year that we really start a series of hearings 

on HAVA, where it has worked well, where it has not worked, what 

changes we might have to make; and I think the very first witness 

we should invite on that would be Leader Hoyer because he was 

the driving force behind that bill and did a great deal of the work 

on preparing the bill. I am certain he would be interested in providing his input and also his evaluation of any of the things we are 

trying to do. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 5803. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
35 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 43592A.029
36 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 43592A.030
37 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 43592A.031
38 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 43592A.032
39 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 43592A.033
40 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 43592A.034
41 

The CHAIRMAN. 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. 

Is there any debate on the bill? 

Are there any amendments to the bill? 

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

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. I have several amendments, Mr. Chair. 

The first one, this amendment will limit the use of grants provided in this bill to the creation of a single copy of an original 

paper backup ballot per polling place to be used in the event of a 

failure of a voting system or voting equipment on Election Day and 

in accordance with predetermined contingency plans of the affected 

State or locality. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
42 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 43592A.035
43 

Mr. EHLERS. My rationale is simply that it is not the proper role 

of the Federal Government to pay for preprinting backup ballots. 

Most units of government already do this. It is fiscally and environmentally irresponsible for us to pay for all the printing of paper 

ballots. We should say we would do the one and photocopy the rest. 

If necessary, we can pay for the photocopying. 

So I offer this amendment and urge its passage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would urge the committee to reject this amendment. I think the amendment really defeats the purpose of the bill, 

which is to provide funding to localities to ensure enough backup 

ballots are on hand to allow voters the opportunity to cast ballots 

if machines malfunction or if there are other emergency situations. 

I would note, as for the cost that Mr. Ehlers referred to in his 

opening statement, there is an authorized amount of $75 million in 

this bill. I would note, according to the Congressional Research 

Service, the United States is currently expending $14.1 million an 

hour in Iraq. $14.1 million an hour. So the cost, even if we were 

to fully fund this—and this is just an authorization—is really an 

afternoon in Iraq and, I think, a small price to pay to defend the 

integrity of the American electoral system. 

So I would urge defeat of this bill, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and basically, just to respond to some of the comments that 

were just made, the assumption is that only we, the Federal Government, somehow protect the rights of individuals in voting, as if 

no one else does. 

There has been no proven—no record that this bill is necessary. 

A survey of the States shows, I believe, all but three take care of 

this on their own. And this is, once again, a suggestion that if it 

is a serious or important problem, it therefore has to be a Federal 

problem, which is contrary, frankly, to what the Founding Fathers 

had in mind. But we have forgotten that so very, very much. Once 

again, we are giving the answer to the locals. 

And you say you had the support of organizations. Well, of 

course; you are going to give them $75 million. I have rarely found 

a local jurisdiction, governor, or anybody else who is going to turn 

down what they consider to be free money. The only problem is, 

money isn’t free. It comes from somewhere. It comes from our constituents. 

I guess we are going to hear the mantra now that any time we 

object to any spending whatsoever, we are going to compare it to 

an afternoon in Iraq. So I guess we are prepared. Maybe we can 

just say ‘‘ditto’’ from now on when that argument is going to come 

up. 

I would hope that we could support the gentleman’s amendment, 

which seems to be just a reasonable and relatively small amendment to this bill that moves slightly in the direction of fiscal sanity. 

So I thank the gentleman for introducing the amendment, but I 

can count the number of people here so I think I know the outcome 

of the amendment. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
44 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I can count the number of people 

too, but I know many of them are extremely intelligent individuals 

and will vote their conscience on this. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. 

Mr. EHLERS. I recognize that. 

My response to the point made is, this is simply a cost-saving 

item. The paper ballots will still be there if there is an emergency. 

They would have access to a Xerox machine or copy machine. There 

would be very little cost other than the cost of paper. 

The main thing is, you do it only in those cases where you need 

it. You wouldn’t print ballots nationwide for all these different 

races and have them on hand, and at the end throw them in the 

recycling bin at considerable expense. So it is really a cost-saving 

amendment. It is not intended to dilute the purpose of the bill at 

all. 

Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now it is my turn to count them. 

