Witnesses:

Christopher Dodd (via videoconference), United States Senator (D-CT); Bob Ney (written statement), United States Representative (R-OH); Scott Thomas Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

President Gerald Ford: Let me welcome everybody here to the Ford Library. I am honored to have the distinguished members of the Commission here, many old friends and several new friends. We welcome you particularly to another of these meetings of the Commission, and I thank all of you for coming, both as visitors and as potential participants in the hearing itself. Let me say that the Ford Library has performed a number of functions here on the university campus, and this is an opportunity to add one to our agenda. I�m here to listen, not to orate.

Exactly twenty-five years ago, long before anyone heard of hanging chads or dimpled ballots, Jimmy Carter and I waged what we thought was a very, very close presidential election. As we have since discovered, there�s close and then there�s Florida. I share the concerns of a great many Americans of both major political parties and those of no party regarding our electoral machinery. We should not only make it as easy as possible to vote, but we should assure that every vote is counted and counted accurately and no vote counts more than any other. Clearly, no first-class democracy can tolerate second-class citizens. At the same time, it is also true that any truly popular government derives its basic legitimacy from the active participation and involvement of its citizens. Last November, barely half of the eligible voters went to the polls. The truth is, more Americans watched the Superbowl between the New York Giants and the Baltimore Ravens than exercised their right to select the forty-third president of the United States. The two events may not be unrelated, however, for in politics as in sports, too many Americans today feel like they are mere spectators at a game.

It is against this backdrop that the debate over campaign finance affords politicians of every stripe an opportunity to regain public confidence by devising workable rules that limit the influence of big donors, on the one hand, while preserving essential rights of free speech on the other. Hardly less important than limiting the power of the few is increasing the involvement of the many. Here, it seems to me, that we are all responsible, which means we are all to blame. Political parties should be more than fund-raising vehicles. Television networks ought to provide free time for major candidates on all leaving outlets and more than four and one-half hours of convention coverage every four years. Candidates should pay less attention to their consultants and more to their consciences, and journalists shouldn�t behave like handicappers at a horse race. An informed electorate is more likely to be an engaged and active electorate. That won�t happen without serious, substantive reporting on issues, character, and performance.

Democracy is about nothing if not the dispersal of authority. Indeed, the genius of America is that we organize from the ground up, not dictate from the top down and that we -- you and I -- do the organizing ourselves. So by all means, let�s find a way not to repeat last fall�s disputed election, and at the same time, however, I hope we look behind the mechanics of voting to address the motivation of voters. I look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say. I welcome them. On behalf of everyone at the Ford Library, and the Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, I�m delighted to welcome you here on the campus of the University of Michigan. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lloyd Cutler: Thank you very much, President Ford. Bob Michel and I are the nominal co-chairmen of this operation, but as you�ll see during the day, the real operating co-chairmen are President Ford and President Carter. I want to thank President Ford very much for making the library available to us. This is the fourth of a series of public hearings we have held at the various presidential libraries, and we hope to have a report ready for Congress sometime early this fall when Congress, itself, turns attention to this problem. We have a very tight schedule today, some very good witnesses on some really important issues. After Bob Michel says a word or two, I think Phil Zelikow, who is the head of the Miller Center for the Study of the Presidency at the University of Virginia, should proceed right to it and introduce the first panel.

Congressman Bob Michel: First, Mr. President, thanks so much for being here personally and kicking this hearing off. May I simply say that the panel here, or the Commission itself is very bipartisan in nature. We have members of both parties who have run for political office and those who have been identified with both parties in the academic world out there. So we feel we have a very broad interest expressed here in this Commission and have really enjoyed the hearings that we�ve had in the three previous presidential libraries and now to conclude the hearing stage here at the Ford Library.

Mr. Philip Zelikow: Thank you, Congressmen Michel, President Ford, and Lloyd Cutler. As the Executive Director and traffic cop for the Commission, I�d like to try to get the proceedings underway. The first witness we�d like to hear from, though isn�t here, he is Congressman Robert Ney. He�s the chairman of the House Administration Committee; that�s the committee of the House that has jurisdiction for election reform. He could not be here, but he asked Congressman Michel to read a brief statement on his behalf into the record at the outset of our hearing. Congressman Michel.

Congressman Michel (reading a statement by Congressman Robert Ney): Thank you. The letter is dated June 5^th, addressed to President Gerald R. Ford.

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for the opportunity to address these comments to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. I applaud you for the work you are doing. Our common goal is to ensure that everyone�s vote counts. This is an issue that I believe can and must be addressed in a bipartisan manner.

I regret that I cannot be with you today to testify in person; however, here are some key points I�d like to share with you from my perspective as chairman of the Committee on House Administration. Number one, punch card voting systems should, where possible, be replaced. This will cost money, and the federal government should help. Number two, control of elections should remain in the state and local level; reform does not require the creation of a new federal bureaucracy or new federal mandates. Three, standards for election systems are important, and they should be developed by state and local election officials who actually run elections, not imposed by the federal government. Number four, real election reforms should minimize both voter error and voter fraud. Every qualified voter should have the opportunity to cast a ballot, have it counted, and no citizen�s legal vote should be canceled by an illegal vote.

There are many other issues that must be addressed from improving participation, particularly among young voters, to better educating both poll workers and voters about the election process, but the bottom line for us must be to sustain the confidence of citizens in our voting process. No issue is more important to the vitality of our democracy. I have confidence that we can work together to build a consensus in Congress and across the nation to meet this challenge. Sincerely, Bob Ney, Chairman, Committee of House Administration."

Mr. Zelikow: Thank you, Congressman Michel. We now turn to two live witnesses and another witness who will be joining us through videoconference from Washington, D.C. If Congressman Hoyer and Commissioner Thomas will take their seats. Gentlemen, let me explain briefly the ground rules. We ask that you limit your opening statements to no more than five minutes. We�ll take your opening statements, in turn, as well as the opening statement from Senator Chris Dodd who will be joining us through the miracles of modern technology, and then we�ll do the q and a for the whole panel. There is a timer up here: green means green; yellow means get ready to close; and red means that you�re poaching on your colleagues� time. (President Ford: Steny shouldn�t have any trouble. He knows the five-minute rule.) (Congressman Steny Hoyer: Knowing it and following it, Mr. President, are two different things)

It is a pleasure to introduce our first live witness who is Congressman Steny Hoyer. You have just heard a written statement from Congressman Bob Ney, who is the Chairman of House Administration. Congressman Hoyer is the ranking minority member of that very same committee. He and Congressman Ney have pledged to work together in writing bipartisan election reform legislation that will come out of the House of Representatives or reach the House floor. Therefore, Congressman Hoyer is, in many respects, taking the lead for his party in the House of Representatives on this issue. We�re grateful for his appearance today. He has represented Maryland for . . . I guess it�s almost twenty years now or just over twenty years in the House of Representatives, and I know his constituents are very proud of him and he commands wide respect in the House on this issue in particular. Congressman Hoyer, thank you for joining us.

