[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2008 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration Available on the Internet: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2008 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration Available on the Internet: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 42-740 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINSTRATION ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director William Plaster, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Elections ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California SUSAN A. DAVIS, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3 p.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gonzalez, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, McCarthy, and Ehlers. Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Charles T. Howell, Chief Counsel; 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; Matthew DeFreitas, Staff Assistant; Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff; and Ashley Stow, Minority Election Counsel. Ms. Lofgren. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Election's oversight hearing on the Elections Assistance Commission. The purpose of the hearing will be to examine what the EAC has done to improve its policies and procedures since our first hearing last August and what the EAC has planned, leading up to the 2008 general elections. The EAC has been operational for 5 years. However, it is still having difficulties becoming a fully functioning agency. Although the EAC has made changes since our last oversight hearing, recent reports by the agency's Inspector General are cause for concern. As we will learn today, the IG found that the EAC lacks policies and procedures in all program areas, from document, governance and accountability, short- and long- term strategic plans and performance goals to a clearly defined organizational structure. Additional reports also cite improvements needed in the management of travel expenses. Today we will also have the opportunity to discuss the just-released IG investigative report on the preparation of the voter fraud and intimidation report. This report was the subject of much interest, both by the public and this committee. I appreciate the time and effort that went into the report that we received today and that the initial request for the investigation came from the EAC commissioners themselves. While the investigation does not reveal that any political motivation was behind the changes and delayed release of the report, it does disclose a poorly conceived and managed project. The investigation, coupled with the Inspector General's testimony, provides clear evidence of the Commission's lack of an effective organization and management structure. However, we are not here to simply discuss what is wrong with the EAC. We are to learn what corrective action the EAC has taken since our last hearing and the agency's plans for the future. The EAC has received recommendations for change from the IG and has taken some steps toward developing sound goals, objectives, plans, policies and procedures. And that should be acknowledged, and I do acknowledge it. Unfortunately, we must now discuss whether those changes are enough and what role the EAC is capable of playing, particularly in light of what could be a very highly charged 2008 presidential election. So I look forward to hearing from our witness today, the IG as well as the commissioners. I thank them for being here, and look forward to seeing how we can work together to have a better system. At this point, I would turn to our ranking member, Mr. McCarthy, for his opening statement. [The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just appreciate this hearing. One, I guess it is rather timely now, with the IG report coming out, finding no evidence to support allegations that the charges were made to the report due to improper reasons or political motivation. And I know this committee or Madam Chair had a number of lettered concerns, so I want to make sure we give enough time to answer all the questions that we need to go forward and see where corrections need to be made but also see where allegations were not true, at the same time, to be known for the public as well. We have a lot of different questions to move forward, but I thank the Madam Chair for holding the hearing. Ms. Lofgren. I thank you, Mr. McCarthy. And we would now turn to Mr. Crider for your testimony. As you know, your full statement is made part of our official record. We would ask that your testimony consume about 5 minutes so that the members can have time to pose questions to you. And, at this time, we would welcome your testimony. STATEMENT OF MR. CURTIS CRIDER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Mr. Crider. Thank you, ma'am. Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the activities of the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. In its year and one-half of existence, the I.G. Office, which currently consists of me and a contractor, has concentrated on two areas: use of Help America Vote Act funds by States and the internal administrative operations of the Commission. In addition, the Office of Inspector General has completed two investigations. Investigations were performed for the EAC by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of the Interior. And I would like to publicly thank the Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, in particular Mr. Earl Devaney, the Inspector General, for his help and support in the last year and a half, in terms of helping my office get established and get it up and running. His support has been invaluable. The focus of my testimony is on the internal operations of the Commission. Pertinent audits covered Commission travel and Commission program and financial controls. The relevant investigation dealt with voter fraud report. The audit of travel: The objective of the audit was to determine whether travel was performed in accordance with Federal travel regulations, travel cards were properly controlled and used for only official purposes, and travelers paid their bills in a timely fashion. The audit found that the Commission did not follow Federal travel regulations in performance of travel. The audit identified errors in 91 percent of the travel packages--that is, authorizations and vouchers--examined. While the majority of the errors were minor, such as claiming taxes as a part of the lodging rate, some were more significant, such as traveling to a location that was not authorized or claiming a lodging rate that exceeded the authorized rate. Overall, the mistakes demonstrated a need for independent controls and clear instruction on the preparation and approval of travel authorizations and vouchers, and for reviews of the accuracy of the travel charges. We also noted the need for procedures to ensure that international travel is essential to the EAC mission and employees receive compensatory time when traveling on their own time. Finally, we concluded that travel cards were adequately controlled and used for official purposes and that travelers generally paid their travel bills on time. We made four recommendations in July of 2007 to the Executive Director. One was to implement written procedures for conducting temporary duty travel; two, implement written procedures approval of international travel; modify the procedures for approval of travel funded by non-Federal sources; and implement written procedures for authorizing tracking of compensatory time. To date, none of the recommendations have been implemented. However, the Director of the Finance and Administration of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has instituted an audit program of travel vouchers, where she reviews the travel vouchers and the authorizations to make sure that the travel charges are in accordance with the travel authorization and the claims are allowed by the Federal travel regulations. But there still is a lack of written policies and procedures. In addition, the EAC has provided travel training to its employees so that employees now know how to prepare travel vouchers. And I think those things have helped. But there still is a very strong need for written policies and procedures. The second review we did was assessment of the Commission's program and financial operations. The purpose of the review was to identify the programs and administrative activities performed by the Election Assistance Commission and to assess for those programs the vulnerability of fraud, waste and abuse and areas of mismanagement. This assessment identified a need to immediately address longstanding and overarching weaknesses related to Commission operations. Specifically, the assessment disclosed that the Commission lacked: short- and long-range strategic plans, performance goals and measurements to guide the organization and its staff; an organizational structure that clearly defines the areas of responsibility and an effective hierarchy for reporting, especially between the Commissioners and the Executive Director--the staff needs to know who is in charge, and that is still a recurring problem at the EAC; appropriate and effective internal controls need to be established based on risk assessments; and policies and procedures in all program areas to document governance and accountability structure and practices in place. The report made 29 recommendations to improve the EAC operations. In response, the Executive Director has developed an action plan with milestones to address the issues identified in the report. The OIG plans to meet with the Executive Director on a monthly basis to assess where they are at, in terms of the corrective action, and try to make sure that the milestones are, in fact, met. In terms of investigations, yesterday and today we issued the investigative report on the voter fraud report. In September 2005, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission hired two consultants to conduct a study on voter fraud and voter intimidation. In August of 2006, the consultants completed their work and provided it to the EAC for review. The EAC officials edited the report and publicly released a final version in December of 2006. Subsequent to the release, it was learned that the EAC final report differed from the consultants' report, causing speculation that the report had been changed due to political motivation and other improper reasons. The consultants' report read, ``There is a widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.'' The final version of the report, after editing by EAC officials, concluded in its executive summary that, ``There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.'' When the difference was disclosed by the New York Times, the allegation was made that the Commission changed the report due to political reasons. We conducted the investigation at the request of Commission Chair Donetta Davidson, who asked for a review of the circumstances surrounding the voter fraud and voter intimidation research project. The investigation centered on four general areas: The hiring of the consultants, the consultant staff report, the changes to the draft report, and potential external influences on the report. Overall, the investigation found no evidence to support the allegation that changes to the report were made for improper reasons or for political reasons. Investigators did, however, disclose a poorly conceived and managed project. The investigation found there was confusion regarding the intended scope of the project, the intended use of the consultants' draft report. In addition, the investigators found the EAC officials reviewing the consultants' report believed that the report was poorly written and contained unsupported conclusions and, therefore, required substantial editing. This, coupled with the delays in the EAC beginning the editing process, caused the final report to be released 4 months after receiving the consultants' draft. The investigators also made the observation that the voting fraud project and issues related to voter fraud were a highly charged political issue, and that the decision to edit the report without including the consultants for input, along with their data produced in the final report, undoubtedly fueled speculations raised by the opponents of the final report. In conclusion, the Commission lacks an effective management organizational structure. What it has been able to accomplish, in my opinion, is due to the drive of individuals and not the organization. The Commission needs to make substantial improvements in its operations. The basic components for a good, sound organization--goals, objectives, plans, policies and procedures--still do not exist, despite 3 years of operation. Furthermore, it is imperative that the Commissioners define their roles and responsibilities and those of the Executive Director to ensure that management decisions are made in a consistent, timely and nonpartisan fashion. This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Crider and the IG report follow:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Crider. I would note that ordinarily we have a little red light that goes on when your time is up, and it is not functioning today. But you were very terse, and we appreciate that. We will now go to our 5 minutes of questions. I think I will, when we get close to our 5 minutes, I will do my gavel so members can know that they need to wrap up. And we will start first with my colleague from California, a member of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Susan Davis, for 5 minutes. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Crider, for being here. I appreciate the fact that you raise the issue in the difference between the two versions. I am just wondering the extent to which did you feel that this was a pretty big edit or a not-so-big edit? And is there a way that the EAC might have been able to deal with this in a way that is a little more up- front? Mr. Crider. That is a politically charged question, in terms of the various versions, because--depending upon the reader and how they want to interpret the writing. Could the EAC have done better? Yes, they could have. Could they have involved the consultants in the revisions to the report? One of the issues that became involved here was that the consultants' contract had, in fact, expired and that, when they delivered the product, the EAC took it and then started working with it. But, yes, we could have involved the consultants with the revisions to the report. But I think it goes back further, in terms of how the project was initially structured and how it was managed; that, even from the very beginning, I think there was confusion as to what was going to be delivered, how it was going to be delivered and what was going to be done with the product. And when you go back through the whole history of the project--and I think that led up to this particular scenario-- is that, when we got the product, we did not go back, as you would with any other contractor, and try to work with the contractor to get revisions to the product. The project was done under a personal services contract, which means that they were basically employees of the agency during this period of time, and their work then became the product of the agency--or the agency-only work product. So I think a number of things contributed to this, but, yes, they could have done better. They could have worked with the consultants, in terms of making the revisions and trying to make sure they understood why the revisions needed to be made. And I think that is where one of the biggest failings was, is that we didn't go back and say, ``Okay, this is why we need to make those changes.'' Mrs. Davis of California. Clearly, I mean, the EAC is in a difficult position. But I am just wondering, what kind of pressure do you see that they actually do come under to deal with that pressure? Mr. Crider. I think I should let the Commissioners answer that question, because they are the ones that have to deal with that. I don't have to deal with it. So I think they would be the ones in the best position to answer that question. Mrs. Davis of California. What do you think Congress could do or should be doing to be more involved in this process? Is there anything that you see that is appropriate? Mr. Crider. I think the hearing today and things of this nature, where there is oversight, vigilance in terms of what the EAC is doing, and making sure that the EAC has sufficient resources to do the job that it needs to do, would all contribute toward a successful mission. Mrs. Davis of California. And when you take a look at other agencies like the EAC, how does it compare? Mr. Crider. We are extremely small in relationship to other Federal agencies. During the period of this study, the EAC was also under a personnel ceiling cap, is my understanding, where they could not hire people. So they had people trying to perform multiple jobs and multiple functions at the same time. That cap has now been removed, and the EAC is trying to hire people so that people can start performing the functions that they were hired to do, versus trying to do multiple jobs at the same time. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. I appreciate it. Madam Chair. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. I just realized that I invited you to give your testimony without properly introducing you to our audience. So if I may just divert for a moment, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Crider, as we know, is the IG for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and has been since August of 2006. He has 32 years of auditing experience in the Federal Government and is a 1975 graduate of Clemson University. He is also a certified public accountant and a certified internal auditor. And we are pleased to have him here today. And, with that, I would yield to the ranking member, Mr. McCarthy, for his 5 minutes of questions. Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just got your IG report last night. I guess it is dated March 10th. Looks rather thorough, 17 pages. I read through most of it. How many hours did you put into this audit? Mr. Crider. We contracted with the Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General to conduct the investigation. So I don't know how many hours they put into it. If you would like that information, we can get it. Mr. McCarthy. Okay. If you can follow up, that would be very helpful. But I was wondering, after investigating all the circumstances surrounding the vote fraud and the voter intimidation research project, did you find any evidence of partisanship on the part of the EAC? Mr. Crider. No, we did not. Mr. McCarthy. Having gone through all of that, as well, did you find any evidence that Hans von Spakovsky influenced the content of the report? Mr. Crider. He sent some e-mails to the Chair of the EAC at that particular point in time, and the Chair responded very strongly that he would not be a party to any deal-making, he would not be a party to any type of pressure or anything of that nature. So I think the EAC responded appropriately. Mr. von Spakovsky does not believe that he tried to unduly influence the project. But, like I said, I think the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission responded appropriately. Mr. McCarthy. Do you feel it is proper that people are able to e-mail and give input to the EAC? Mr. Crider. You have to have public input; you can't operate in a vacuum. There is a very strong constituency out there. This is a very important arena that we work in. And saying people can't e-mail or talk to people would not be appropriate, because I think you would have to have a wide base of people that you get ideas from and thoughts from and even criticism. So I think you do need that. Mr. McCarthy. Okay. I agree with you. I believe we should be very open. I believe e-mails give you greater accountability and give you greater input and give you continual education upon the subject. You had mentioned a little earlier about the staffing size and the multiple jobs. Do you find that was one of the major problems when it comes to some of the points you lay out about their need for greater bookkeeping? Mr. Crider. I think people were stretched very, very thin, and they were trying to do multiple things at the same time. And, in some cases, I think people may have been doing functions that they maybe should not have been. And that is just where you need to have enough people in order to segregate duties, to make sure that people do stay within their areas of expertise and can then perform the functions they were hired to do. Mr. McCarthy. How many more people do you feel the EAC needs to hire to be able to---- Mr. Crider. Right now I think they have hired seven people, to date, in the last 6 months. And I think the--one of the things that the EAC needs to do is to take a look at--which we recommended as part of our assessment report--is take a look at the skill sets that they currently have and what skill sets they need to acquire, as well as develop strategic plans, operating goals and procedures. Right now, they are sort of like a ship without a rudder. And they need to focus in on what the mission of the organization is and determine what level of resources they do need. So I cannot give you an answer--10 people, five people. I think the Commission needs to focus in on that and decide what its mission is and how they are going to go about doing it. Mr. McCarthy. Do you think a year is enough time to--some of the corrections you asked for in here--is enough time to achieve all of that by the EAC? Mr. Crider. I would like to think that some of them could be done a lot sooner than that. And that is one of the reasons why we requested the action plan as a part of our assessment report, so that we can monitor and track. Some of the things are going to take an extensive period of time. This is not going to happen overnight. But I would think a year should be more than sufficient time for them to get the stuff done that we think they need to do. Mr. McCarthy. Okay. Well, I thank you for your time. And I yield back, Madam Chair. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I would recognize Mr. Artur Davis, member of the committee, at this point. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me, Mr. Crider, turn to, I guess, the part of the report that is probably of most interest to people who aren't knowledgeable about all the weeds--that is, the portions related to Mr. von Spakovsky. As I understand it, he has been nominated for a position on the FEC, and there has been a significant amount of controversy around his nomination. Is that right? Mr. Crider. Yes, that is my understanding. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Did you--and I apologize, I did not have more time to read your report--but did you interview him in connection with preparing your IG report? Mr. Crider. Yes, he was interviewed. Mr. Davis of Alabama. And did you question him about this August 29, 2005 e-mail that refers to, quote, ``a political compromise agreement''? Mr. Crider. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis of Alabama. And did he--just give me some sense of what his response was to this notion of a political compromise agreement between DOJ and EAC. Mr. Crider. I am sorry, sir? Mr. Davis of Alabama. Could you give me some sense of what his reaction was to that language, ``political compromise agreement''? Did he share that characterization? Did he dispute it? What was his reaction? Mr. Crider. Mr. Davis, I don't have the report right here in front of me. And I would prefer to provide you that information for the record, if you don't mind. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, do you remember that? I mean, it seems like a fairly meaningful conversation. Mr. Crider. The Department of the Interior conducted the investigation for us, okay? Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. Mr. Crider. And we have copies of the interviews, and we have read the interviews, but it was over a period of time, and I don't want to misquote. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, let me try to perhaps pick up where Mr. McCarthy left off. The question that might be of some interest to our colleagues in the Senate is, what is the appropriate level of engagement, if you will, between someone like Mr. von Spakovsky and the process that was going on at the EAC? Where do you draw that line, in the perspective of the Inspector General? Mr. Crider. The Department of Justice is on several advisory boards by law, and so they do have input into a number of functions that the EAC performs by law. And, therefore, you know, that is what Mr. von Spakovsky was involved with. And, like I said, that is by law. Mr. Davis of Alabama. What about this notion of a, quote, ``political compromise agreement.'' I don't have in front of me the authorizing statute for the EAC, but I suspect, if I looked at it, there would not be any reference to the EAC having the capacity to reach political agreements with the Department of Justice regarding its mission scope. Does that phrase, ``political compromise agreement,'' trouble you? Mr. Crider. Yes, it does. I think that the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission did respond appropriately and strongly that he did not make deals. I think that type of language would be very troublesome. Mr. Davis of Alabama. What does it say to you that Mr. von Spakovsky apparently thought it appropriate to make a deal? Mr. Crider. That there needs to be some clarification as to what roles people play, in terms of the advisory boards, and what input they need to have. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Have you provided a copy of your report to the United States Senate, which apparently is considering his nomination to be on the FEC? Mr. Crider. They have received the redacted version. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. Can you explain to me why a redaction was necessary? Mr. Crider. The interviews were not provided as a part of the report, because there is information in there that is covered by the Privacy Act. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Is there anything that you came across in your report that you think might be relevant to Mr. von Spakovsky's fitness to serve on the FEC? Mr. Crider. Not to my knowledge, no, sir. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Would you consider his veracity, or lack of veracity, to be relevant to his fitness to serve? Mr. Crider. That is not for me to decide. That is something that the Senate should decide when they take him up for confirmation. But we have his interview. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Do you remember if there were any credibility disputes or any differences of factual assertions between Mr. von Spakovsky and other individuals that were interviewed? Mr. Crider. No. I am not aware of any. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. Meaning that there weren't any or you just don't remember if there were any? Mr. Crider. I am not aware of any. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. Well, I don't want to take a lot of time, because we are trying to move on to our second panel, but I think you get the thrust of the concerns that I am raising. I think, as Mr. McCarthy pointed out, there is a line, and then there is conduct that falls on the permissible side of the line. What I hear you saying is that Mr. von Spakovsky may well have crossed that line, if these statements are accurate. And I am just struck again and troubled again by this notion of a political compromise agreement. If the EAC is going to render dispassionate opinions about how the election process is working, I don't know if they can do that by reaching political compromises. It would seem that that is the task of this institution. And if I understand the boundaries correctly, the EAC's role is to make recommendations, to objectively assemble facts. Then it is up to us to make the political assessment and up to us to forge a political compromise. Have I got that about right, Madam Chairwoman? Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. Well, I will take that as meaning I got it right. I yield. Ms. Lofgren. That little marimba is on my iPhone. I am using the timer here. I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, for 5 minutes. Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here, Mr. Crider. I have just been reading the summary of what you found. Is it typical, when you do enter into a situation like this, that you find this many shortcomings in management and accounting? Mr. Crider. It is unusual to find this many. But you have to remember the EAC is a relatively new organization, and it is time for them to grow up and become a Federal agency like it is supposed to be. We can no longer use the excuse, ``We are new.'' Yes, we were concerned about the number of deficiencies we identified. And that is one of the reasons why we are going to be meeting with the Executive Director on a monthly basis, to try to monitor what is going on, because it is unusual. Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I find it appalling, because members of the EAC, by and large, have worked in government before. They know the stringent requirements of government accounting and management and so forth. And even though it is new, I thought there would be a structure set up that would handle these sorts of things and do it properly. Mr. Crider. A significant amount, especially when the EAC was first formed--and this is not a criticism of the individuals--their experience was more at the State level and not at the Federal level. And this is a Federal organization, and we have specific rules and things that we need to follow. And I think that is where some of the issues started to develop, is that they did not really understand how a Federal agency was supposed to operate and what all was involved. Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I served at the State level too, and I know the Federal requirements are very strict, but, in my case, I found the State requirements almost stricter, because it is a smaller body, reporters are more readily able to understand it, dig into it, and write nasty stories. Maybe that is not true in every State, however. So thank you. I just appreciate your comments. And that is all I have. I yield back. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, is recognized. Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Crider, let me ask you--and I am only going to spend a couple of seconds on this, because it is of particular concern to us--were the actions taken by Mr. von Spakovsky appropriate or inappropriate? Mr. Crider. That is a judgment call, sir. And I am not necessarily--obviously, Mr. von Spakovsky feels that he was within his rights as a member of the advisory board. The Chair of the EAC pushed back. I don't know if I can make that type of a judgment call. Mr. Gonzalez. Because his complaint was both to form and to substance, is my understanding. He complained to the EAC as far as the hiring of the consultant Wang and said, ``I don't believe that what we have representing the Republican side''-- because, obviously, he saw that there was a Republican or Democratic side--was not sufficient to withstand the aggressive or assertive nature of Wang. So that's the form part: ``I don't like how you are constituting your consultants.'' And then, secondly, there was discussion about the substance, and that is, ``We had a deal. We were going to conform what we had here at DOJ to fit more what you might be doing. But there was, more or less, a deal or a compromise.'' It would seem to me, if I was on the Election Assistance Commission, that that is an overreach, that it would be inappropriate, at least from--obviously, I can ask members, the Commissioners and such, but I am just thinking you, in your capacity--have you seen that occur in any other setting? Mr. Crider. The advisory boards operate differently than maybe what I have seen in other places. And I think that is one of the things that the EAC will have to look at, in terms of what role do the advisory boards play and what influence should they have, if any, and how should that input then be used and generated and recorded so there is transparency. But the advisory boards--like you said, Mr. von Spakovsky was on the advisory board, and he did have knowledge of the project. And I think his input was actually sought, in a couple of cases, as all the members of the advisory board were. Mr. Gonzalez. And I think basically what I am looking at is really the partisan nature of the inquiry, recommendation and interests, as expressed by him. Let me move to something else here. In a minute, we will have the individual members, and they can probably answer. But, you know, following up on what the ranking member was pointing out, as to whether this is an inordinate amount of deficiencies, if that is how we will refer to them, or areas of concern, but it seems to me that what you have is you have problems with process. Mandated studies and reports have not been submitted on due dates. You have problems with accounting, as far as the management of travel expenses, which may not be anything that is serious or that something untoward is happening--or delay in release of reports and such. But it seems to be that, just about at every level, there is room for improvement. But first I need to acknowledge something, and that is that the Commission really didn't get a healthy headstart as a result of Congress's inaction at its very inception. I remember those days, when they didn't have a place to meet, they didn't have staff and so on. So it is not all their fault that they were a little behind, and I acknowledge that. Where do they go for that guidance to improve in all of these areas that, obviously, you find, not necessarily alarming, but, again, of concern. Because you have said it is a good thing to have oversight, but there is only so much that we are going to be able to do. What we do is look at reports and such and we say, ``Look, you need to improve here, you need to improve there,'' and then we just kind of let them go at it. But this is a unique, unique commission, with a very specific mission that is different and has never existed before, to be quite honest with you. So where do they go for their guidance? Where would you suggest, in these areas where, obviously, they need to improve? Mr. Crider. A lot of the things we are talking about here are routine operating policies and procedures and things that every Federal agency has. Every Federal agency has a travel policy. Every Federal agency has a property management policy. Every agency has a contracting policy. So you go to other Federal agencies and get the stuff that they have, and then you tailor it to fit your circumstances. There are contractors out there that specialize in A-123 work, in terms of establishing documenting and internal controls. So there are plenty of resources out there. We have gone to GAO for some guidance; Office of Management and Budget. So there are places out there that we can go and that we do need to utilize as an agency. Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Crider. I yield back. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. I will now recognize myself for just a few minutes. On the report, what role has the general counsel for the agency played in drafting, editing and revising the investigative report of the vote fraud and intimidation and the study of the impact on voter identification? Mr. Crider. None. Ms. Lofgren. None. Mr. Crider. They didn't even see it. Ms. Lofgren. So this was just completely separate. Mr. Crider. Completely independent and separate from the EAC. Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Now, I am concerned that--I mean, there is the report itself, that the EAC, I want to emphasize, asked for. But there is the broader question of organization and efficacy of the agency. It sounds like we almost need, you know, ``agency in a box'' that you could put in place. I don't know if that is available in the Federal Government. I am just wondering if you are satisfied with the action plan that the Executive Director prepared in response to your February audit? Mr. Crider. We are pleased with the action plan. And we will be monitoring it, as we go through it. And if additional things come out of the implementation phase that need to be added to the action plan, we will work the Executive Director to add those to the action plan. Because there is no such thing as a complete cookbook for the Federal Government. You would think, with the number of new entities being established, that there would be some type of a manual or book to say, ``Okay, this is what I need to do,'' but there is not. At least we haven't found it yet. But, no, we are pleased with the action plan. And, like I say, we will be monitoring that and adding things as we go through it, if we need to, to try to get to the place where the EAC needs to be. Ms. Lofgren. Now, I understand that the GAO is at least considering a review of the agency similar to what they performed at one time for the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Crider. We have talked to the GAO, and they do not have any plans to come in and do it at this point. But we have talked to them about doing a similar-type review. But they have not indicated their willingness to do it, at this point. Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Let me just ask a final question, which is the--maybe it is not possible to answer. But, in your view, does the EAC rely too much on outside individuals and nongovernmental groups to determine its focus, or not? I mean, there is no, really, agency that is like them. But is that part of what has led to the disorganization, do you think? Mr. Crider. I think that is a contributing factor, but I can't give you any evidence to support that other than my own observations. But I do think that the role that the advisory committees and panels play needs to be very clear and understood by everyone, and transparent so that everybody understands what is happening with those advisory panels. Ms. Lofgren. So, in your judgment, if we have these advisory panels, there is value, obviously, in getting input, but there ought to be structure and accountability and minutes. And it shouldn't be sending stray e-mails perhaps. But there ought to be action on the part of the advisory group itself or some structure that is transparent for individuals to provide input. Mr. Crider. In my opinion, yes. Ms. Lofgren. Okay. I am not going to use the remainder of my time. I will thank you, Mr. Crider, for being here and for your service to the Government and to the country. And we may have additional questions for you. Members have up to 5 legislative days to submit additional questions. And we would ask you to respond promptly, if we are able to forward those to you. We will ask our next panel to come forward. Mr. Crider. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Lofgren. And while they are coming forward, I would ask, without objection, to enter into the record two letters, one from verifiedvotingfoundation.org and the other from Voters Unite, on the subject matter of this hearing for the record. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Our timer is not working, so I have my trusty--maybe it will be fixed by the time we are through--but I have my trusty iPhone here, and it will go off when the 5 minutes are up. You all know our procedure. Your full written statements will be part of the record. We ask that your oral testimony consume about 5 minutes, so the members can get to questions. We know each of you, but I would like to introduce you formally, so that the audience on the webcast and here can know who you are. First, I would like to introduce Commissioner Rosemary Rodriguez. Commissioner Rodriguez currently serves as Chair of the Election Assistance Commission. She was appointed in 2007 and served as Vice Chair of the Commission during her first term. Prior to her work with the EAC, Ms. Rodriguez was president of the Denver City Council, director of boards and commissions for the mayor's office, and a clerk and recorder for the city, as well as the County of Denver, for 5 years. We also have Commissioner Caroline Hunter, who currently serves as Vice Chair of the EAC. She has served on the Commission since 2007. And prior to her work with the EAC, Ms. Hunter was deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison; executive officer at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman; and deputy counsel at the Republican National Committee, where she provided guidance on election law and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act. Next, we have Commissioner Gracia Hillman. Commissioner Hillman has served on the Election Assistance Commission since 2003, where she was first Vice Chair in 2004 and then Chair in 2005. Prior to her appointment with the EAC, Ms. Hillman served as president and chief executive officer of World Space Foundation, as well as a senior coordinator for international women's issues at the U.S. State Department. Ms. Hillman also was a former executive director at the League of Women Voters of the United States, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and the National Coalition on Black Voter Participation. And, finally, we have Commissioner Donetta Davidson. Commissioner Davidson has served on the Election Assistance Commission since 2005, where she served as chair in 2007. Prior to her work with the EAC, Ms. Davidson served as the Arapahoe County clerk and then Colorado Secretary of State, where she was president of the National Association of Secretaries of State and president of the National Association of State Elections Directors. Ms. Davidson also served on the Federal Election Commission Advisory Panel and board of directors of the Help America Vote Foundation. And we do welcome all of you here today and look forward to your testimony and our opportunity to have a dialogue. And, let's see, what is the order? Since I introduced Ms. Rodriguez first, let's hear from you, and we will go on in order. STATEMENTS OF HON. ROSEMARY RODRIGUEZ, CHAIRWOMAN, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; HON. CAROLINE HUNTER, VICE CHAIR, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; HON. GRACIA HILLMAN, COMMISSIONER, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; HON. DONETTA DAVIDSON, COMMISSIONER, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY RODRIGUEZ Ms. Rodriguez. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Ranking Member McCarthy and subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting us to come back today. We are very pleased the Inspector General's report is available today, because we know that many, many people in Congress and at the EAC and in the general public have been waiting for this report for, it seems like, a very long time. We are very grateful that it is out. Since our last hearing in your committee, our Inspector General assessed the EAC, and while I cannot say today that the agency is completely reorganized, or even organized, we are taking strenuous steps to improve operations. I appreciate the Chair recognizing our efforts in her opening statement. We are going to provide the Inspector General with monthly updates on our progress, and I would volunteer to provide those to this committee as well. Ms. Lofgren. We would appreciate that. Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, thank you. We are drafting regulations to govern FOIA, public meetings, grants, trade secrets and confidential business information, how to request testimony or information from EAC in third-party litigation, Privacy Act procedures, standards of conduct, and EAC's policy of nondiscrimination. We expect to publish those in April. We are drafting travel policies and procedures. We established an electronic FOIA reading room. We are in the process of hiring a chief operating officer to help with our management shortcomings--admitted management shortcomings. After our employee cap was removed, we hired additional staff in critical program areas, like the Voting System Certification Division. All senior staff received cross- management training. We are going to implement the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget's management controls. We are creating an EAC manual to document our governance and accountability structure. And, on Friday, we are going to spend an entire day in planning to improve our operations. I assure you, however, that all of these efforts to achieve internal improvements will not interfere with our assistance for election officials. Our priority message this year to election official is to prepare for a huge turnout: Have enough ballots, voting machines and poll workers; adopt a contingency plan. The Secretary of State for the State of Arizona is here today, Jan Brewer, and she assured us right before we came up here that Arizona is ready. The EAC has delivered tools and information, and other testimony will go into that in more depth. I am going to keep this very brief and name three questions that I think we need to be prepared for and that I think you will be interested in. HAVA says that voting systems purchased with funds appropriated after 2007 must be fully accessible. What systems are considered accessible to individuals with disabilities? What is the role of the EAC clearinghouse? And Congress provided us with $115 million in new funds-- thank you--but can States use that money to replace touch- screen equipment? As Chair of the EAC, I assure you that the EAC will focus on its responsibilities under HAVA. We will fully inform the Congress and the public about our activities. Someone pointed out that we are a fairly young organization, but that it is really, Congressman Ehlers, no excuse for not being appropriately managed. And we intend to correct that. Thank you very much. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Let me turn now to Commissioner Hunter, and invite you to give your testimony. STATEMENT OF CAROLINE HUNTER Ms. Hunter. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for asking us to be with you today. One of the EAC's most important mandates under the Help America Vote Act is the adoption of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. The guidelines provide a set of specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they provide all the basic functionality, accessibility and security capabilities required of voting systems. HAVA transferred this responsibility from the FEC to the EAC. The EAC adopted its first version of the VVSG in 2005. And we are now in the midst of adopting the newest version of the VVSG, and we are calling that the next iteration. HAVA clearly defines the process for adopting these guidelines. The technical guidelines, development committee and NIST provide us with an initial draft. We then adopt a final version. We are doing that currently, under a public comment review. We have a public comment period that will expire on May 5th of this year. We are holding a variety of different roundtables with different advocacy groups, election officials, voting machine manufacturers and others. And we hope to get as many constructive comments from the public as possible, in making the very serious and difficult decision on which version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to adopt. The newest version will likely be a complete rewrite of the 2005 guidelines intended to address the next generation of voting systems. They contain new and expanded material in the areas of reliability and quality, usability and accessibility, security and testing. According to HAVA, as you know, adoption of the guidelines at the State level is voluntary. However, States may formally adopt the WVSG, making these guidelines mandatory in their jurisdictions. We often get asked what value voluntary guidelines provide. The answer is simple: They provide a base level of conformity testing that election officials can rely on, if they choose to do so. States have the flexibility to apply the parts of the guideline that make sense in their jurisdictions or not to use them at all. The EAC is also operating the Federal Government's first voting system certification program. And let me address two issues that come up frequently. One issue is the vendors paying labs directly. The EAC is not authorized to pay the labs. Any funds we collect must be turned over to the Treasury. To allow EAC to do this would require action on the part of Congress. And, as we have stated in the past, if Congress wishes to take this action, we stand ready to assist. The second issue I would like to mention today is that the Help America Vote Act did not give the EAC authority over voting systems that we have not evaluated. Right now we have approximately six systems within our certification program, but, as of this date, the EAC has not certified any voting system. So there are no EAC-certified voting systems in use today, and there likely won't be in the 2008 election. Therefore, we don't have any authority over the machines that are not certified by us and that are probably going to be used in this election. Thank you very much. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Commissioner Hillman. STATEMENT OF GRACIA HILLMAN Ms. Hillman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy and members of the committee. On several occasions in 2007, this committee raised questions about EAC's decision-making process as it pertains to our research and studies. We previously reported that, in May 2006, EAC began managing its large research contracts through GovWorks, which is a business unit of the Department of the Interior. This relationship provides us with Federal contracting expertise that we need. Additionally, EAC selects from GSA's schedule of pre- competed vendors for our smaller contracts. And every contract is managed by an EAC staff person who has been trained in the management of Federal contracts. With respect to transparency, Madam Chair, EAC has taken three important steps since mid-2007. Our contractors and consultants continue their work until the final product is accepted by the Commission. We also receive periodic updates from staff and consultants at our public meetings. And draft research products are posted on our Web site. Additionally, we continue to work with our advisory boards to review their participation in our research, especially on the front end. But, Madam Chair, those and other steps haven't made a dent in our ability to navigate the complexity of being a Federal Government agency. I know that this committee recognizes the many structural challenges we face, as do Senate Rules and our appropriations committees. And I recognize that EAC must match its commitment to change with tangible action. Our work is significant and has national impact. We must expedite our efforts to improve the operations of our relatively young, now-adolescent agency. Yet, despite these challenges, EAC has directed its resources to assist State and local election officials. Within the last year, we have produced best-practice guides to help improve the administration of Federal elections. I will briefly describe two programs which provide this assistance and address specific interests of this committee. We frequently hear about election day problems caused by human error. Well, who are these humans who make these errors? Madam Chair, they are hard-working, honest people who volunteer to provide poll-worker service in their communities. These workers are America's champions of democracy. They deserve the best training available so they can perform with excellence and accuracy. So, obviously, one urgent need is adequate numbers of highly trained poll workers. EAC has helped to tackle this challenge. You have before you EAC documents that provide effective and affordable practices for the recruitment, training and retention of poll workers. They are guides that look like this, and one in the notebook. And we ask that the material be submitted for the record. Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, it will be accepted into the record. Ms. Hillman. Thank you. [The information follows beginning on page 124.] Ms. Hillman. Equally challenging for election officials is the effective design of voting materials. Ballot design flaws made front-page news in 2000, in 2006, and again this year during the California presidential primary. To help with this challenge, EAC produced and distributed sample materials and best practices for effective designs. Ms. Hillman. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I call your attention to the easels in this room. They hold displays of sample ballot designs for optical scan and direct recording electronic voting systems. These and other materials were produced by EAC after a year of study and field testing. Through these materials, EAC has provided professional expertise at no cost to election officials. We have also saved them time and money by providing the materials in camera ready images and in different languages. Additionally, EAC will hold a ballot design workshop in April, and we are providing information to the History Channel on this and other topics as it produces a series on elections. Madam Chair, I will close by saying that I have worked for over 30 years to ensure fair and equal access to the franchise. EAC can and must perform a critical role in ensuring access and accuracy despite its limitations under the Help America Vote Act. Having said that, I also know that Congress and the American voters must have confidence in EAC's ability to efficiently and openly serve the public good. EAC's success depends on the continued production of high quality and unbiased information. It depends on transparency and efficiency and it depends on your continued support. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. We would turn now to Commissioner Davidson. STATEMENT OF HON. DONETTA DAVIDSON Ms. Davidson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy and Committee. Let me start by saying I am glad the IG report is out and done. It confirms what we felt we all knew. There was no partisan influence. That is why I requested the report and that I had unanimous consent with my commissioners. In the review, you will see that I reached across the aisle and discussed my concerns about voter ID report with another commissioner. Our conversation was shared with third parties for the purpose I don't know. And the information passed along was incorrect. I was concerned about voter ID report. For example, I felt that the statistics were not accurate. I will continue to urge to be transparent in our process across the board. And I will fully support and continue working with all of the commissioners because 2008 is going to be a very busy year. As the Chair said, due this year to anticipated increase in turnout contingency plans are very important. Increased turnout is a great problem to have. But it means having enough ballots, having enough poll workers and having enough equipment to support the turnout is what we have to have because the record numbers will be there. Secure, accurate and accessible elections are a complex process comprised of many moving parts and many people. Some of those people are involved only once a year. We hear a lot about whether voting systems can be trusted. In fact, any voting system, whether it's a ballot box, whether it is an optical scan system, a touch screen, can be compromised if you have two things, knowledge of that system and access to that system. I've been an election official my entire career, and one thing never changes, whether voters use paper ballots or a touch screen details matter. It is very important that we make sure that our voting equipment is working properly as it is to have procedures and well-trained people to control access and maintain the equipment properly. That is why the EAC has produced what we like to call quick starts, as I hold up for your attention. And they have been delivered. I'm sure that you have them. We have done these management processes on several areas like polling place and voting centers, managing change in election office, media and public relations, absentee voting and voting by mail, acceptance testing, voting system certification, voting system security, poll workers, ballot preparation, printing and preelection testing, new voting systems and the contingency and disaster planning. The management material, as we call the quick starts, have been distributed to every election official throughout the Nation. In the very near future, we will have material to serve the elderly and the disability and long-term care facilities. Also, military voters and how to audit the entire election process. Also, our language accessibility program has produced Spanish glossaries of the election terms. Translated a large portion of our EAC Web site took Spanish and also had the registration form in the language. In May, we anticipate the EAC will offer a glossary in five Asian languages, as well as provide the Web site content and the form in those languages. All of the material that the EAC produces to help election officials are absolutely free. And we distribute them to everyone. As a former election official who watched the formation and the evolution of HAVA very closely, the EAC is providing the type of information and assistance to the officials that we feel that HAVA definitely envisioned. I thank you very much and I look forward to your questions also. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, and thanks to all of you for your testimony today. [The statements of Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Hunter, Ms. Hillman and Ms. Davidson follow:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. We will now begin our questioning. And I would like to turn first to our colleague, Susan Davis, for any questions she may have for the commissioners. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of you for being here and for your service. I can tell that this is not easy. And I had asked the inspector general about the pressures that you may be under from vendors, from others. And I wonder if you could talk about that briefly and how you all deal with that. Ms. Rodriguez. I will start. We have a fairly, I think, helpful ex parte policy so that vendors, we don't really have direct conversations from vendors, and therefore they can't really put any kind of pressure on us, which I'm grateful to have that policy in place. I certainly consult people. I have not experienced any kind of undue pressure to vote a certain way or anything, but I do seek input. I think it is a healthy part of our process to get different opinions. I have only been here a year and I have noticed that you can get sort of isolated in Washington, D.C. And so it is helpful. Whenever I go to a conference or travel, I try to meet, have a brown bag lunch and invite local voting activists in to--when I visited Secretary of State Brewer in Arizona, I had a meeting with about 150 interested Arizonans who wanted to talk about the political process. So I kind of seek that information. And I wonder if any of my colleagues want to chime in. Ms. Hunter. Thank you. I agree with my colleague, Commissioner Rodriguez, that it is important to seek input from outside sources, and I think we all strive to do that. To tell you the truth I have been surprised at how little interest that there has been in the workings of the Commission on the part of the public. Our meetings are not terribly well attended, we don't receive a lot of comment in my opinion. So we are sort of forced to seek that kind of input from the public, whether it is through conferences. Each of us does a number of public speaking engagements around the country to various State and local election officials and other groups. So I think it is extremely important that we hear from outside sources as long as we were aware of the positions from which they come. Mrs. Davis of California. Did you want to comment? I have a few other questions, too. Ms. Hillman. I will just say that there is a different kind of pressure. I personally have never been under any political pressure one way or the other, but this is a different kind of pressure. We operate in a two-year cycle. The election dates are set and we have to be ready to assist for those dates. The public has high expectations. And sometimes they go beyond what we are authorized to do. Plus there is a desperate need and probably a legitimate one for quick fixes. And you can't do quick fixes in an election. So some of that pressure is, it is a different kind of political pressure, but unlike my colleague, I feel it just in reading e-mails and blogs and letters that people write. I know that there is an expectation that the Election Assistance Commission working with its partners is going to fix the problems. Mrs. Davis of California. I wonder, one of the issues that you have to deal with, of course, is how you use some of the surplus HAVA funds. And there has been a question of whether or not those machines that were recertified, if they can't be used, can those dollars be put into other kinds of machines that counties might be taking a look at? How have you been trying to work through that clarification of how those funds can be used? Ms. Hunter. Are you asking someone in particular? Ms. Rodriguez. I can talk about it. The EAC has previously instructed the States that they cannot use remaining HAVA funds to purchase equipment to replace equipment previously purchased with HAVA funds. And we have a request from a State now to do that. And I have placed on the table for consideration by the Commission on March 20th a revision to our policy that would allow it. We have asked GAO to give us an opinion on that by March 19th and they have agreed to provide that. And so we will very shortly have the opportunity for the Commission to---- Mrs. Davis of California. Is that for the State of California? Ms. Rodriguez. It would apply to any State in that situation. Mrs. Davis of California. We are certainly