The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment to H.R. 5803. All 

those in favor, say aye. 

Any opposed, say no. 

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

is not agreed to. 

I recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment No. 2. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment simply establishes a population-based formula 

for the distribution of any and all funds appropriated for the implementation of the grant program established under this legislation, 

and this just makes certain that the Election Assistance Commission exercises proper discretion in the administration of the program without getting into a type of system that might select winners and losers among the States. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
45 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 43592A.036
46 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 43592A.037
47 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 43592A.038
48 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 43592A.039
49 

Mr. EHLERS. So it simply deals with the allocation formula and 

trying to ensure a population-based formula as developed by the 

Election Assistance Commission. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would anybody like to be recognized? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the 

proposed amendment. In addition to the population-based grant allocation, the amendment would provide funding to States only and 

not to local jurisdictions. 

States actually may decide to initiate a backup paper ballot program statewide. But if a State does not, local jurisdictions under 

the bill would still be able to opt into the program. 

States and local jurisdictions under the bill should be able to 

independently determine how to administer the backup paper ballot program, and the authorized funding should provide sufficient 

funding for the opt-in program. 

The bill has been carefully negotiated with both State and local 

government organizations, and I think this amendment would do 

damage to the balance that has been struck. 

So I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. If I may just respond, Mr. Chairman, the actual intent of the bill is to make sure that the local units get the money 

and that it is not just all given to the State, and they allocate it 

as they wish. 

So if you read the language carefully, it talks about the participating units of local government that expect to have the amount 

of the reasonable costs which all participating units of local government expect to incur in carrying out such programs. 

So it is not intended to do as the gentlewoman suggested. And 

I urge adoption of the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else want to be heard on the amendment? 

The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment No. 2 to H.R. 5803. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

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

not agreed to. 

Mr. Ehlers amendment No. 3. I recognize the gentleman. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment directs 

the Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board to determine ‘‘reasonable cost,’’ as used in this legislation. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
50 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 43592A.040
51 

Mr. EHLERS. The rationale is very straightforward. This amendment ensures that experienced election administrators with representation from all States promote uniformity among the reasonable costs for which reimbursement is sought under this program. 

I believe it is, again, a worthwhile amendment and will help with 

the efficiency. 

Let me emphasize, these are not amendments intended to harm 

the base bill—I have already expressed my opinion on that—but 

simply trying to make it better and more readily administered. 

So I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the amendment 

be defeated. The language in the bill currently allows State and 

local jurisdictions to receive funds based on their expectations of 

reasonable costs. 

The EAC Standards Board is made up of 110 people; 55 of those 

110 are State and local officials. The commissioners typically draw 

upon the expertise of the Standards Board anyway, and I don’t 

think this amendment really serves any purpose or improves the 

bill. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else want to be heard on the amendment? 

The question is Mr. Ehlers’ amendment No. 3 on H.R. 5803. All 

those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

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

is not agreed to. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I may have to withdraw my statement earlier about the obvious intelligence of the members of the 

panel, but I won’t. I still believe it to be true. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I recognize Mr. Lungren for amendment No. 1. 

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

My amendment is a simple amendment that tries to maintain 

the balance that was established in HAVA; and in HAVA, the right 

of action is with the DOJ, rather than private rights of action, and 

it is unclear under this bill whether that would be retained without 

my amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
52 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 43592A.041
53 

Mr. LUNGREN. My amendment simply says nothing in the act, including any triggering events such as a failure of a voting system 

or voting equipment or some other emergency situation, shall be 

construed to create a private right of action for any individual or 

create the right for any other class of individuals. 

I presume we are not trying to change the basic structure that 

was established under HAVA, and for that reason I have included 

this amendment. I hope it is noncontroversial. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the 

proposed amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. There is no 

private right of action created by this bill. It is simply a grant program to permit States to have the option of providing emergency 

paper ballots and then to receive reimbursement. 

There is no requirement that emergency ballots be provided, 

there is no requirement that States and locals opt in, and there is 

no need for this amendment. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other discussion on the amendment? 

The question is on Mr. Lungren’s amendment to H.R. 5803. All 

those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

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

is not agreed to. 