Congressman Steny Hoyer: Thank you very much, Mr. Zelikow. President Ford, should-have-been Speaker Michel, wise-man Cutler, and a distinguished panel of former colleagues of mine, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue of electoral reform. An issue that is vital to public confidence in our democracy. I want to thank all of you as well for your commitment to reform. In this brief opening statement I want to make three main points: one, electoral reform is alive and well in the 107^th Congress; two, the Committee on House Administration, the committee in the House that has primary jurisdiction over many aspects of this issue, has held four very productive hearings and intends to hold further hearings this month and in July; and thirdly, the chairman of the committee, Bob Ney, from whom you�ve heard through Speaker Michel of Ohio, and I are committed to producing bipartisan legislation that we can take to the House floor later this year.

Much like the hearings convened by this Commission, our congressional hearings have provided a crash course on the nuts and bolts of the election system in this country. Our goal has been straightforward: to learn what state secretaries, county registrars, state legislators, local election administrators and technical experts, and others are doing right now in the area of electoral reform and how Congress can help. Here�s what we learned to date, Mr. President and members of the panel. One, those who are responsible for administering elections, regardless of their party affiliation, welcomed federal assistance, provided it respects their historic role and authority in administering elections. Secondly, states and counties want to partner with the federal government to develop voluntary, model election codes, standards for what constitutes a legal vote, and other best practices through some kind of independent election administration commission. Thirdly, the voting equipment industry continues to develop more reliable and accessible opti-scan and DRE equipment. States and counties need help, however, in choosing and paying for costly equipment. Fourthly, elections are expensive, yet they are a low-budget priority for most state and county governments. The federal government has never paid a share of these costs, much less its fair share. Fifthly, real election reform requires more than a mechanical fix. Congressman Conyers and Senator Dodd, I�m sure, will speak to this as well.

Statewide registration systems can and must improve voter access and reduce wanton and erroneous purging of eligible voters. Use of provisional balloting can safeguard a citizen�s right to vote with minimal risk of fraud. Military and overseas voting can and must be improved and streamlined, and we should ensure that such ballots are, in fact, counted. The disabled community can be better accommodated at the polling place with some minor improvements to the voting machine certification process. Better poll worker training and voter education can sharply reduce the incidence of overvotes, undervotes, and preclusion of votes. Technology that informs voters of mistakes before they leave the polling place can dramatically decrease mistakes and the number of votes not counted. These lessons, Mr. President, have been invaluable in guiding Chairman Ney and I as we craft legislation that addresses the needs of our election system.

We are committed to the proposition that Congress can and should play a role in modernizing our democracy�s infrastructure without infringing on the rights of state and local communities. Our proposal is still a work in progress, but I can tell you that we will offer states and counties federal matching grants to help replace the punch-card machines that were used in 72,000 of the some 200,000 voting precincts in last November�s elections. One provision that we will add that I�m especially excited about is the �Help America Vote� program. I call it the HAV program. HAV will make money available to colleges all over the United States to recruit and train students to be poll workers, helping to solve the poll worker shortage and, at the same time, helping to spark young people�s interest and participation in elections.

I am confident, Mr. President and members of the panel, that the genuine electoral reform will emerge by the end of this year. The reason is clear: Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that the status quo is not acceptable. No one has rallied to the defense of outdated and unreliable punch cards. If I might use the two and one-half minutes Mr. Ney did not use, Mr. President, I would be delighted. (President Ford: Proceed.) No one has rallied to the defense of outdated and unreliable punch cards. No one denies that the federal government has a legitimate role in helping states and counties modernize their electoral system. No one suggests that our system is not in need of reform. There exists, in fact, a growing consensus on the items I�ve just mentioned. Your work and your advice will help strengthen that consensus and spur timely action. I personally hope that we will act no later than September 30^th, Mr. President, so that states and local jurisdictions will be able to plan better for next year�s election.

I am hopeful, as well, that President Bush will soon join the call for electoral reform. The Miller Center�s focus on issues confronting the presidency clearly contemplates in this commission that election reform is, in fact, an issue that confronts the presidency. Almost two months ago, 207 members of the Congress sent a letter to the president asking him to enunciate his principles. We have not heard back yet. I am concerned that the president has yet to speak out forcefully on reform of this nation�s electoral system. I am, however, pleased that Ari Fleischer recently said favorable things about the work of your Commission, Mr. President, and I am hopeful that President Bush will work to pass federal legislation and appropriate substantial dollars to assist states and local jurisdictions to do the following: purchase voting equipment, which will improve ease of use, including for those with disabilities, an accuracy of counts, and elimination of the use of punch cards; two, improve registration accuracy and completeness and assure the real-time availability of that information to every polling place in the state; thirdly, provide for provisional ballots to better ensure that every American who has the right to vote is allowed to vote; fourthly, provide for more extensive education and notice to voters and training of election officials.

I remain hopeful that, as Chairman Ney and I and others-Senator Dodd, Congresswoman Waters, (Senators) McCain, McConnell, Schumer, and others-are working towards real reform, we will be joined by the White House in what I believe to be the civil rights issue of the 107^th Congress. Because of the stature of you, Mr. President, and President Carter and you, the members of this Commission, your recommendations will carry great weight. I trust that your findings and recommendations, joined with those from states and local jurisdictions, will encourage and help Congress to enact legislation which will, in your phrase in the words of your outline, "help ensure a more effective and fair practice in elections to come." If we accomplish this, Mr. President, that objective, our election will be as good, as fair, as honest as the world and most of us thought they were before November and know they must be. Thank you, Mr. President, for the little extra time.

President Ford: Thank you very much, Congressman Hoyer.