in that position. I think it is about $78 million left. And much of that equipment, of course, was decertified. Ms. Lofgren. The lady's time has expired. The gentleman from California, the Ranking Member McCarthy is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all the Commissioners for coming in and giving your testimony today. If I could ask Chair Rodriguez, you had brought up the Secretary of State from Arizona here too. Thank you for coming. But in the National Voter Registration Act, it requires the EAC to develop a mail voter registration. I know there are five or six States that are before you now that have requested some changes. Can you tell me where they are in that process and whether you have approved those yet? Ms. Rodriguez. We have not approved them. We have, let's see, I think we have had them in front of us for some time now. Mr. McCarthy. How long would that be? Ms. Rodriguez. At least since December of 2007, at least 4 months. The Commission has been wrestling with crafting a policy by which we would accept those changes or make those changes. And we have not---- Mr. McCarthy. Are all the States now the same then on this Web site? I mean, are all the voter registration items, every State the same? Ms. Rodriguez. No, they are not the same. Every State has a State instructions portion, all of the States and the territories. Mr. McCarthy. Then why would we hold up changing these States? Ms. Rodriguez. Because the EAC, in the transfer of the authority to amend the form from the FEC, we haven't completed that transfer. We have started it. The FEC, as you know, is stagnant at this moment. We have not been able to come up with an interim policy that all four of us can agree on, or at least three of us can agree on. And so Commissioner Hillman has placed each of the State changes on the agenda again on March 20th for our consideration State by State. Mr. McCarthy. I have real concerns with the elections so soon and you having this before you for so long. You had mentioned Secretary of State Jan Brewer. She has written testimony, and I have it, Madam Chair, to present unanimous consent. Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, it will be entered in the record. [The statement of Ms. Brewer follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. McCarthy. That the EAC is unnecessarily disenfranchising voters using the Federal form by refusing to properly instruct them regarding State citizenship requirements. And I am wondering in the concept of the tenth amendment and States rights if they committed this to you, and you have had it before you a long time, is that the holdup, that you don't agree with what the State wants to do, or I don't quite understand. Ms. Rodriguez. The EAC's position on the Arizona citizenship, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement, is that there is--it simply isn't--there is no place for it in the State instructions on the Federal form because there is reasons for that position. The Congress itself grappled with whether or not to require that when they wrote the---- Mr. McCarthy. But the State has passed a law is my understanding and they put this in 2 years ago. I understand you had studied this, but if the State and States rights has passed something to put on their voter registration and their mail and they have requested you to do it, I don't understand the holdup. Ms. Rodriguez. I see your point, and the Commission, there are a couple of members of the Commission who share your opinion, your position. However, it is not the consensus of the Commission that we should amend that. Mr. McCarthy. So then you agree with the Secretary of State that you are disenfranchising them by not acting, you are withholding their ability to change? Ms. Rodriguez. In my opinion, the State of Arizona is disenfranchising their own voters. Mr. McCarthy. How is that? Ms. Rodriguez. By requiring this documentary proof of citizenship. Mr. McCarthy. So you would say because you disagree with what the voters of Arizona have voted and asked for, you will not move it even though the States asked and the voters have asked for it because you personally disagree with it? Ms. Rodriguez. No, I would not agree with what you just said. Mr. McCarthy. Then I apologize, but that is the way I was understanding the last thing that you just said, that the State was disenfranchising an elected official that the State has voted for this, asked for this, moved it on 2 years ago for you, and I am just understanding why we haven't moved it forward? Ms. Rodriguez. Well, it is still in the courts being argued. I am not the only person who has this opinion. I mean, this issue is being--is scheduled for trial. It is going to be heard on the merits. And when it is resolved, the Commission will---- Mr. McCarthy. So you want to wait until the trial is over to make a decision by the EAC? Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. McCarthy. If I can just have an answer to that question I will be done. Ms. Rodriguez. Yes, I would like a court to interpret the appropriateness of that on the NVRA form. Yes, I want to know what a court would say. Mr. McCarthy. Madam Chair, I find a real concern with these answers. And I may request a minority hearing just based upon this, nothing to do with you, Madam Chair, but just to get further beyond---- Ms. Lofgren. Maybe if we don't have votes we can have a second round. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think all the Commissioners were present when I was questioning the Inspector General, so you know I have an interest in Mr. von Spakovsky, because he is a figure of some controversy right now. And there is a question as to whether he is the appropriate person to continue to serve or to serve on the FEC. Let me go to you Ms. Hillman, if I can, because you are referenced in one of these e-mails. Have you read the inspector general's report? I am assuming that you have read it. Ms. Hillman. I have seen the same redacted version that I believe you have. Mr. Davis of Alabama. I am looking at page 16. And I don't want to waste time with a lot of questions about it, but I was struck by one e-mail exchange between Mr. von Spakovsky and Mr. DeGregorio. And at some point, Mr. von Spakovsky says the fact that you, Ms. Hillman, does not want to do this because she does not want to anger her friends at the League of Women Voters is no need for you, Mr. DeGregorio, to be railroaded into this. What is your professional response to Mr. von Spakovsky's characterizations here? Ms. Hillman. Well, first let me tell you, I did not know until this report came out that that e-mail exchange happened to my colleague's credit. But Mr. von Spakovsky is entitled to his opinion, but the facts are not correct. Mr. Davis of Alabama. And tell me what is incorrect about Mr. von Spakovsky's version of the facts? Ms. Hillman. There was no conversation that I had with the League of Women Voters about the release, or not release of the report or what the report would say. And as Mr. DeGregorio said in his e-mail there was nothing I did to--in fact, if anything, I was trying to shove that report out the door when I found out it had been delayed. Mr. Davis of Alabama. And I certainly don't want to read Mr. von Spakovsky's mind, but I frankly didn't even read him to literally insinuate that you had a communication with the League of Women Voters. I am reading this as a little bit of a dig, frankly, that he is saying that--I guess he could have said liberal do-gooders instead of League of Women Voters. Am I out of line in my interpretation? Ms. Hillman. Well, I am sure he said that because I was formerly employed with the League and there are people who would suggest that the League's position on issues is different than theirs. Mr. Davis of Alabama. We were talking, and Mr. McCarthy, I suppose was talking from the other side of the aisle about this question. Obviously, it is not illegitimate for Mr. von Spakovsky to have given some input or for DOJ to have given some input to the EAC. I don't think that itself is problematic. But on the other hand there appears to be a line. And my sense is that Mr. von Spakovsky may have attempted to cross that line with Mr. DeGregorio. Let me just ask all the Commissioners to give a quick response. Are any of you troubled by Mr. von Spakovsky's efforts to influence Mr. DeGregorio? Ms. Davidson, are you troubled by what you read in this report by Mr. von Spakovsky? Ms. Davidson. You know, I believe that everybody has a right to an opinion. We get many things, e-mails from individuals that feel that we should be doing something different than what we are and we are trying to follow the law. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but it is our responsibility to stand up and make sure that we take the proper action. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Let me get at it this way because our time is limited, and I know the cell phone is going to go off again in a minute. I think we can all stipulate to what I said. We all agree with the generality that everybody has a right to have an opinion, everybody has a right to insert their opinion. It is up to the Commission to be independent. I am asking a very specific question about Mr. von Spakovsky's role. And I am asking if the Commissioners are troubled by Mr. von Spakovsky's reference, for example, to a political compromise agreement between EAC and DOJ. Do any of the Commissioners present think that it would be appropriate for the EAC to enter a ``political compromise agreement'' with DOJ? Ms. Rodriguez, do you think that would be appropriate? Ms. Rodriguez. I don't even know what it is, so I--I don't know what it is. I'm sorry, this is an extraordinary term. Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Hunter, does that concept strike you as an appropriate one, the idea of a political compromise, because this is Mr. von Spakovsky's phrase, not mine? Ms. Hunter. Certainly a political compromise wouldn't be the proper words to use. I would not have used those words, and I suppose he may wish he had not either. But my read of the report is that this exchange is not about the voter fraud intimidation report, rather it is about conflicting interpretations of a provisional ballot law vis-a-vis an Arizona law and EAC guidance that was put out several years ago that in many people's view was incorrect. And so Mr. von Spakovsky was saying he was willing to change his opinion from the Department of Justice's perspective which was, in some people's view, overly restrictive on when Federal law requires you to give a provisional ballot. So he is saying I am going to change my position on that, if EAC would please consider changing your position on this. So it was more a legal situation where my interpretation is he didn't want the Federal agencies to have differing views. It was not about the voter fraud intimidation report. Mr. Davis of Alabama. Since I am hearing the cell phone I will close out, but I will just end my last 10 seconds by saying that I think I understand better now why Senator Bayh and why some other people have issues with Mr. von Spakovsky. Because as I understand the role of the Commission, your work and the diligent work that you Commissioners are doing is not enhanced by an overt politicization, it is not enhanced by an attempt at an overt politicization. And I think I agree with Ms. Rodriguez that this notion of a political compromise agreement just doesn't strike me as being remotely relevant to what you do and what DOJ does. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I would recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes. Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Rodriguez I am going to follow up on what the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. McCarthy, was talking about, the Arizona situation. I am trying to get it straight in my mind. There has not been a final legal determination on the merits of the case challenging the citizenship requirement as outlined in Arizona law pursuant to, I guess, Proposition 200. I know the injunctive relief has been dissolved and that issue has probably resolved. But the underlying case itself, is it still pending? Ms. Rodriguez. Yes, it is still pending. Mr. Gonzalez. So it is possible that when this case is finally determined---- Ms. Rodriguez. Commissioner Hunter would like to say something. Mr. Gonzalez. Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Hunter. I just wanted to make a comment that it is true that there are some claims remaining in the case. However, the District Court recently dismissed on summary judgment many of the claims, including the one that this Arizona law violates the NVRA. That claim was dismissed, so that issue is no longer in the courts. Mr. Gonzalez. But there are other--I mean, the summary judgment only addressed certain grounds? Ms. Hunter. That's correct. Mr. Gonzalez. So they still have a legal challenge, which I am not sure what the basis may be. I am sure those of constitutional dimension. The bottom line is we have pending litigation that could be determined and a judgment rendered in favor of those challenging legitimacy of the law. I think we can agree on that. So what would happen if that comes to pass in the next few months after November? Arizona is insisting on the citizenship provision, rejects thousands and thousands of individuals that are going to be disenfranchised for all elections up until the time that the court does make its decision. So the court makes a decision in December or whatever; election's over, presidential election and so on. How do you undo that? Ms. Hunter. The court could have granted an injunctive relief if they were concerned of such a scenario that you point out. And the court would resolve the injunctive relief. As Secretary of State Brewer has said on numerous occasions in public hearings the minute the injunction was issued she immediately stopped enforcing that law, and the minute the injunction was lifted she resumed enforcing it. Of course, a law is good unless and until it is overturned. Mr. Gonzalez. Well let me ask you this, then. You took a time out while there was injunctive relief, and during that period of time, didn't reject any applications or registration forms that didn't comply with the citizenship requirement, would that be correct? Ms. Hunter. That is what I have heard the Secretary of State say yes, sir. Mr. Gonzalez. So those individuals came in without that requirement. Then when the injunctive relief was dissolved or whatever, we have this other population that is subjected. Wouldn't the prudent thing to do is simply make sure everybody then--it doesn't make sense to me that you are going to have two basic standards; one that came during the injunctive relief and those that will come afterwards. I am just wondering. Now, you could simply say, ``We start the process over and everybody that may have registered without the requirement has to reregister or whatever.'' But it just seems to me that the prudent thing while you still have a challenge to this law would simply [be] to proceed. Now, I am just--this is going to be resolved I take it. And I am not sure if it is going to be resolved. You all are going to reconsider it. What's the consequence to no action by the Commission? What is the consequence again to an action that would not support what Arizona is attempting to do and Arizona would proceed? Ms. Hunter. The consequence, I don't know if anybody else-- -- Mr. Gonzalez. No action, first of all. Ms. Hunter. What is the consequence on if we don't change the form? Mr. Gonzalez. If you don't approve the form as submitted. Ms. Hunter. Well, the law is good law unless and until it is overturned. So that is just a clear principle. And I think we have the responsibility to accurately reflect State laws on the Federal form. The United States Constitution protects the right of States to set eligibility requirements. And the Federal form has a perfect place for that in the State instructions portion of the form. If the EAC were to determine or to delay action on this issue, in my view, we are impermissibly eroding the right of the State to set the eligibility requirements. Mr. Gonzalez. Let me ask you, what constitutes a State; people, right? Ms. Hunter. Yes. Mr. Gonzalez. But you are disenfranchising voters, would you not? While something is still pending and a law is being challenged; What would be the basis and reason for that? Now I understand you can have frivolous lawsuits out there, but once this is taken care of, then you have stare decisis, you have precedent, the issue is dead, it is long gone, it has been decided. But it has not been decided. So why wouldn't you, if you are going to err, why wouldn't you do that on the side of making sure you don't disenfranchise voters? Because after the fact, when you do disenfranchise you cannot undo it. Those people will not be allowed to vote. And it is still a very, very real possibility that the law would be set aside. I am just saying you all ought to always think in terms of not disenfranchising individuals, especially while you have pending litigation, and I would yield back. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. I am going to ask just a few questions, if I could. And just on the subject that has been discussed both by Mr. McCarthy and Judge Gonzalez. As I understand the question really posed by yourself, Chairman Rodriguez, is that the issue is whether the Federal law really preempts the State's opportunity to do what they are asserting to do by their proposition, which is the very same issue that is before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Indiana case, I think. As a matter of fact, I have offered an amicus brief with Senator Feinstein suggesting that, in fact, the Federal law does preclude the ability of States to do what Indiana attempted to do, and by extension, also the State of Arizona. And if I am hearing you correctly, correct me if I am wrong, you know reasonable people can differ, and apparently do on the Commission and in the country. The question is is that what has really caused the inability for the Commission to reach a conclusion on this, is the disagreement on how to view that legal question? Is that accurate? Ms. Rodriguez. That is Madam Chair. And I always thought that the Federal form and the whole NVRA process was to equalize procedures across the country so that any voter who wanted to participate in a Federal election knew what form to use and what to do. And in my opinion the Arizona requirement puts an additional burden on the voter in Arizona. Ms. Lofgren. If I could, I share your opinion, but the point I am trying to make is that the Supreme Court itself was trying come to grips with this. It is not a surprise. It is a difficult question that the Commission itself is trying to come to grips with this, and it is not easy to reach agreement in every case. So I think that is what has happened here. Ms. Hillman. Madam Chair, if I might just say, on that point, yes, it is true we have disagreement. And we were proceeding on the premise that we would be reviewing the regulations once transferred to EAC from the FEC. And then came the inability of FEC to take action because it doesn't have a quorum, so we are sort of stuck there. We continue to work this through. But there are two points I would make. It is my understanding that Federal agencies don't, unless there is some absolute emergency, promulgate regulations while a case is going on in court. That, generally speaking, it is prudent to wait until the case is over and the final judgment has been rendered. Secondly, under Federal law a form cannot be initially rejected if a voter turns it in incomplete. That form must be returned to the voter noting the incompleteness. So if under Arizona they receive a mailing form and they believe that it is within their right to ask for proof of citizenship they must go back to that voter before they can reject the voter's application. Ms. Lofgren. Commissioner Davidson, did you want to weigh in on this point? Ms. Davidson. Could I please. I completely agree with a lot of what has been said. But I think there is one thing that I think that has been brought up to date, is the State rights. And Commissioner Hillman is completely right, they do have to go back to the voter. But as time gets closer to that election is my concern. And then the voters, they don't know what the requirements are. Then there is possibly not time to get back to that voter, and that is the voters that I am very concerned about. Ms. Lofgren. Let me turn to another subject, because it really is the gist of the IG report, and really the attention that we gave to the Commission last year. We had administrative law experts testify before this Subcommittee and the EAC to discuss Federal administrative procedure requirements applicable to the Commission. And they were experts. And they had recommendations for EAC on implementation of various procedural regulations. Has that been helpful, have you been able to adopt some of the recommendations that those experts had made, have we had the training opportunities that were suggested on the Administrative Procedures Act implemented? Ms. Hillman. The answer to your question is yes, and yes. Yes, the suggestions were helpful. We have, in fact, retained consultants. You asked about the use of consultants. We need the expertise to help us cut through the bureaucracy of Federal Government. And we are in the process of having many of those written up for us and staff have been undergoing training, particularly in the issue of managing contracts. Ms. Hillman. Could I add one thing? Because of your meeting also and bringing those individuals in, we also had a hearing, a public hearing and brought in some of those same people to really discuss deeper of about what we needed, and that was very helpful also. Ms. Lofgren. That is great feedback to have. Just a last question. I believe that the EAC has created a new chief operating officer position. And I am interested in what are going to be the respective roles of the executive director, the chief operating officer and the general counsel after this person has been hired? And the, I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I received the impression that the general counsel had been undertaking functions that were unusual for a general counsel, broader than a traditional general counsel position. Will the filling of this new position change the alignment of the general counsel's position and will it be a more standard administrative structure after that. Ms. Rodriguez. I will take that, Madam Chair. The chief operating officer will report to the executive director. I think the general counsel is very relieved that we are going in this direction so that she doesn't have to double up and help with the budget as she had in the past. She is a statutory officer of the organization. So she will not report to the chief operating officer, she will continue to report to, he or she, whoever it is, shall continue to report to the executive director. But the chief operating officer will then have line reporting or other staff will have line reporting to the chief operating officer. Ms. Lofgren. All right. I am going to, before my cell phone goes off again, and hoping that we will get our regular lighting system replaced before our next hearing, we won't have votes for another few minutes, so we do have time. I know Mr. McCarthy had additional questions. I would like to recognize him for another 5 minutes. And we will go until we get called away to vote. Mr. McCarthy. I thank you, Madam Chair, for the kindness of letting us go. Let me touch base a little more on this Arizona issue, because I heard our colleague talk about disenfranchised. But I guess to Commissioner Hunter, it is my understanding, okay, this law has passed in Arizona, more than two years, so they have changed their voter registration in Arizona already, have they not? Ms. Hunter. Yes, sir, they have. Mr. McCarthy. So if I go to your Web site and I pull off that form and I fill it out, I am disenfranchised because I am going to get rejected by the Secretary of State, rightfully so, because of the law they passed. So by doing nothing you are disenfranchising. Am I seeing this wrong? Ms. Hunter. Well, you are not seeing it wrong. I think the Secretary of State, I am not sure about this, but I think she takes that form and then tries to ascertain the information from the voter. And so it is not rejected out of hand, but she has to go through an additional step. So it is obviously cumbersome, I would imagine, and it is not useful to provide information that is not accurate. I think there are other examples of States that are before the Commission now where it might even be more obvious that voters are disenfranchising. One example is that the address for the State of Colorado is inaccurate. And we know that the voter registration deadline in New Jersey is inaccurate. They have changed it from, I believe, it is 30 days to 21 days. And in Rhode Island, persons who are no longer incarcerated, even if they are still serving parole may now register to vote in Rhode Island. However, if they looked at our form they would not know that and they would think that the old law was still in effect, which would mean that they are not able to register unless they are either not incarcerated or not serving parole. So those examples, in a lot of ways, are clear examples of voters who will not be able to register by virtue of the fact that the EAC has not properly updated the State instructions portion of the form. Mr. McCarthy. That is disturbing to me. Ms. Hunter. Yes. Mr. McCarthy. I don't understand what those five that we talked about earlier that you just laid out, the same five, why that takes so long to get forward, and by doing nothing, we are disenfranchising people. When is your next meeting and why couldn't this be moved forward? Ms. Hunter. Our next meeting is next Wednesday in Denver, Colorado. And one of my colleagues alluded to the fact, and maybe she wants to address it, that Commissioner Hillman has proposed, I believe it is an up or down vote on each and every State request that is before the Commission. So these issues will be addressed next Wednesday. Mr. McCarthy. So we might be able to move forward even though someone waits 2 years? Ms. Hunter. Hopefully. Mr. McCarthy. But I am concerned because--maybe you can give a little better explanation to me about where we are in the court system. If the court system decides this does not have anything to do with the National Voter Registration Act which gives you the power to change, then why can't you move forward with Arizona? Ms. Hunter. Well, I don't think there is any reason that we shouldn't. Each from the day the lawsuit was filed--of course, there are many lawsuits that challenge many laws, both Federal and State all throughout the country. And if one were not to enforce a law just because it has been challenged in a court, that would obviously drastically change the dynamic of our system. So in my view even on the day that the lawsuit was filed that is not relevant with regard to our responsibility. Now, of course, if a court ruled the law unconstitutional, of course, we would immediately remove that from the form. Mr. McCarthy. There is a lot of laws I don't agree with. Most of them speeding laws, but I still abide by them until they are overturned. Ms. Hillman. If I might. For me it is not just about Arizona. The EAC has been criticized for taking actions without having in place proper procedures and policies. And what I have been pushing is that the EAC adopt from some very simple and clear procedures as to how we will consider requests from States for changes to the State instructions portion of the form. We have not been able to come to agreement on it. It is true that probably of the six or seven States that have requests before us Arizona is the, the Arizona request is the one that is the stickler. I requested that we separate those two and say let us continue discussing what the Federal law provides for, what NVRA provides for, what HAVA provides for, where this request fits under current regulations and move the others and we could not. I am reluctant to do case-by-case regulation, that is as a State request comes in, we vote it up or down. But I am also sensitive to the fact that unfortunately we have lost 3 good months since January trying to work this out, and it is time for us to move forward. Mr. McCarthy. But you have got--well, my concern is you have got Arizona there for 2 years, and what procedures would you have? Because you had four individuals, if two individuals want to say no we don't personally agree with that State, you can hold somebody up this whole time and disenfranchise a lot of voters. I think the procedure would have to be if you can't act then someone has to. If you can't come together and someone has been there 2 years going forward, you are disenfranchising a State, and I don't believe that is fair in the process. I yield back and I appreciate the Chair. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, is recognized. Mr. Gonzalez. I guess if you take any decision-making process and knowing that there is someone else making a decision that is subsequent to yours that could truly alter the consequence of your decision, I would think you would be very, very, very, very careful and choose that course of action that wouldn't do--in other words, it is just--yes, there is going to be harm either way. Let's say the court comes and sets it aside; there is going to be harm. Where is there less harm? And the question then comes: What are you trying to protect? And that is people that are not citizens from voting, and all of us would join you in that endeavor. It's how you go about doing it. What is the proof that you are requiring and so on? You can check off a box, you sign it. And if you are lying about your address, your residency, you are lying about citizenship or so, that could subject you to some sort of penalty. And then the reality of the situation. What do you have empirically out there that really would indicate that you have that kind of problem on such large scale that you would be willing to implement that right now before it's fully tried in the judicial system? What is this evil. What is this danger and who are you disenfranchising? I mean, those are really serious questions and where you do greater harm to the body politic and to the electoral system. I would hope that you would look at that. Now, is it fair to Arizona that it has been delayed and that it is being challenged? I mean, we could go on and on. But I think the reality of the situation is, you are going to do a lot greater harm by moving forward before you have some sort of judicial determination. I want to go on to another topic and something I wanted to cover. My staff indicated here, it says that mandated studies and reports have not been submitted by due dates, reports on registrations by mail, electronic voting, free absentee ballot postage and so on. And I am just assuming what we are talking about is some sort of reports being received by election authorities that had deadlines: Are they tardy, are they late, how late and when do you catch up? Ms. Hillman. Well, Congressman Gonzalez, some of the report due dates were required before the Commission was established. And in a couple of cases the scope of the project was such that we did finally get started on the free or reduced postage for absentee ballots voted. It took us a long time to find the consultants who could work with us on that. On the Social Security issue, the use of the Social Security number, we are having conversations with Social Security about how we wrap our arms around that study, and even Social Security is having some challenges coming to grips with it. So there are a couple of studies that because of the unique nature of the issue we have been a bit challenged to find the resources we need so that we could move forward. With respect to some of the other studies it is what the inspector general identified earlier. We had staff multi-tasking all over the place. And we realized that we were asking the staff to perform outside their areas of expertise, but we had no choice. We had to hit the ground running. And to a question that was asked earlier, HAVA envisioned that GSA would provide certain administrative support services to EAC, they could not do that. They just structurally did not have the human resource capacity to assist us. There was no one place we could go. I personally harassed the Office of Personnel Management for over a year to help us to put together our human resources manual. They said that is not their job. And we said we have nowhere else to go. They finally capitulated and worked with us on it, and once we got started we were able to complete the project. I have been astounded how difficult it is to get the information you need. It would be nice to be able to go to an agency, get their document and say let us use this as our document. But then we have to apply it to our unique situation and go through that process. One thing I have learned my two tours of duty with Federal Government, if you don't know the right question to ask, you will never get the information and you don't know what you don't know until you hit that brick wall and you say darn, what is this now? So it has been a very interesting experience getting a brand new agency started, particularly since we had such immediate deadlines like the 2004 presidential, the 2006 general and now the 2008 with many, many things to do. So it is true that a couple of the studies are behind date, but we are pushing ahead. Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much. I yield back. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. I am just wondering, I don't know if you know the answer to this today, but about the funds provided for covered jurisdictions to meet their requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, are funds sufficient to meet those needs of limited English proficient voters in that section? Do we need to address that in terms of our budget here? Anybody who knows the answer or you can get back to me. Ms. Hillman. We will get back to you. We don't have jurisdiction over that. And to my knowledge since I have been on the Commission jurisdictions have not spoken to us directly about the need for more funds. We are assisting in many ways by providing as many materials as we can in different languages so the election officials can just use them right away and not have to do their own work. Ms. Lofgren. Has there been consideration of an EAC study on language accessibility throughout the country in addition to those jurisdictions that are subject to the Voting Rights Act? Ms. Hillman. We are working on that. And what we are doing is as we are working on it, we are producing whatever documents we can. And so we haven't yet determined what the final report to Congress should be on that issue, but we are looking at the issue and producing what materials we can and identifying what the challenges are that the officials have. Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Davidson. Ms. Davidson. We have even had one of our staff individuals that has actually attended a conference for the nonspeaking languages that was held in New Mexico, I believe. Ms. Lofgren. You mean unwritten language? Ms. Davidson. You are absolutely correct, the unwritten languages. And so we are interested even in that area of the arena of it, so that we can at least do some best practices or the quick starts and at least get that out as quickly as possible. Ms. Lofgren. Well, all those bells and whistles mean that we have votes on the floor of the House. And I would like to thank all the Commissioners for being here today and for your testimony and answering our questions. We may have additional questions which we will send to you if we do and ask that you answer them as promptly as you can. I just will say I was talking about language accessibility. I can still say this for only one more year, that I was on the Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County longer than I have been in the House of Representatives, and one of our obligations was to oversee the registrar of voters. And it is chaos, but it is a wonderful responsibility. And one of the things we did when I was in local government was to go beyond what was required of us on language accessibility, because especially in California you have these initiatives. They are so complicated. And I will never forget a very elderly gentleman came and he spoke to us in English, but with a pretty heavy accent, and he thanked us for making available to him information. He said for the first time I get to vote the way I want instead of the way my son tells me to. So it is very important, and I hope that we can get the results of that study. At this point our hearing is--yes, Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wonder if we might supplement the record with a little bit more information about some of the gaps that we left in our responses? Ms. Lofgren. That would be absolutely fine. Just get it to the staff. And again, thank you so much for being here. We look forward to additional progress, and this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Information follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]