Mr. McCarthy, do you have an amendment? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess we will stick 

with tradition here. 

My amendment would restrict the eligibility for funds provided 

under this legislation to those jurisdictions that require a voter to 

provide a photo identification or HAVA form of identification as a 

condition of casting the ballot in an election for Federal office. It 

will only apply to those that are going after the money. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
54 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 43592A.042
55 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 43592A.043
56 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. One clarification, Mr. McCarthy. Were 

you offering your voter ID amendment or the second amendment 

first? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I apologize because on mine it says McCarthy 

amendment No. 1. We might have different numbers. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I wanted to speak to the voter ID one, 

but that is not the one you just referenced. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No, this is the voter ID, 2-page amendment. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you. 

The only reason, Mr. McCarthy, I wanted to speak to this is because I do think that, frankly, this is the most substantive of the 

amendments that deals with an issue which obviously is very timely right now. I am opposed to the amendment, but I will tell you 

at the outset, I have, maybe, a little bit of a different perspective 

on the issue than some people do on my side of the aisle. 

My election to Congress, as you may know, was against an incumbent Democrat whom I defeated in the primary; and he won 

his seat because he achieved the remarkable feat of going from 160 

votes in a primary to 16,000 votes in a runoff in one county. He 

received 160 in Lowndes County, Alabama, and then in the runoff. 

I doubt that was attributable solely to effective voter turnout on his 

part. 

I do recognize the problem of absentee ballot fraud, or fraud that 

occurs at the polls. But I would go back to something Mr. Lungren 

I thought, said, very eloquently when he was referring to one of 

Mr. Ehlers’ earlier amendments; and he said something to the effect that we ought to be mindful of the proposition that if something is a problem, that it automatically means it has to have a 

Federal solution. It is a reasonably good instinct. 

Because that is a reasonably good instinct, I don’t know that we 

need to federalize voter ID standards in the limited context of this 

bill or, frankly, in any other context. If States want to follow the 

Supreme Court’s ruling last week, that is up to them, their political 

prerogative’s to do so. 

I will give you one example of how I think the process should 

work. In Alabama, we actually have a strong voter ID law. The 

way we got it, though, wasn’t through Federal dictates or even 

through the courts. We got it because of a compromise between the 

legislators. 

One group of legislators very strongly wanted to liberalize standards for convicted felons voting. Another group, on the other political divide, wanted to strengthen voter ID standards. So they 

reached a compromise. Because of that, many people who were previously disenfranchised because of their previous convictions for 

nonviolent crimes can now vote in Alabama. But as the tradeoff for 

that, we have a stronger voter ID law. 

In other words, there was bargaining. There was political discussion back and forth. Frankly, that kind of federalism is something 

we ought to promote instead of, in this context or any other, dictating voter ID standard. 

I yield back my time. I will yield to Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Like you, I think this amendment should be defeated. This is a simple bill that provides for a need, but I would 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
57 

just like to note that subsequent to this bill moving forward legislatively, I would like to discuss with Mr. McCarthy—I mean, he is 

essentially suggesting that we should require States to comply with 

HAVA in their Federal ID efforts, and I think that is something 

worth exploring in the future, not as part of this simple bill. But 

it may be that we can find some common ground on that as we continue this hearing. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Would you yield for 1 second? Who controls the 

time? 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I will yield. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate both your comments because what 

I think this amendment does is, it actually does a little of what you 

are both saying because this is not mandating to every State. You 

have had a Supreme Court decision already, so we no longer have 

that question. 

This is saying, if the State wants to go after this grant, which 

you are going to hold Federal elections in, you are eligible to have 

it. The only thing we say, since this is Federal money we are providing, these are Federal offices, we want to strengthen even what 

HAVA has already said, or actually do what HAVA says to do. 

So I am not mandating in all the States. The State has the 

choice, pay for it themselves; but if they would like to, apply for 

a grant. Before here, I belonged to a lot of nonprofits, and when 

we applied for a grant, there was requirement of what you had to 

do with that money. 