Mr. Zelikow: It is now my pleasure to introduce Scott Thomas. Scott Thomas is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. He�s been working off and on at the FEC for more than twenty-five years, and President Reagan appointed him to the remainder of Commissioner Harris�s term when Commissioner Harris retired in 1986. Mr. Thomas was re-appointed in 1991 by President Bush. He was re-appointed again by President Clinton. He served as FEC Chairman in 1987, 1993, and 1999. He thus, I think, is well equipped to testify on the commission�s perspective on these issues. Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Scott Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Zelikow. Well, Mr. President and distinguished members of the Commission, I�m very honored to be here and have a chance to make a presentation. I�d like, at the outset, to recall a personal moment with President Ford many years ago when I was first made chairman. I received a message from the receptionist that President Ford was on the line for me. At that time, early in my first term as chairman, I was getting a lot of prank calls from some of my buddies who thought that this was pretty humorous that I was the chairman of the Federal Election Commission. One buddy was used to sending me messages something to the effect that this would be a message that would be left for me: �Your intelligence tests are in. Bad news. Please call.� So I thought this was who was on the phone, and so I picked up the phone and I said, �Well, hello, President Bob.� There was a slight pause, and there was President Ford saying, �Well, Mr. Chairman, Betty and I have a question about some book sales that we want to work out.� So, there I was. I was deeply humiliated. The point, I suppose, is that everything comes around, and I have a chance to apologize again, in person, Mr. President. It�s nice to see you. (President Ford: Nice to see you, and please proceed)

The Federal Election Commission has had a long-standing role in the issue of proper election administration. You may all know that the commission has had an Office of Election Administration since 1975, since the day the commission opened its doors. It was built right into the statute from day one that that would be part of the commission�s function apart from its campaign finance regulation role. Over the years the FEC�s Office of Election Administration has had a great role in, particularly, research projects of great use to election officials and legislators throughout the country. We, for years, have put out publications that cover topics like disenfranchisement of convicted felons and voter registration issues for the homeless. This journal of election administration is published periodically to bring up hot topic issues.

We�ve also got in the works what we call our innovations in election administration series, and we�ve now done sixteen of these. This one, for example, deals with the topic of ensuring accessibility of the election process. We have conducted extensive research and put together what various states do in various areas: for example, in the area of contested elections and re-counts. This is a multi-volume series that explains how different states have approached these topics and what issues and problems they try to solve. We also have worked on a lot of issues involving helping election officials deal with modern technology, how to develop a statewide computerized voter registration list, for example. Those are some examples of what the agency�s Office of Election Administration has been doing over the years.

Apart from that you probably know the FEC�s Office of Election Administration was given the lead role in helping to implement the Voting Accessibility Act, and the commission put together a comprehensive system for collecting data from election officials around the country as to whether they are in compliance with the accessibility act requirements. And we have reported that information to Congress, or we did report that until the authority to do that reporting function expired. In addition, we were responsible for helping to implement the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and we were responsible for developing the regulations there that set up the reporting system for various election jurisdictions. And through that system we report to Congress, and to anyone who will listen, how the states are complying with the provisions of so-called Motor-Voter, how the drivers� license system is working for registration and address change purposes, how the mail-in registration process that was mandated by that federal legislation is working out, and so on. So, we have been in the center of making that law work. I would note, by the way, we�re about to issue, at the end of this month, a report on how that has been going for the 2000 election cycle. I�m happy to say that the preliminary numbers of most importance are that the percentage of the voting age population is up. We�re now up to about 75%. Now, that�s not perfect, obviously, but it�s on the way up, and I think that that legislation has been very helpful in that regard.

Also, the commission, and probably of most importance to this organization, has been instrumental in developing what are called the voluntary voting system standards. These are technical standards that deal with the technical sort of suggestions and guidelines that states, we hope, will adopt and require so that when election jurisdictions acquire new voting systems, new voting equipment, and new software-counting machines and so on-if the state has adopted these standards, the machinery and so on will have to pass muster with an independent testing authority. It�s a very important function, and we have done this up to this point. These standards, however, are somewhat dated, and we�re in the process of updating them as we speak.

Now, as to the future, aside from that ongoing project to update the voting system standards, we have in the works a request that the FEC�s Office of Election Administration be allowed to expand to take on some of these tasks that came out of the 2000 election. For example, we�re suggesting that more voluntary voting system standards be developed by the Federal Election Commission�s Office of Election Administration and made available to states should they choose to adopt them. Areas such as ballot design, equipment maintenance, voting system acquisition procedures, testing of equipment just before the election and just after the election, security of equipment and so on, public education and voter education programs, election worker training, polling place accessibility, and absentee voting procedures. Those are additional topics that we�re urging that the commission�s Office of Election Administration be allowed to help update. We�re also suggesting some role for having the Office of Election Administration develop programs with contractors to help train in some of these crucial areas once we�ve developed guidelines and standards.

We also, in connection with that, are seeking additional funding to expand our office. We, right now, have a relatively meager staff, and one of our suggestions is that the commission be allowed to expand that so that it can accomplish these expanded roles in the area of voting system standards in these operational fields that I was telling you about. I�ll stop there. I don�t want to get into the official begging stage, but since I�m seated next to one of our important appropriators, I always feel it appropriate to make mention of our need for additional resources. Thank you very much.

Mr. Zelikow: We expect to be joined momentarily by Senator Christopher Dodd by videoconference. You can see the monitors are set up. They are set up so that we can see him, and he will actually be able to see at least the Commission. He will not necessarily be able to see all of you in the audience, but hopefully you can follow the colloquy. We�re talking about absentee voting, this is an example of absentee testimony. He has a good excuse since he�s about to become a committee chairman in the next twenty-four hours. Senator Dodd from Connecticut will become the new chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. Just as we�ve heard from the leadership of the House Committee on Administration, which is the committee of jurisdiction for this issue in the House, the committee of jurisdiction for the election reform issue in the Senate is Senate Rules which (tape cuts out) committee under the new leadership will be Senator Christopher Dodd (tape cuts out)

Congressman Hoyer: �Congresswoman Waters who is heading up a special committee. When the joint committee broke down, and we unfortunately didn�t reach agreement, Congresswoman Waters was appointed and has been having hearings around the country as well. But I think there-Slade, Senator-is a real desire to pass legislation. My own view is that the more prescriptive you are, the more resistant states and local jurisdictions will be, and you will magnify the difficulty of passing consensus legislation.

There are two aspects of this issue in my opinion. One is what I refer to as the more mechanical, which essentially the House Administration Committee oversees, and that is the sort of election administration aspect. The other is the core issue of the civil rights issue (is) not only saying that every American has a right to vote, and not only allowing, but facilitating the exercise of that right. The civil rights aspect, the Voting Rights of 1965 aspect of the legislation-and as I think most of us read the Civil Rights Commission�s sort of leaked story today in either the Post or the Times-and there is a very significant feeling among a large number of people that this is not just a mechanical problem but there were, through various devices, impediments to voting. The basic answer, however, is that I think we will resolve those differences. In our bill, and Congressman Ney and I have agreed, there will be certain thresholds that states and localities will have to meet before getting federal dollars, and that is that they are in compliance with the various existing federal statutes such as the National Voter Registration Act, the Disabilities Act, and other acts of that nature which seek to ensure the rights of Americans to vote.

My view continues to be that the less prescriptive we are, the more advisory and facilitating we are in terms of helping, empowering local jurisdictions who can�t afford new machinery to give them that ability to do so, we will have more chance of adopting legislation in the short term. My own view is that possibly this will be two bills, one dealing with the mechanical aspects of this issue and one dealing with the civil rights aspect of this issue, which may be more controversial which I will support in and co-sponsor, but which may be more controversial.

Mr. William Coleman, Jr.: I ask you two questions. One is in your prepared remarks when you talked about absentee voting, you talked about military and people overseas. Does that mean that, with respect to the other statutes that permit absentee voting for other reasons, that you are not as supportive of those as you are the first? Because I always had a problem with some of them. It seems to me that if you have an election where it�s based upon the debate or the public, that if you vote thirty days before the election, you may not have heard all of the arguments. My other question is, I know you don�t have this effect but, since you come from the East, do you have any concern that once the Merlin results are reported, that there�s still voting in the rest of the country and that may well affect the number of people that come out?

Congressman Hoyer: First of all, let me speak to the issue of absentee [voting]. I did not get into absentee voting per say. Obviously, increasingly particularly in the West, provisions are being made, Oregon, I guess, is the most dramatic example of a state where most people are now voting not at a centralized polling place. I will tell you my personal bias is I don�t always agree with George Will, which will not shock some of you, I�m sure, who know me, but I think his concept of a communitarian participation in voting is one that I think has a very positive effect on our democracy. So, I�m not a great advocate of facilitating arms-length voting if you will.

Having said that, however, in this past election we had a dramatic example of the issues that can be raised with overseas voting, and therefore, I think we will not deal with this prescriptively, we will deal with it in a way that encourages the Department of Defense, from whom we�ve had testimony, and veteran�s organizations to work together to facilitate the ensuring that men and women we send overseas have their right to vote guaranteed. Secondly, those who are working overseas, Americans working overseas, are ensured their vote, as is currently the statute. But we found significant problems where many votes cast from overseas were not, in fact, counted if local election officials made a determination that they would not affect the outcome. So, my not mentioning the other issue was that I think that is an issue for another day, personally.

Now, the East-West . . . if I could just quickly . . . on the time frame . . . we will probably not deal with that. There is a lot of discussion, a lot of controversy, that surrounds, for instance, holiday voting, uniform times of closing where the East would close early and the West would close late in California, three hours later than the East, but you would have the same national closing time; that has been suggested. All of those are issues with which, I think, we will be dealing, whether or not they�ll be resolved by the Congress, I think is because of the controversy surrounding them. For instance, holiday voting . . . some experts believe that holiday voting will undermine turnout, not enhance it. I don�t know the answer to that, but I do know that it is not something on which there is now a consensus.

Mr. Zelikow: Senator Boschwitz and Dean Sullivan, who both asked to be recognized for questions. Senator Boschwitz.

Senator Rudy Boschwitz: We had some testimony, Congressman Hoyer, from the registrar, I forget her exact title, of Los Angeles County, and they seem to be using the punch cards down there. And they seem to be relatively satisfied. They�re voting today. We�ll see how they are after today. I�ll re-read that testimony, but as I recall, they were quite satisfied and quite overwhelmed by the cost, $100 million, of replacing such machinery in their county alone. One of the interesting suggestions that has come up, in my judgment, in the course of these hearings is possibly allowing federal workers or state and municipal workers to have the day off in a paid way if they become workers at the polls. Have you discussed that in your hearings, and have you considered that? And what is your view?

Congressman Hoyer: That provision is included in the bill that I�ve introduced along with David Price and Jim Davis from Florida and others. Steve Horn, Republican from California, has also co-sponsored that legislation. I think that is a way that the federal government can help the shortage. I want to reiterate-sort of give me an opportunity to bang the drum for-the HAV program, Help America Vote program, which I thought about in terms of: if you�ve got a problem, you�ve got literally hundreds of thousands of young people around this country in every community that are going to college and are learning about democracy or studying about democracy. What better way to get them involved than to give some incentives to colleges through financial, small stipends to help them train, and then have those students work in the polling places on Election Day. Federal employees, obviously, could serve the same function. (Senator Boschwitz: And municipal and state and also possibly high school seniors or juniors). Yes.

Mr. Zelikow: We�re going to interrupt the Q&A now to hear from our third live witness, testifying absentee, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Senator Dodd, we�ve already introduced you, and we�ve already explained the pivotal role you�ll be exercising on this issue within the next twenty-four hours, in addition to the role you�ve already been playing so far. And we�ve already alluded to the bill that you�ve sponsored. We�ve been imposing the familiar five-minute time deadline on the opening statements of your colleagues. We�re glad you could join us in this virtual sense at such a hectic time on the Senate.

Senator Christopher Dodd: Well, thank you very much. Imposing a five-minute rule on senators, and I see two of my former colleagues there, is a Herculean task, and I�ll certainly try to live within those rules. First of all, it�s an honor for me to appear before this Commission today. And I really marvel at how technology would allow me to participate at events like this, taking place some 500 miles away from Washington, and I appreciate very much your explanation of why I can�t be there in person. I certainly thank the Commission and fellow panelists, Steny Hoyer, Bob Ney. I�ve been listening to some of the questions from my former colleagues, Slade Gorton, Rudy Boschwitz. It�s certainly an honor to be appearing before a commission that includes Bob Michel and, of course, President Gerry Ford, and so I thank you immensely for allowing me to testify in this manner.

It�s a particular honor to have the opportunity to address, as I said, the chairman, the former President Gerry Ford. I was one of forty senators or more, sixty senators, a couple weeks ago that had the privilege of attending a lecture by President Ford delivered in the historic Old Senate Chamber of the United States Capitol. This was part of the Leaders Lecture Series in the United States Senate. Let me say to you, President Ford, if I can, I�ve been to every single one of these lecture series that Trent Lott and Tom Daschle have hosted, and they�ve been a very valuable series of lectures for members of the Senate and former staffs of those who�ve spoken.

I don�t say this merely because I�m appearing before you, I think your presentation was the finest that I heard. I say that with all due respect to others who have testified. You truly gave us a lecture about our responsibilities as public officials, as people given that rare moment in time to try and do something to help improve the world in which we live. It was a sharing of wisdom and knowledge, intended, in my view, to enlighten and provoke those who heard it. And if I may take the liberty of quoting you, because I think it�s so applicable to what this Commission is being asked to do, what we�re being asked to do in light of events, not just last fall in one state, but I think understanding that what happened in Florida on a presidential race last year was not just anecdotal. If you accept it as anecdotal, then the fix is rather easy. If you think this is a deeper problem that goes beyond just what occurred in a few counties in Florida, then I think you approach this issue a bit differently.

In your remarks two weeks ago you noted the contributions of some of our greatest statesman throughout America�s history, Daniel Webster, Arthur Vandenburg, you mentioned Jack Kennedy. You noted that each of these men possessed the understanding that, and I�m quoting you here, "the high-stakes game of history"-if I recall this right- "the high-stakes view of history, only those who are willing to lose for their convictions deserve to win at the polls." In a sense, I appear before you today as one who believes that Congress must fundamentally change our system of federal elections and as one senator who has the conviction at least to try and find the common ground that will produce such reform. But it isn�t just a modest fix in my view. I congratulate you and your co-chairman, President Jimmy Carter, and the members of the Commission for providing, obviously, the intellectual and visionary resources to analyze what happened last year, and earlier, in these elections so that many Americans who feel disenfranchised can begin to look to the next election process as one where they can be included. So, I welcome the Commission�s recommendations, looking forward to what you�ll be saying with your final reports, and to give us some advice as to how you think the Congress can provide the resource and the leadership to re-invigorate grassroots participation through the voting booth in our democracy. We are a nation who values the potential and the participation in society of every individual, regardless of circumstances.

If I can digress a moment here again, President Ford, as I was a freshman member of the House of Representatives back in 1975 serving with Bob Michel in those days, when you issued the regulations that said that every child in America, regardless of disabilities, deserved to get an education. I�ll never forget that. I was so proud. I have a sister who is blind, blind from birth. When I think what those regulations might have meant to her when she was growing up in the late 1930s and �40s and �50s, had there been regulations that said that she deserved to maximize her potential. You didn�t say that just those states that got federal dollars ought to recognize her potential; you said every child in America, regardless of their disability, deserved to have a right to be heard, to maximize their efforts. In a sense again, that�s what we�re trying to do here. I think that the hallmark of our reference should be to reform our election system so that every person in this country who meets the basic qualifications can vote and have their vote counted so that, regardless of physical disability or race, language barriers, minorities, or other circumstances, [they] can participate in this democracy by exercising their rights, their basic rights to vote. It�s the right thing to do because it goes, in my view, to the very heart of who we are as a people and how we are trying to govern ourselves. The right to vote, in my view, is the cornerstone, a right, in a democracy. The words of Tom Paine, who I like to quote often, he said, "It is the primary right by which all other rights are protected, the right to vote."

This debate, in my view, cannot be deduced to how we build a better mousetrap, a better voting booth, or just more dollars and resources, or to coax the states into doing what we all know is necessary to ensuring the health of this democracy in this country. When nearly 2.5 million votes out of 100 million are cast but not counted, that is a staggering statistic. (tape flips over) . . . that results in a crisis of confidence in our electoral system which threatens to undermine, in my view again, the system of democracy. When an estimated 54% of the votes not tabulated in the Florida election were cast by African-American voters, then we must exhibit the same courage of our convictions exhibited by the Congress that passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If we�re merely looking for some accommodation to get a quick bill passed here . . . we would have never passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had the authors of that legislation been just satisfied with getting a bipartisan bill. They could have done that very easily. They had something else in mind. They had a big idea, as you talked about the other day President Ford, a big idea. They planted a flag, and they said this is where we ought to be as a people. In a sense, what I�ve done with this bill and what John Conyers as my co-sponsor is saying, this is more than just a better voting booth. It needs to include the understanding that what occurred here was more important than that.

According to today�s Washington Post, by the way-I don�t know if you�ve seen it out there-the final report of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission review of the Florida election will conclude that, as I mentioned a moment ago, 54% of the votes rejected during the Florida election were cast by African-American voters. The article goes on to state: in the report, due to the issue this Friday that contains key findings that conclude that African Americans were nearly ten times as likely to have their ballots rejected as white Americans, poor communities populated by minorities were more likely to use voting systems that rejected larger percentages of ballots than more affluent communities, that Hispanic and Haitian voters in Florida were not provided ballots in their native languages, that disabled voters were denied access to entering polling sites through the physical barriers . . .

Well, in my view, there is no reason to believe that any of these problems were the result of intentional actions-and I certainly hope that�s the case on the part of state or local officials-and I�m confident that they were not as I testify before you today. But, whether intentional or not, as we said in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, if these kinds of statistics coming out of our federal election system are true, then they suggest there is still a disparate treatment of certain voters of people of color, language barrier, minorities, and the disabled, and we ought to step in and try and correct it. Now, the federal government, I think, has an obligation to provide leadership and the resources to ensure that such disenfranchisement does not occur in the next elections or thereafter. We can�t be perfect, but we ought to try and at least understand these numbers, understand what they mean, and step forward to offer some suggestions.

As the incoming chairman of the Senate Rules Committee that has jurisdiction over election reforms, then I�m committed to doing what we can: to hold hearings; to listen to the advice such as you�ll be offering with this particular panel, the Civil Rights Commission, and others as to how we can best do that. I know we�re going to need resources to support the states and localities in fulfilling their responsibilities. We ought to do that. With that understanding, as chairman I intend to try and make securing a bipartisan bill supporting election reform my top legislative priority in this Congress. As many of you know, I�ve introduced a bill you�ve been talking about, and I gather to some extent-which I�ve introduced with John Conyers in the House-forty-nine other sponsors here, a number of Republicans, in the recess week have been in touch with me asking more about the bill with a strong potential of co-sponsoring the legislation. Let me just mention what it does very briefly. This is the only bill, I think, that ensures that what happened in elections last November will not happen again, or at least minimizing that. We think this is a comprehensive approach. We have a commission established here to look at some of the issues that Rudy Boschwitz just raised, such dates as a holiday voting. I don�t know the exact answer to that, but I think we ought to look at those.

Chairman Coleman, you raised a couple of questions that I think we ought to examine, as well, about the military. So, we established a commission that would report back rather quickly, which you may provide some enlightenment on, [this commission] is to look at some of those issues. We also look at policies that go to the issue of whether or not people are being disenfranchised. The bill establishes three common sense requirements in that regard: no voter regardless of race, disability, or language minority would be turned away from the polls in the next presidential election. This legislation would also require the following: one, that all voting machines and systems used in federal elections starting in 2004 conform to uniform nondiscrimination standards. That leaves flexibility at the state and local level. We�re not designing the machine for you, but it must meet that basic criteria. We�re not doing something new here; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 established federal mandates. Those were not voluntary guidelines in the 1965 act. Secondly, that all states provide for provisional balloting to ensure that no voter who goes to the polls be told that he or she cannot vote because their name is not on a registration list. In fact we know now that 2.5 to 3 million voters showed up to vote last fall and then were told they couldn�t vote and subsequently discovered they were registered. Thirdly, or fourthly rather, that all voters receive a copy of a sample ballot with instructions on how to vote and how to secure their rights as voters; that�s commonsensible. That helps people, before they go in, to minimize the fear that people have that they�re going to make a mistake or they�re going to do something wrong.

Bills that only provide funding conditioned on states taking certain action, in my view-and I say this with all due respect to those who are advocating a different approach-don�t go far enough and aren�t going to ensure that racial minorities, language minorities, the blind, the disabled, overseas voters, working men and women are going to be able to exercise their most precious right to vote and to have their vote counted. So, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of �64, we did not let each state decide whether they would end discrimination. When we passed the Americans with Disability Act, we did not let businesses decide whether or not they would become accessible to the disabled. When we pass election reform legislation, in my view, we should not leave it exclusively to the states and localities to decide whether people of color, with disabilities, language minorities receive the right to have their votes cast and to be counted.

Our belief in the power of the individual voter to participate in this representative system of governments is too fundamental to who we are as a nation to leave it exclusively to the discretion of states and localities to decide for themselves. We must be resolved to enable and ensure that every eligible American has the right to vote and that their vote is counted. There is something terribly wrong when only one out of every two eligible people in this country cast a ballot for president of the United States. As the leading democracy in the world, we have got to do a lot better than that. I apologize; I have gone over a little bit of time. You�re extremely patient to take my testimony in this manner, and [I] look forward to hearing from the Commission. I thank you very, very much.

Mr. Zelikow: Thank you, Senator Dodd. On my list Dean Sullivan had the next question.

Dean Kathleen Sullivan: Thank you very much. Senator Dodd anticipated the theme of my question, which I want to address in the first instance to Congressman Hoyer, and that is the issue of statewide uniformity. We can recall that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, that was cited by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore says that no state shall deprive any person of equal protection of the law and suggested that if voting is to be considered a fundamental right, then there have to be certain kinds of statewide uniformity. The problems in Florida stem very much from variations in local practices, county-by-county practices, as to types of voting methodology and as to methods for re-count.

So, my question, Congressman Hoyer, is, I understand your point about the kind of pushback and resistance that might come from any attempt by the federal government to bring about greater uniformity at the federal level, to have a command and control structure that says that congressional elections have to have a national standard that�s uniform in all states, but is your view equally that the localities have to be respected? Or would it be possible for the federal government-even in an attempt to encourage the states, rather than command the states-to bring about changes in voting methodology? Would it be possible, nonetheless, for the federal government to require that within each state methods for voting be uniform? Maybe that New Yorkers love their lever machines and Californians prefer punch cards or optical scan or touch technology, but that you shouldn�t have county-by-county variation? The state ought to decide at the state level what the technology for voting is, and then the disparities among voters that the Constitution cares about might thereby be reduced. So, in short, is the pushback from the localities something that should be worried about, as well as that from the states, or should we just try to recommend something that will bring about greater state-by-state uniformity within the states?

Congressman Hoyer: Dean, as I said earlier, it�s sort of a two-pronged effort, and I think Senator Dodd�s testimony dramatized the two prong. One is a mechanical problem of how, if you do everything right, does the machinery work to count the vote. Secondly, or the first question, of course, is to make sure that legally you have done right. Obviously, the Voting Rights Act requires that. A number of other pieces of legislation-the Disabilities Act, of which I was probably the principle co-sponsor in the House-spoke to that as well. The pushback, what you talk about . . . clearly, I think, Bush v. Gore requires statewide uniformity on a number of things so that there is not a disparity of treatment from precinct to precinct, from county to county, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It seems to me that�s what Bush-Gore talked about.

As a matter of fact, I think you can look at Bush v. Gore more expansively. Why should the Maryland voter, voting for president of the United States, have their vote count a little less or a little more than the voter in Florida because there is not uniformity of access and uniformity of education to voters and things of that nature? That is not what the Supreme Court . . . they didn�t deal with that issue, and I understand that. I would agree with Senator Dodd that, for instance, what Florida has done in turning, essentially, its system to a statewide system: as you know they centralized registration, uniformity of technology, they�re eliminating all the punch cards, as you know . . . So that, I think, you�re going to see states and localities move in that direction, and I think Bush v. Gore is going to require us to move in that direction. I think there is appropriate action for the federal government to take to encourage that uniformity.

Again, I�m looking at a two-prong time frame. One is the short time frame-between now and 2002, or at max. 2004-in terms of getting technology that works in place to give voters confidence that they�re not using technology that no matter how much they try, it won�t count some of their votes. Secondly, is the longer term. Mr. Thomas has pointed [to] a lot of information that is available and is welcomed by the locals, and they�re using it. It�s not being imposed upon them; they�re using it because it�s important information that they want, and I think what the thirty-eight days or so between November 8 and December 12 did in mesmerizing the nation was to educate us on the necessity to have a uniform practice that voters understood, that election officials understood, and that counted every American�s vote. A political problem we�re going to have in the short term, not necessarily in the long term, is how much pushback there will be from the folks who have historically, for over two centuries, run elections without the federal government�s help-without any dollars from us, with some voluntary guidelines which they�ve welcomed, but which have not been imposed upon them-and how big a pushback that�s going to be.

Mr. Zelikow: I�ve got Mr. Edley, Ms. Ravitch, Ms. McAndrews. We�re going to try to run this session a little late, to about 12:15 or 12:20, but hopefully we can go ahead and wrap it up there so that we don�t get too far behind for a very elaborate schedule the rest of the day.

Professor Christopher Edley: Congressman, two quick things. One is that I am a little bit concerned about the potential polarization here between the folks who talk about state and local control and decry mandates on the one hand, versus the folks who say this right is so important, so fundamental that there ought to be-at least in the instance of federal elections-some requirements, some standards whether those are enforced by direction by the Congress or through incentives with money. Could you say a little bit about where you come out on that balance because it�s not at all�(unclear). That�s number one. Number two is speaking to your expertise as an appropriator, if this Commission does, in fact, recommend a substantial federal program, where should it be housed? You�ve had some oversight responsibilities for the FEC, and I wouldn�t exactly say that the appropriators have showered them with dollars. Does that suggest that you have reservations about lodging substantial new administrative tasks in the FEC?

Congressman Hoyer: Let me try to respond quickly to both questions. First, I believe that substantial federal dollars ought to be appropriated to assist and empower local jurisdictions to do what I think they want to do: primarily, technology upgrades and education and training, education of voters, enabling them to inform voters. I think we ought to make sure the post office does, in fact, give preferential rates. That�s in the law now; it hasn�t happened, and Congress hasn�t appropriated any revenue, foregone money for the postal department to offset that expense. I think we ought to do that. I think that before they get money, however, they have to certify that they have, in fact, met every piece of legislation that�s on the books that requires voter access and fair treatment of voters. That�s in my legislation. I think it will be in our legislation, Bob Ney�s and mine.

Secondly, you asked the question . . . so that I don�t want to give any implication that I don�t think the states ought to meet certain standards before they get federal dollars. The federal government has already said, under the Voting Rights Act, that every American eligible to vote must be allowed to vote. That didn�t happen. Senator Dodd is correct. Now, whether it didn�t happen because of a conscious conspiracy, if you will, or didn�t happen because of negligent or stupidity or lack of knowledge is irrelevant to the voter ultimately, and we need to require that those statutes already on the books and new requirements, if we enact new requirements, be met by the states.

Secondly, as to housing, I�ve been on the Appropriations Committee, which funds the FEC for eighteen years. It has been a constant struggle to fund the FEC. Why? Because the Congress has not been confident that the money has been spent effectively. Mr. Thomas has had to respond to those questions all the time. Secondly, there is a conflict of interests between those who are regulated by the FEC and the FEC itself, that is, the members of Congress who get campaign finance. I believe that we ought to, as most of the bills have proposed, take the Office of Election Administration out of the FEC. Why do I believe that? I think there are two major issues. One is the federal election financing issue, which is a major, discrete, critically important issue, and I think the FEC ought to deal with that issue. I think one problem for FEC commissioners, frankly, [is that] they�re overwhelmed with that focus, and therefore focusing, like the local subdivisions, on elections has been a secondary priority. They now want to expand their budget. I think that�s an appropriate request by them and their personnel. But, I frankly think we ought to move that over to a separate, discrete organization.

We�ve proposed four people. Many of the other bills have proposed four people, some larger commissions. Four-member commissions: two Republicans, two Democrats, two appointed by the president, and then two recommended to the president by the Minority Leaders of the non-presidential party so that you would have a four member commission which would mean, Mr. President, you need 75% of the commission before you could move forward on a decision, ensuring bipartisanship, in my opinion.

Secondly, we have suggested something that most of the legislation has not suggested, but which Mr. Ney referred to. He and I aren�t necessarily in full agreement on this issue as to what their role ought to be, but we have provided for, in the bill that I�ve introduced, an advisory committee to be composed of sixteen. We�re going to expand that, probably, up to twenty that you would include governors, legislatures, election officials, civil rights organizations, disability organizations, election experts, and other organizations which have a relevant participation. They would be advisory in nature to the commission. So that you would have local folks statutorily given the right to give specific recommendations. The commission obviously wouldn�t have to adopt them, but they would play a significant role in the commission�s work so that, I think, you incorporate local governments that way, but I think it ought to be, in answer to your question, a discrete organization and have election administration under one commission and have campaign finance under another.

Mr. Zelikow: Right now, my list of Commissioners who wish to ask questions is Ms. Ravitch, Ms. McAndrews, and Mr. Richardson, and with permission of all my various bosses, I�d like to close the list right there so that we can keep from being too far behind. And I think the Commissioners� questions have been commendably pointed and short, and I know Congressman Hoyer . . . (Congressman Hoyer: You�d like the answers to be the same. That was subtle, but I got it. Even a member of Congress can get that.) Ms. Ravitch.

Dr. Diane Ravitch: I�m going to pass.

Mr. Zelikow: Ms. McAndrews.

Ms. Colleen McAndrews: This is just a brief question involving the issues of technology and money. When we�ve listened to all of the local elections officials, it is clear they all want to provide citizens the opportunity to vote. I don�t think there has been any evidence in three hearings that there has been any kind of intentional deprivation of vote or intentional disenfranchisement, and most of them will tell you that their problems come down to just the mere money. I�m concerned that unless Congress just opens the piggy banks and says, �Go buy the latest DRE machinery quick,� and even, we understand, even if that were to happen and there were unlimited funds, there aren�t enough machines on the shelf out there being manufactured to be up and running by 2002, much less 2004. In terms of changing (inaudible) like in Los Angeles County, it would be $120 million dollars to do away with the punch cards and go to the touch screen machines.

One of the things that came up at the last hearing is there is technology available for secondary machines that could be in the precincts that would allow an optical scan voter or a punch card voter to put their ballot through the secondary machine to verify if they voted correctly. The machine would reflect to them that it�s an undervote or an overvote, and it would give feedback immediately to the voters so that the error could be corrected. And that this is the real problem in people being disenfranchised; it�s the errors that occur, the lack of training. So, I hope in your deliberations in Congress you don�t decide that sort of one size fits all and punch cards are bad or optical scanners are bad because we�ve had conflicting testimony between Georgia and Florida as to where the most errors occurred using those two machines, that you will look at this concept of having this secondary check, and that that�s really the best way to get more effective voting in the precincts and make that available as sort of a two-step process since we aren�t going to be able to do it overnight. So, I wonder if you have any comment on that.

Congressman Hoyer: Let me try to make quick comments. First of all, from what I have heard and discussed with experts, it is my perception and belief that the key is local ability to let the voter know they have made a mistake. The punch card and opti-scan . . . opti-scan can have an even greater rate if the ability to do that is not present at the precinct level. In other words, if all the ballots are taken to a central place and counted, obviously, the voter has gone home, there is no opportunity to tell the voter, �By the way, we put it in the machine, and you voted for two people rather than one.� So, it�s not so much the technology; it�s the local ability to provide the voter information-�You made a mistake�-whether that�s a DRE, opti-scan, or any other kind of technology. Secondly, we do not tell anybody what kind of technology they need to buy. We�re not going to do that. I don�t do that in my bill. We�re certainly not going to do it in the Ney-Hoyer Bill.

Thirdly, however, as I said in my statement, there is a consensus that the punch card is pretty much technology that ought to go. We do not mandate that anybody get rid of the technology; however, this is optional if money is available. Thirdly, we�re going to provide for-my bill did not do it; my bill was 100%, but I think the bill that Mr. Ney and I introduced will be a match-there will be a match with criteria that you can, in effect, get away from the match if you can show that you simply are a very poor jurisdiction and cannot afford the technology. So that . . . we want to leave local flexibility, and I want to say, lastly, that we do not require that you buy it. As you know the Florida legislation-I thought correctly, and I talked to Secretary Harris about this-provided-and we do in our legislation, I think Mr. Ney and I will in our legislation-provide for leasing. Therefore, you do not have to absolutely decide that this is the technology you�re going to use forever. Technology is developing. As a matter of fact, we�re going to include at least $10 million in our bill on an ongoing basis for technology development so that there . . . because the marketplace is not very volatile, therefore, there is not a lot of incentive to develop new technology to (inaudible) lever machines over sixty years of age still being used so that . . . we�re trying to provide flexibility, incentive, and local effort.

Mr. Zelikow: Mr. Richardson.

Congressman Hoyer: That wasn�t as short as I would have liked, Mr. Zelikow. I apologize.

Secretary Bill Richardson: Commissioner Thomas, you have been, obviously, appointed in various administration,s and you have a very good reputation as being fair. We�ve showered all our attention on the great Steny Hoyer. So, I�d like to ask you the question that I think that was asked that Steny Hoyer, Congressman Hoyer, . . . which I agree that you take the election reform component out of the FEC, put it separately, not because you�re not good or doing the job, but because when campaign finance happens-and I think eventually it will-you will have so much more to do. But, I would be very interested in your thoughts having seen the pendulum, in your experience, on precisely what are the strings you would like to see, the federal strings, when it comes to funding for states and localities to . . . you know, I�ve always felt that we have ignored the counties. The counties are the entities that have the power in elections. States are great. Secretaries of state, we�ve had them at every hearing, but I want a county clerk to get some guidance or help.

It�s a very broad question to you, but I would like just any thoughts that you might have on striking the balance, on answering the question, will the separate entity work? It won�t be under you, you would have enough to do. Lastly, this issue of the strings and where do you put the strings. I really was disturbed by this Civil Rights Commission report of disenfranchisement of minority voters. I wish the report had been bipartisan. It wasn�t. It was not endorsed by both sides, and I think one of the strengths of this Commission is a lot of bipartisanship. But maybe you could answer that too: what do we do about that disenfranchisement issue?

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Ambassador, I think that the concept of having some sort of beefed-up Office of Election Administration is a good one. We at the commission, of course, have been making the pitch that every time we�ve been given an assignment we�ve done it and we�ve done it under budget and we�ve done it on time. There has never been any of the dissension at the commission in the area of election administration that there has been in some other areas, like campaign finance issues. Campaign finance issues are a whole different creature; they�re subject to a whole bunch of court decisions that many of us consider somewhat goofy. They make the law very confusing. But, in the area of election administration, I don�t think the law is unclear in terms of what should be the proper voting system standards or what should be the best practices for election administrators. Our main pitch, I think, probably is-as you folks on this Commission are suggesting-if we�ve got an important task, let�s get it done. The commission, of course, will happily abide by whatever Congress comes up with to solve these problems. Our recommendation is that we�re here, we�re operational, we�ve got a great success record, we think, and we can handle the tasks. So, if you want to leave it at the Federal Election Commission, we will make do.

I would suggest one way to make sure that the funding is there is, perhaps, to resort to an earmark so that once we identify what projects ought to be done, even at the Federal Election Commission, there could be a specific earmark, and then there could be some provision made to make sure that the staffing and organization is beefed-up adequately. But, on the other point about what the proper role of the federal government ought to be, from the commission�s perspective we have most often dealt with developing-as we have in the voting system standards area-voluntary standards, and you come up with a set of guidelines that equipment and software ought to meet. States, if they want to, they adopt those, and then organizations wanting to sell voting equipment in that state to any county or state have to adhere to those standards.

About thirty-six states have adopted the FEC�s voting system standards and are working with them quite successfully, we think. That is a recipe for success, we think. Now, obviously, those don�t address some of the older systems that have been in some jurisdictions for years and years and years, long before even the voting system standards were adopted. But, I think that the balance probably will work best with some sort of carrot-and-stick approach. I think allowing funding will probably, with some sort of conditions attached, will probably be the most successful vehicle. I tend to agree with Senator Dodd; there are some underlying principles that are so important, that-just like with the National Voter Registration Act and just like with the Voting Accessibility Act-the federal government should probably identify some important standards and principles that have to be adhered to across the board in every county as well as every state. I think, responding a little bit to Dean Sullivan�s earlier question, with regards to the legal background for doing that, I think, implementing the Fourteenth Amendment, there is some additional federal argument that you can help implement these systems through that sort of approach.

President Ford: Thank you very much, Phil. I compliment both Mr. Thomas and Congressman Hoyer for their testimony. Having served in the Congress some fourteen years on the Committee on Appropriations, I developed an interest in and concern about how programs get started and where they end up budget-wise. What is the budget of your agency now?

Mr. Thomas: We�re right at about $40 million, Mr. President.

President Ford: Has the agency asked for more money?

Mr. Thomas: We have, in some years, asked for more money. I would say in the last few years we�ve been pretty successful at getting pretty close to the budget level we have requested. Now, in connection with our request this time around, for additional funding for the Office of Election Administration, so far we did not meet with success with the Office of Management and Budget, but we�re in the official begging stage, as I said earlier, with Congress after the 2002 budget request.

President Ford: What was your budget request this year?

Mr. Thomas: For fiscal 2002 we�re asking to bump it up to somewhere in the range of $46 million. So we�re asking for a pretty big jump. About two and a half million of that would be for this additional enhancement of the Office of Election Administration.

President Ford: And the program . . .

Congressman Hoyer: Mr. President, if I might . . . just an interesting fact, the FEC, under law, has the authority to make a direct request to Congress. So, although it does go through OMB, they have the opportunity to see it, the FEC can make a direct request to Congress, obviously, for the purposes of its independence, that provision was provided.

President Ford: They don�t go through the Office of Management and Budget . . .

Congressman Hoyer: They�re submitted to OMB for review, but the fact is that they can submit a direct budget to the Congress.

President Ford: Have they done that?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, we have done that. And it�s now before Congress, and we�re hoping we have a better result there.

President Ford: In other words, you don�t trust the OMB?

Mr. Thomas: Of course we trust OMB. It�s just that . . .

(Unidentifiable Speaker): My observation has been that nobody in the Executive Department trusts the OMB.

Mr. Thomas: I would never say I don�t trust OMB.

President Ford: If we accepted what your organization has recommended, we�d spent about $46 million in your program in the next fiscal year.

Mr. Thomas: For the Federal Election Commission, for all its functions, just for the Office of Election Administration, the total budget-considering its current functions and these add-on functions-would be somewhere in the range of three and a half million.

President Ford: Congressman Hoyer, as you have described your various suggestions in your bill, have you come up, in your analysis, with any anticipated budget figure?

Congressman Hoyer: Mr. President, it is interesting that there are a lot of bills in; most of them deal with five-year authorizations. Many of them are in the $2 billion - $2.5 billion category. They deal initially with, and our bill will probably deal with, an initial $400 to $500 million, which will be the initial crunch for replacement of punch cards, essentially. There will then be a further authorization on an annual basis at approximately [a] $150 million to $200 million level for ongoing technology, education, training, and research; [these] will be the four sort-of major, there will be other, focuses where the federal government will participate with the local governments in trying to enhance on an ongoing basis, the election process.

President Ford: Do we rely exclusively on the private sector for the development, the research development, of voting machinery, or does the federal government in any way finance research in this area?

Congressman Hoyer: I think NIST participates in some of the testimony we received as I recall . . . no, I�m looking at my expert, Doug is the expert on this kind of issue, but the answer is no. It�s not my answer, but one of your future witness�s answers, who knows far better than I do.

President Ford: No. Federal research and development is done by private sectors?

Congressman Hoyer: Yes. And of course, the local states and local governments do participate, obviously, in certification.

Mr. Zelikow: Thank you very much for your testimony on this panel. We�re going to adjourn for a lunch break. We originally scheduled to reconvene at 1:00. We will aspire to reconvene at 1:15, and I hope we will come very close to that aspiration.