So I don’t think it is too far for us, when we have already laid 

out what HAVA is, to say, Here’s grant money, take it if you would 

like it; but if you like it, we are going to stick to our requirements 

of what we have said earlier that this body would do. Because, yes, 

you do go in and you vote in Federal offices; and yes, the Supreme 

Court has already ruled and made that it was constitutional. So I 

am not mandating on every State. 

So I agree with what Mr. Lungren said earlier, but I do believe 

this is a small step, and at times you can look at this from maybe 

a position of you, Mr. Davis, this could actually be a little test pattern, and it would engage States to have that discussion. 

In your State, you had the discussion about felons being able to 

vote. Other States may not even have taken that up, so they may 

not have the ability to have that discussion. This may actually 

bring the individuals together to start having the debate, without 

mandating it. 

So I think, from all perspectives, looking at all our different 

ideas, that this actually starts that and could move it forward. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If Mr. Davis would just yield briefly, further, I 

would ask unanimous consent that an Associated Press article be 

submitted into the record. I just think the Supreme Court noted 

there has been no evidence of fraud to justify the ID requirement, 

although they did not intervene at that point in the case. 

Apparently, the big losers in terms of not being able to vote because of the ID requirement in Indiana were the Catholic nuns at 

St. Mary’s Convent in South Bend, Indiana. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
58 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 43592A.044
59 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 43592A.045
60 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If you would just yield for 1 second, I did read 

that article, but the only thing I would say, my son is 14 years old, 

and I had to take my Pacific Gas and Energy bill, my electric bill, 

down to the high school to sign him up. 

To get on an airplane every day, I show an ID as well. Having 

been a part of this committee prior to a member, where I went to 

Lumberton, North Carolina, I went out to California on these contested races, I can show you time and time again where voter fraud 

has taken place. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. If the gentleman would yield for 1 second. 

We, in different interest groups, can argue back and forth. My 

proposition is that it does take place. 

But where I disagree with you I think is, the entity and the jurisdiction in the best position to determine how big a problem it is, 

is almost certainly the State. It is not the Federal Government. 

I take your broader point, but as we all know, in effect, the jurisdictional hook for this committee doing anything in this area is the 

fact that they are getting Federal money. I would necessarily add 

to that a substantive argument that it is a good thing for them to 

do it and a constraint we ought to put on them. 

If States want to have voter ID laws, actually I think Alabama’s 

voter ID law is a good one, and I support it. But if States want to 

have these laws, that ought to be their political choice and ought 

to flow out of their bargaining as a result of federalism. And I absolutely agree with Ms. Lofgren’s point that there is very little evidence that would allow Congress to make a finding of fact that this 

is a national problem that entitles us to act, when States have chosen not to act. 

I think both you and Mr. Lungren are principled conservatives. 

I would hope you would agree with me that if there is no strong 

congressional finding of a pervasiveness of a problem, we ought to 

let the States act. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just one clarification: There are two means of becoming eligible 

for the funds, one is a photo identification, which everyone has 

been discussing, but it also says ‘‘or other HAVA-compliant form of 

identification.’’ 

So this amendment does not in any way require a photo ID. It 

simply says that is one of the two methods of satisfying the requirement. 

I urge adoption of the amendment, and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any more debate on the amendment? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Move to strike the last word. 

First of all, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from 

Alabama. I just wish, in addition to agreeing with me, he might 

vote with me occasionally. That would be appreciated. 

The gentlelady caused me to respond because she referred to 

South Bend, Indiana, the home of my sainted alma mater, Notre 

Dame, and the Catholic nuns there. 

Look, I hear this argument all the time, that there is no proof 

that fraud takes place that would require us to require IDs. As attorney general of the State of California, I established a task force 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
61 

to deal with the problems of voter fraud. The problem is, it is so 

difficult to prove after the fact. 

Some of the steps that have been taken in the past to try and 

alert people to the fact that they shouldn’t vote if they don’t have 

a right to vote have been abused such that they appear to be efforts to suppress voter turnout of people who otherwise would be 

eligible. 

Given the fact that you have those two problems, we need to do 

something to establish a means by which we can deter illegal conduct, because if someone votes who doesn’t have a right to vote, 

they are taking your vote away as surely as if they do not allow 

you to go to the polling place. 

Having gone through this for a number of years and having tried 

to see what we could do to get at the problem of voter fraud, I can 

just tell you, without additional means that allow us to somehow 

deter that illegal conduct and then to prosecute it, we will never 

get at that problem. And so while it is easy to say that there is 

no proof of fraud, it is, in fact, part of the problem that proof is 

so difficult. 

And yet, as the gentleman from Alabama has said, I think it 

stretches credulity to believe that there aren’t people out there who 

would take advantage of a system in an illegal way for their own 

benefit, when they know it is so difficult under current standards 

and current laws to prove when they have acted in that illegal 

fashion. 

So I just would relate that because I keep hearing this statement 

at this committee and in other places that there is no proof. We 

have had dogs and cats voting in California, or registered to vote; 

we have had dead people registered to vote. The problem is, it is 

so difficult to prove it after the fact. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes, I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is a considerable amount of fraud that takes place. It is not only hard to 

prove, it is hard to detect. 

But at the same time, it is very important to take whatever 

means we can to deal with the problem. I have always said, if any 

State requires a photo ID, or if we would ever require one federally, we should be certain to provide the funds for anyone who has 

difficulty proving their citizenship or proving their birth in this 

country or whatever, that that should be the responsibility of the 

government in establishing the photo ID, to help them in that and 

pay for it so that we don’t inadvertently exclude anyone. 

I was at the Lumberton, North Carolina, hearing, as was Mr. 

McCarthy; and it was very clear from the testimony that there was 

considerable fraud in that particular election. It does take place, 

and it won’t disappear just by naming it. But you do have to specifically identify it as it is occurring. 

What particularly bothered me in another contested case I was 

on is that the people voting illegally did not know they were voting 

illegally. These were undocumented aliens who had been told by 

certain groups that, Yes, it is fine; if you are living in this country, 

all you have to do is sign this card, you will be registered to vote 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
62 

and you can legally vote. It is a terrible risk to the individuals who 

voted because they could be deported immediately for doing that. 

So it is not so much the individual voters I worry about, it is the 

groups who manipulate voters and persuade them to do something 

improperly. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I move to strike the last word. 

I don’t want to unduly delay this, but I will just note that the 

Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberality, noted that there is 

virtually no evidence of fraud in voting in the United States. They 

noted further that the motivations for these voter ID laws were, in 

all likelihood, partisan. They declined to intervene in the Indiana 

case at that stage of the proceedings. 

I am disappointed by the decision, although I do understand it. 

I just can’t leave these statements out there unrefuted, because 

they are so preposterous. 

I would yield to my colleague, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. 

I guess the response is, you keep hearing there is no evidence of 

fraud, and I know you seized on that particular thing; but I know 

that there is evidence of disenfranchisement. We know that for certain. 

And I know there’s reports about nuns not being able to vote in 

the Indiana primary yesterday and so on. I know that in Texas 

there are certain difficulties regarding producing certain documentation. So we do know that occurs. 

So the question will always be—there is no doubt that there has 

to be instances of fraud in any human endeavor; the question really 

is, Do those benefits really outweigh the costs? And it’s not just potential costs. We know it’s out there. 

The other thing I will say, I think we do have to have a goodfaith debate on identifying how difficult it is to obtain the required 

documentation that the different ID laws require. We really are not 

certain about that percentage of the population that would find it 

very hard. 

I know—my mother never drove a car. And until she went to the 

retirement home—I guess, my father passed away 7 years ago, and 

that is when she went—she really did not have an ID. 

Now, she does not have a utility bill. She doesn’t pay utilities. 

I am not even sure if she has the phone bill in her name or whatever. If it wasn’t for my sister that took her down to the Department of Public Safety and got her a photo ID—she now has a photo 

ID. 

So it is possible, and I understand that; but there are many, 

many individuals, maybe not as fortunate as my mother, residing 

in the community that she does, and in having children that have 

the time and such to do what they did with mom. 

So it is out there. I think we can enter that debate at a future 

date. 

I will say this, though, for the lawyers that are here today. The 

Supreme Court decision is not the last time it is going to be looking 

at voter ID laws. We know that the very basis for that lawsuit and 

the way it went up, but I venture to guess, when you do have the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
63 

disenfranchised voter population in specific cases, you will go back 

up for review. I think it even hints at that. So I don’t think the 

debate is totally over. 

I don’t believe this is the time. I don’t think the amendment is 

the vehicle. And of course, I would intend on opposing the amendment. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment. All those in 

favor of Mr. McCarthy’s amendment No. 1 to H.R. 5803, signify by 

saying aye. 

Any opposed, signify by no. 

Mr. EHLERS. Recorded vote. 

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

A recorded voted is requested. Would the Clerk please call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes are 3, the 

noes are 5, and the amendment fails. 

Mr. McCarthy, amendment No. 2. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment is actually pretty simple. It simply states that 

it puts the jurisdictions on notice that this program has not been 

funded. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
64 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 43592A.046
65 

Mr. MCCARTHY. In essence what it says is, this amendment conditions the creation of this grant program when the funds are appropriate. So no one goes out and spends the effort if the funds are 

not there. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the amendment. The 

grant program is completely optional and therefore might not require the full $75 million that is authorized. 

We almost never, and we should not in this case, have a program 

that States and locals are interested in be contingent upon appropriations. Congress often appropriates less than the full amount 

that is authorized. If funding is made available, States and locals 

should be able to apply for reimbursement. 

I think that the amendment does nothing to assist. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Would you yield, Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I would be happy to apply the standards 

in No Child Left Behind, if you want to extend it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would be glad. I wasn’t here during No Child 

Left Behind. But knowing the study of what has gone on with 

HAVA and knowing where States are, I think this is a very good 

standard to have. 

And lots of times they see a bill out there, and these States think 

there is going to be money for it. I just believe in making sure we 

have the money there before someone puts up the work, because 

I hate to see people do work and not get the money. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment No. 2 to H.R. 

5803. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed, signify by saying no. 

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

Mr. EHLERS. Recorded vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is requested. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. The noes are 5, the ayes are 3; the amendment 

fails. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
66 

The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman for the purpose of 

offering a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 5803 favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

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

Mr. EHLERS. Recorded vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ask the Clerk for a recorded vote. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Aye. 

The CHAIRMAN. The ayes are 5, the nays are 3, and the motion 

is agreed to. 

Without objection, the motion is considered laid upon the table 

and the bill, reported to the House. Members will have two additional days provided by the House to file views if requested. Without objection, the staff are authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 5803. 

Mr. EHLERS. Minority views? 

The CHAIRMAN. Members will have two additional days provided 

by the House rules for minority views. 

Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make technical 

and conforming changes to H.R. 5803. 

The next bill on the agenda the committee will consider today is 

H.R. 5893, to reauthorize the sound recording and film preservation programs of the Library of Congress. 

This important bill, the Library of Congress Sound Recording 

and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008, 

would reauthorize through 2017 the Library of Congress Sound and 

Film Preservation Board. I introduced this bill after discussions 

with the Library of Congress and other interested parties regarding 

the need for reauthorization of these programs. 

The National Film Preservation Board was created in 1988 to address the rapid deterioration of important films. The Film Preservation Board is responsible for identifying and preserving films 

that are ‘‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.’’ Up to 

25 films per year are then preserved for future viewing. Along with 

the National Film Preservation Foundation, the Film Preservation 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
67 

Board ensures that all generations from all over the world will be 

able to view these remarkable films and feel their power firsthand. 

Building on the success of the Film Preservation Board, the National Recording Preservation Board, created by the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, is one piece of a three-tiered system that ensures the preservation of culturally significant sound 

recordings. There are currently 225 entries in the National Recording Registry, and that number will only continue to grow. From 

music to historical speeches, the Recording Preservation Board 

makes certain that future generations can experience these historically important and powerful sounds. 

It is necessary that we reauthorize the Recording and Film 

Boards to allow them to continue their vital mission and to see to 

it that all those who come after us will be able to listen and witness those sounds and sights that are essential to our national heritage. 

I would now like to recognize our ranking member for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I totally agree with the bill and I have a written statement here 

which, in the interest of time, I will enter into the record. 

Just let me say I am very pleased with the Library of Congress 

Sound Recording and Film Preservation Program. It certainly has 

to be reauthorized, and they are doing a great service to the Nation. 

Frankly, I am worried about the expense. I would love to have 

the movie industry contribute substantially to the preservation of 

the films that they have made a lot of money on. 

But that is a separate issue. I just wanted to get that comment 

on the record. 

With that, I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I now call up and lay before the committee the bill H.R. 5893. Without objection, the bill 

is considered as having been read and without objection the bill is 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
68 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 43592A.047
69 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 43592A.048
70 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 43592A.049
71 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 43592A.050
72 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 43592A.051
73 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 43592A.052
74 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 43592A.053
75 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 43592A.054
76 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a minor amendment to correct a drafting 

error to ensure that both programs are reauthorized for the same 

period of time. Without objection, the amendment is considered and 

read. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
77 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 000 43592A.073
78 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment. It brings 

everything into conformity. I urge the adoption of the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is adopted. 

Thank you. 

Is there any additional debate? Any additional amendments? 

If not, I move that the committee report H.R. 5893, as amended, 

favorably to the House. The question is on the motion. All those in 

favor, signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ 

Those opposed ‘‘no.’’ 

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

agreed to. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table and the 

bill will be reported to the House. Without objection, the staff are 

authorized to make such technical and conforming changes to H.R. 

5893 as may be required to reflect the actions of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. The last item on today’s agenda is H.R. 5972, the 

U.S. Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 

2008. This bill was introduced by me, with Ranking Member Mr. 

Ehlers and the chairman of the Capitol Security Subcommittee as 

original cosponsors. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
79 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 43592A.055
80 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 43592A.056
81 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 43592A.057
82 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 43592A.058
83 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 43592A.059
84 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 43592A.060
85 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 43592A.061
86 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 43592A.062
87 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 43592A.063
88 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 43592A.064
89 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 43592A.065
90 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 43592A.066
91 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 43592A.067
92 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 43592A.068
93 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 43592A.069
94 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 43592A.070
95 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 43592A.071
96 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 43592A.072
97 

The CHAIRMAN. As the title suggests, H.R. 5972 does not make 

substantive policy changes for the Capitol Police, but rather, the 

bill corrects drafting errors, modernizes outdated terminology, and 

repeals duplicated and inconsistent provisions already on the 

books. 

My favorite is the long-overdue repeal of an 1868 law requiring 

Capitol Police officers to pay for their own uniforms. Congress decided years ago to provide uniforms, but failed to repeal the 1868 

law. 

Chief Morse requested most of these corrections, and the committee staff found a few others. We have amended language to address key concerns of the ranking member, the gentleman from 

Michigan; and I understand the ranking member is interested in 

further legislation affecting the Police Board, and I would be happy 

to work with him, and in the future, on all matters before us. 

I am aware of no other controversy, and urge the committee to 

support the bill. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, it is a good bill and I appreciate your support of an effort 

to continue to look at the governance of the police, and particularly 

the board; and I look forward to working with you on that. 

Again, to save time, I will move that my complete statement be 

entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. EHLERS. I just have one other comment. I think the fact that 

we had to do this points out part of the problem we have had historically, that the appropriations subcommittee dealing with responsibilities of this committee has too often introduced laws and 

passed them without referring them through this committee, and 

that has resulted in a lot of the discrepancies that we are trying 

to straighten out in this bill. 

I think we would do much better if all the legislation governing 

it came through the authorizing committee and not through the appropriating committee. So I just wanted to say that on the record, 

too. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any further opening remarks on the measure? 

If not, the Chair now lays before the committee the bill H.R. 

5972 to make technical corrections to the laws affecting certain administrative authorities of the United States Capitol Police, and for 

other purposes, which is now before the members. 

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

to amendment at any point. Is there any debate? Are there any 

amendments? 

There are no amendments. I move that the Committee report 

H.R. 5972 favorably to the House. All those in favor, signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ‘‘ayes’’ have it, and the motion 

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

the table. 

Members will have the 2 additional days to provided under the 

rules of the House to file views. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
98 

Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as may be required to reflect the actions of the committee. 

There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING