He needed to act in this way . I think the assessment of the investigateoff team is those are are about two different subjects. One a year before, in the summer of 2014 about how to produce emails and whether there was a way to remove or mask the actual email address, the hrc, whatever it is,. Com. N and the other is about actually deleting the content of those emails sitting on the server. It seems like in your investigation you found time after time evidence of destruction, evidence of breaking iphones and other phones, all these different things, but yet you find that theres no evidence of intent. And im a little bit confused as to your interpretation of 18usc793f. On the one hand, youve said that secretary clinton couldnt be charged because her conduct was extremely careless but not grossly negligence, correct . Thats not exactly what i said. Thats what you said today. To meet what i understand to be the elements of the crime, one. And two, a consideration of what would be fair with respect to how other people have been treated. Those two things together tell me, and im nothing, happened changed my view on this, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Specific intent question, yes i agree harm, specific intent to harm the United States is a different thing than a gross negligence or willfulness. Just one last question. You talked about mary and joe. Mary and joe would be disciplined at fbi if they did what Hillary Clinton did. If mary and joe came to you and asked for a promotion immediately after being disciplined, would you give them that promotion . Tough to answer that hypothetical. Would depend on nature of conduct and what disciplined had been imposed. When what if they would ask a promotion would give them management and control of cybersecurity of your agency and secrets of your agency after they had done these things, would you give them that promotion . That is question i dont want to answer. The time of the gentleman has expired. Chair recognizes gentlewoman from california, miss walters for five minutes. Hi, director comey, despite absence of intent mens rea in 18 usc 73f you said there has never been prosecution without evidence of intent. Thus the standard has been read into the statute despite specific language enacted. What exactly are the Legal Precedents justify reading intent into the statute . Well, my understanding of 793f is governed by a couple things, three things. One legislative history from 1917, which i have read. And the one case that was prosecuted in the case. And those two things combined tell me when congress enacted 793f they were very worried about the gross negligence language and put in legislative history we understand sitting very close to willfulness. Then the next 100 years of treatment of that, actually tell me the department of justice for century had that same reservation because they have only used it once. That was a case involving an fbi agent who was in espionage context. So those things together form my judgment of it. Considering the importance of protecting classified information for security purposes that intent standard should be red in the statute. What specific language would you recommend we enact to insure gross negligence is the actual standard for the stood taught, not intent. I dont think that is something the bureau ought to give advice on. That is good question what the standard should be. I can imagine federal employees should be very concerned how you draw the line for criminal liability but i dont think something we ought to advise on legislation. Should we enact mens rea standard for extreme carelessness for the statute . Same answer i think is appropriate. Should we enact a civil fine . Civil fine for mishandling classified information . I dont know. Actually because it is already subject to discipline, which is suspension or loss of clearance, loss of job, which is big monetary impact to the people disciplined. So i dont know whether it is necessary. Okay. I want to change the subject. Okay. For my next question. As you know the number of criminal background checks for noncriminal purposes such as for Employment Decisions to increase annually. I dont expect you have this information on hand however would you be willing to provide the committee and my staff with the number of criminal history record checks for fingerprintbased background checks that the fbi conducted over each of the past five years . And what are your thoughts regarding whether the fbi has the capacity to process increasing number of background check requests . Im sure we can get you that number because im sure we track it. So i will make sure my staff follows up with you. I do believe we have the resources where weve been strained is on the background checks for firearms purchases. The other background check processes we run, my overall sense is we have enough troops to do that. Were able to, we charge a fee for those. I think were able to generate the resources we need. Okay. Thank you. I yield back my time. Okay. Could the gentlelady yield to me . Sure. I would be happy to yield to you. Thank you. Director, sometime ago you appeared before this committee and you told us that you exhausted all the capability to unlock the san bernanadino iphone, the 5c. Did that turn out to be true . Still true. That you exhausted all of your capability . That the fbi had, yes. So shouldnt we be concerned from a cyber standpoint that you couldnt unlock a phone that in fact, Israeli Company came forward and unlocked for you, and a basically a cambridge professor or student for 90 bucks has shown also to be able unlock and mirror or duplicate the memory . I mean, this is purely a question of, you apparently do not have the resources to do that which others can do. Isnt that correct . Im sure that is true in whole bunch of respects. I have to correct you, im not confirming, you said Israeli Company a contractor for you purported for a Million Dollars unlocked the phone. So, i would ask you to confirm, the phone got unlocked, yes it did . The. Yes it did. So technology could be created outside of ordering a company to essentially clandestine reengineer their software for you, correct . In this particular case, yes. Okay. And so you lack that capability. How can this committee know that youre in the process of developing that sort of technology, the equivalent of the cambridge 90dollar technology . How can the committee know . Yeah. In other words where are the assurances youre going to get robust if we have Encryption Working Group that was formed between multiple committees to no small extent because of your action of going to a magistrate and getting an order because you lacked that capability, and were trying a new technique of ordering a company to go invent for you, the question is, how do we know that wont happen again, that you will go to the court, ask for something, when in fact the technology exists or could exist to do it in some other way . A technology that you should have at your disposal or at least some federal agency should like the nsa. First of all it could well happen again which is why it is great i think people are talking about what we might do about this problem. It is interesting question we ought to invest in whether we ought to hack into other peoples devices. Doesnt strike me as best solution. We are, i asked for more money in the 17 budget try to invest in those capabilities. When we need to get into a device we can. It is not scalable and im not sure thrilling to Companies Like apple that were investing money into figuring out how to hack into their stuff. I will be brief. Isnt it true we have clandestine organizations that have a mandate to do just that . To look around the world and to be able to find information that people dont know you can find, keep it secret, get it out there and my question to you is, shouldnt we instead of giving you the money, simply continue to leverage other agencies who already have that mandate and then ask you to ask them to be your conduit for that when you have an appropriate need . Thats a reasonable question. Maybe part of the solution. Real challenge is in using those kind of techniques in the bulk of our work because it becomes public and exposed. But that has to be important part of the conversation. Thank you. Yield back. The chair recognizes gentleman from arizona, mr. Franks, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, director comey. Director comey, i, the last thing i want to do is lecture you on anything related to the law because i think you have given your whole life to that effort and, i guess in the face of so many things already having been said here and asked, all i can try to do is sort of reassociate this in a reference of why there is rule of law. You know, we had that little unpleasantness in the late 17 70s with england over this rule of law. We realize there are only two main ways to govern. That is by rule of men or the rule of law. And sometimes its important for all of just to kind of reconnect what this whole enterprise of americas all about and again, dont seek to lecture you in that regard. And i know, and you have to forgive me for being a republican partisan here because i am very biased in this case. But i know that when you interviewed mrs. Clinton you were up against someone that, that really should have an earned doctorate of duplicity and deception happening on her wall. I dont know that you probably could have interviewed a more gifted prevaricator. I know you were up against the best. But having said that when i read the you law here that i know some have already referenced i think maybe that is the best way for me to do that. 18 usc 1924, provides that any federal official who, quote, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, and knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority, and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both. Now i didnt miss one word. It does not require that section does not require an intent to profit. It doesnt require harm to the United States or otherwise to act in any manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires intent to retain. Classified documents at an unauthorized location. And i believe, sir, in all sincerity to you, persontoperson i believe some of your comments reflected that is what occurred. And over the last several months, i believe thats the case and so, i have to, it is my job do ask you again why the simple clarity of that law was not applied in this case . Because the implications here are so profound, for your children and mine, for this country, they are so profound, and i again, i dont envy your job but i want to give you the remainder of the time to help me understand why a law like this that any, any law school graduate, if it we cant apply this one in this case, how in gods name can we apply it any case in the world . Why does it, why is it even writ . So im going to sop there and ask your forbearance an go for it. Sure. That is reasonable question. 18 usc 1924 is the misdemeanor mishandling statute basis most people have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information. It is not a strict liability statute. I was one of the people in the private sector who argued against strict liability criminal statutes. It requires in the view of the department of justice and over long practice proof of some criminal intent, not specific intent to harm the United States but general awareness youre doing something unlawful. So you have to prove criminal intent. There are two bombs if this case. Developing evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that secretary clinton acted with criminal intent, second, if you can do that, which you cant, what would be the right thing to do here . Has anybody prosecuted near these facts . I keep telling folks at home, lots of people prosecuted for this, please demand details of those cases because ive been through them all. So that combination what the statute requires and history of prosecutions told knee, again, people can take a different view, and it is reasonable to disagree, no reasonable prosecutor would bring that case. That in a nutshell what it is. You said it was reasonable question. It was a reasonable answer but i cant find that in the statute. Thank you, sir. Chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Richmond, for five minutes. Thank you, thank you, mr. Chairman. Director comey, and im going down a completely different path. Our Law Enforcement in this country have a consistent enemy with a group called sovereign citizens. What you have seen in my district, we lost two officers in st. John parish about four years ago and we just lost another three officers in baton rouge with another couple injured. In the case in st. John parish, we actually had the perpetrators on the radar in north louisiana, and at some point they moved to south louisiana, in my district and we lost contact. So when st. John parish deputies went to their trailer park they had no idea what they were walking into, and they walked into an ambush with ar15s and ak47s and the unimaginable happened. So through nccic and other things, are you focused making sure, i think there are about 100,000 of them, but are you all focused making sure our Law Enforcement has the best information when dialing with whether it is is rin citizen or terrorist cells or other bad actors that that information gets to the locals so theyre not surprised and ambushed . Well we sure are, and i dont know the circumstances of that case but i will find out the circumstances in two respects, we obviously want people toe to know when someone is wanted. We have a known terrorist file that have information about people should be knowing about, they run the address or that person, they get a hit on the what we call the kst file. That is our objective. If there are ways to make it better we want to. Lets switch lanes a little bit because this is one of i think an issue we Start Talking about criminal Justice Reform and Start Talking about the fbi in my community, the communities of color and with elected officials. There seems to be two standards. One for lowlevel elected officials and one for other people. So i guess the facts i will give you in some of our cases, you tell me if it sounds inconsistent with your knowledge of the law and your protocol, but nonprofit organizations where elected officials have either been on boards or had some affiliation with, when those funds are used in a manner that benefits them personally, they have been prosecuted, and i mean for amounts that range from anywhere from 2,000 upwards to 100,000. Your interpretation of the law that if a nonprofit funds are used to benefit a person and not the organization, that that is a theft of funds because i believe that those are a lot of the charges that i have seen in my community. Would you agree with that . Sure, could be. I know from personal experience having done these cases that is often, that is at center of a case involving a corrupt official. Lets take elect the official out and just take any Foundation Director or Board Director or executive director who would use the funds of a nonprofit to pay personal debts or bills or just takes money. You would agree that would constitute a violation of the law . Criminal statute . Potentially, on federal side, potentially of wire fraud, mail fraud or tax charge potentially. The other thing that i would say is that in our community, we feel that its selective prosecution. That if youre rich, you have another standard. That if youre an africanamerican you have another standard. And there are a number of cases that i will give you offline but, but it appears that in my concern is the authority of your agents to decide that a person is bad and then take them through holy hell to try to get to the ultimate conclusion that the agent made and they dont let the facts get in their way. And at the end of the day, you have Business People who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect their reputation, and fight a charge they ultimately win, now theyre broke or defeated. When it comes out says the United States of america versus you. I would just ask you, to create a mindset within the department, that they understand the consequences of leaks to the press, charges and what happens if, when those charges are really not substantiated you still break a person. I think that you all have a responsibility to be very careful with the awesome power that you all are given. With that, mr. Chairman, i take back, i would yield back. The chair thanks the gentleman. The director is welcome to respond. I very much agree, congressman, what you said at the end of that. The power to investigate is also power to ruin. It can be extraordinarily ruinous. We have tock he can extraordinarily care and openminded and careful so i very much agree with that. Chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. Trout. Thank you, mr. Chair. When you made the statement at press conference july 5th i have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way, or any part of the department of justice. I have no reason to know what i have am about to say. I dont have any question about your stun greg integrity. Is there anyone in your office that told one of the attorney generals staff what was about to happen on july 5th. Anything is possible. I think i would be willing to bet my life that didnt happen. I know my folks. The facts give me pause. The investigation started july 15. Many of us in congress including myself suggested the attorney general should recuse herself because of friendship with the clintons and desire to continue on as attorney general in the clinton administration. She had the fortuitous meeting on airplane with former president clinton on june 30th. July 2nd, give or take, you know i created an appearance of impropriety. So im just going to follow whatever the fbi directors recommendation is, and three days later you had your press conference. In your press conference you said, in our system of justice the prosecutors make the decisions about what charges are appropriate based on the evidence. That is not what happened in this case ultimately, you made the decision. Is that what happened . Well, i made public my recommendation. The decision to decline the case was made at justice department. Before you had that press conference you knew based on the attorneys Public Comments she was going to follow whatever you recommended. So ultimately you made the decision in this case as to whether or not charges should be filed against secretary clinton, isnt that the reality of what happened . That is fair characterization. The only thing i would add, i think she said, i dont remember exactly she would defer to the fbi and career prosecutors at department of justice. Look, i knew once i made public the fbis view this wasnt prosecutable case, there was virtually zero chance the department of justice would go in different direction. Part of my decision was based on my prediction that no way the department of justice would prosecute on these events in any event. But i think your characterization is fair but i wanted to ad color to it. You see some of us, for years weve been suggesting she is not appropriate decision to make ultimate decision whether charges should be filed. She wont recuse herself. Three days before you come out with your recommendation which she always said she would follow she basically decides to recuse herself, those facts give me pause. I get why folks ask about that. Two dates that matter. What generated around that the controversy of her meeting with president clinton, not interview with secretary clinton. That is whole another discussion. Lets talk about cheryl mills. You said earlier today that it really wasnt up to you to weigh in on whether there is a conflict for ms. Millions to act as secretary clintons lawyer in the interview ms. Mills. Youre taking your attorney hat on and off whenever it is convenient. You decide the at beginning of interview wasnt appropriate to weigh in as lawyer suggesting there was conflict but then again your recommendation ultimately as a lawyer what is being done in this case. You see a little bit of inconsistency there . No. I see the point, rather not have attorney hat on anytime. I put it on because i thought that was necessary at the conclusion of this investigation. But i stand by that. The agents of the fbi, not to them to kick out some someones lawyer. What would have happen if you said, miss mills, because of history here you cant be in this interview . I dont know. I dont know. Could you have said that to her . I guess you could. It would be well outside of our normal role. So, number of times today i said there is no doublestandard. Now im just asking you as a citizen and not even in your capacity as director fbi, can you sort of see why a lot of americans are bothered by a perceived doublestandard . Because, if any of gentlemen sitting behind you this morning, or with the department had done some of the things miss clinton did, and told some of the lies that she told, you said in your statement that this is not to suggest under similar circumstances there wouldnt be consequences. In fact they would be subjected to administrative sanctions. And now we have an election going on where she is seeking a pretty big promotion. So maybe your point is, she wouldnt be charged under similar facts but can you sort of see why some people are bothered by facts in this case given really Nothing Happened to her and now she is running for president of the United States . Can you see the optics on that are trouble something. I totally get that. That is one the reasons im trying to answer as many questions as i can because i get that question. Folks need to realize, in fbi if you did this would be in huge trouble, disciplined in some serious way and might be fired. Im certain you might not be prosecuted criminally on these facts. I appreciate it. One quick question, im out of time. Mr. Bishop started to talk about this. His district is affect as well in michigan but my district in southeast michigan has Third Largest settlement of Syrian Refugees of any city in the country behind san diego and chicago. That is troy, michigan. You said last fall in front of Homeland Security Committee Hearing that you really didnt have the data properly vet the Syrian Refugees trying to come in. You said that this morning. Last weekend im at Grocery Store and starbucks, two different constituents walked up to me cant you stop the president s resettlement of Syrian Refugees in detroit, michigan . Were all afraid. Based on largely your comment we dont have the database to really vet these folks. Anything i can tell the folks in michigan, other than all i say now we have to wait for a new president because this president increased number of refugees by 60 and 30 yearoveryear last two years, we have to wait for new president . I would like to say the fbi is doing Something Different than last year when you made those comments . As i said last year, we know if there is whiff about this person somewhere in the u. S. Governments vast holdings we will find it. Second thing they can know, if we get a whiff about somebody once theyre in, well cover that in a pretty tight way. What you cant promise people is that if, i cant what is not in our holdings. That is the only reservation i offer to people. Thank you, sir. I i dont he would i yield back. Director comey, during questioning earlier there was a dispute that arose over the contents of one or more of the immunity letters that were issued, particularly with regard to the issue of whether or not it contained immunity for destroying documents, emails. The individual who was questioning you about that was former chairman issa of the oversight and Government Reform Committee. I want him to be able to clarify because we have contacted the department of justice and asked them to read the immunity letters to us. So the gentleman is recognized briefly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will try to be very brief under the immunity agreement with one or more individuals, cheryl mills one of the individuals. The socalled david petronius section. I will focus on 2071. Her immunity is against any and all taken destruction, and even obstruction, the way we read it of documents classified or unclassified. The only question i have for you is, and i know you will put this to justice and we may have to ask them separately. For the purpose of what you needed as an investigator because you are the person who wanted access to the computer, is that deal make any sense to come in return for things which she couldve objected to as an attorney and held back, but which had no known proper of leading to criminal indictment of somebody else, she received complete immunity as we read it from or destruction of documents classified and unclassified and that is based on a review review of the immunity agreement. Youre right. This is a question best addressed by the justice. I think your misunderstanding. As misunderstanding. As i understand it, this was a promise in writing of the department of justice. If you give us the laptops we will not use anything on the laptops directly against us in a prosecution for that list of offenses. It is not immunity for those offenses if there some other evidence. That said, im not sure why her lawyer asked for it because by that point in the investigation we did not have a case on her to begin with. I understand that. But based on the reddit discovery and others, they asked me to do it and you said so yourself it was probably cheryl mill, the the day, you have an immune witness who has to tell you who they were, if they were told me to delete and that is cheryl bilson affect you have evidence from an immune witness of a crime perpetrated by cheryl mills. The ordering of the destruction of any document classified or unclassified which clearly seems to have done and she should be protected of that. If we have obtained evidence all she is protected from is anything evidence is on the laptop. So the information put into the record today, which included these reddit discoveries, show that there is a to have it investigation under usc 2071. If she doesnt have immunity for that order she could, and by definition should be charged because ordering somebody else to destroy something, as an attorney well after there were subpoenas in place that were very specific, that is clearly a willful act. Chairman, would would you yield . Of course. Your line of questioning, first let me show my cars come i believe that cheryl mills has an impeccable character is my line of question suggest that director coming his staff have impeccable. But my good friend, there is immunity given that i dont think this applies to miss mills and i looked at at the section you are speaking of. If you take local criminal a state action given to the worst of characters for a variety of reasons, that was not the reason given to miss mills. I am assured that it was a lawyer who is trying to be the most effective counsel to miss mills as possible. , reclaiming my time, the general lady may be true but im only speaking to the director based on things that were done that should not have been done. We now have evidence in front of the committee on the record of people destroying records of activities as late as a few days ago. So the fact that there is still should be an open question first of all is could should be prosecuted and if in fact the, they, have told me to destroy this under the exact statute of david petronius who is no longer on active duty, 18 usc 2071, there is at least a case to be made. Another problem problem we have is the lawyer negotiated a set of terms which hopefully doesnt mean that she gets a free pass even if she willfully ordered the destruction of documents with it does appear she did. The, my job is not to be judge, jury, or hangman. My job is to look at what is been presented to us, ask of the highest Law Enforcement officer in the land to in fact look into it because it does appear as though it is there. A debris field my good friends. Of course. Sternly we have an oversight responsibility of the director has been very forthright. But none of the actions of obstruction can be trinity, i dont think we have any evidence to suggest that miss mills contributed to the dictating or the general lady may not have been here at the time, but the director himself when asked who would the they would have been, at least said it was probably are likely couldve been cheryl mills. Were not saying not saying it is, what were saying is you have an immune witness. The gentleman will suspend. This purpose was to sect the record straight test with the content of what the document was. That has been accomplished and the debate will continue on outside of the syrian room. Thank you. And i would only add that the director be able to review those documents and that would be helpful to all of us. The director has answered in the affirmative that he will do that. We will follow up. First of all, i want to thank director called me, we did not make four hours and 40 minutes but we did almost make four hours and i know you have been generous with your time. However, i will also say that i think a lot of the questions here indicate a great deal of concern about the manner in which this investigation was conducted, how the conclusions were drawn in the close proximity to that and the meeting of the attorney general with former president clinton on the tarmac at the same time she then said well i am going to recuse myself and shortly after that you took over and announced her conclusions in this case which are highly disputed as you can tell. The committee on the Oversight Government Reform Committee has referred to the United States occurring from the Eastern District for the district of columbia, a referral based upon her testimony before the select committee on benghazi suggesting that your statement that your press conference and your testimony before the oversight and Government Reform Committee very clearly contradicted a number of statements she made under oath before that committee. I want to stress to you how important i think it is that we made that referral for the purpose of making sure that no one is above the law. In many cases regarding investigation it is not just the underlying action that are important, but they are the efforts of a people to cover those up through perjury, through obstruction of justice, through destruction of documents and so i would ask that this matter be taken very seriously as you pursue whatever action the department chooses to take, making sure that no one is above the law. Thank you sir. With that, we conclude todays hearing. I think our witnesses for attending without objection. All people will have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the record and the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] there are two points i want to convey today. First is the real threat to the Election Integrity to be treated with the utmost seriousness among other things that means we need to distinguish between genuine threats and rhetoric. Second, the biggest danger i believe to the integrity of our election is the attempt to undermine Public Confidence specifically as weve heard from others attacks that are highly unlikely to have widespread impact on the vote totals this november. However the attacks or malfunctions that could undermine Public Confidence are much easier. When we have public discussions of election systems that we distinguish between the kind of there are the Campaign Email servers are different in the Voter Registration databases which are different than Voting Machines. On the topic of Voter Registration databases thehethe secretary camp i think did a good job talking about the kinds of steps being taken the good news is when it comes to theto e integrity of our elections they are relatively straightforward steps to ensure that any attack or hack against Voter Registration databases should not prevent people from voting. Also importantly, regular backups of these systems should allow us to reconstruct if, and i should emphasize this is not happened anywhere as far as i know, if data is changed on this databases. As far as i know every state does this. On the issue of Voting Machines, a lot of ground has been covered asked why they are differentut than registration databases. T that Voting Machines should never be connected to thealized internet, that we have a decentralized system with 10,000 election jurisdictions using different machines, having different rules and i agree with agree with all of that. One thing i would add is that was not noted was that the vast majority of people this november will vote either on a paper ballot that is read by a scanney or will vote on a machine that has a paper trio that they can review. About about 80 of americans will do so. That can serve as an important deterrent. It should provide voters with confidence that there is a check to ensure their votes have been accurately recorded. These facts and others that are detailed in my testimony that others have mentioned make it highly unlikely that there could be a successful, widespread attack to change vote totals. Having said this, i want to talk about the problem of aging equipment in the United States. I do believe this is not addressed, it could do real damage to voter confidence and therefore the integrity of our elections. This is particularly true now when there are discussions of russian hacks and rigged election so much in the public discourse. In 2015i oversaw yearlong study that looked at this. We found that 42 states are using Voting Machines that are over a decade old. That is perilously close to end of projected lifespans of these machines particularly those designed and engineered in the 19 nineties. I want to be clear that is it rather blunt tool to measure when systems need to be replaced. In saying that every machine that when it reaches ten or 15 years old is going to stop working. Before i came into thed hearing today so 1965 ford mustang running and it look like it was running perfectly. Honestly the kind of maintenance and investment that is put intoh machinery can allow it to work much longer. In georgia is is a great example of this. The have a project where they invest in their equipment veryui use of machines that most othern jurisdictions have had to replace because they put that investment into them. But the interview that we conducted with Election Officials in all 50 states makee it clear that there are real challenges and they are growing with aging equipment. Failures of systems during voting leads to long lines the most votes. Outdated hardware and Software Means that Election Officials struggled to find replacement parts. We talked to a number of officials who have to go to ebay to find critical parts like a dot matrix printer ribbon, decadesold storage devices, analog modems, and more than one official described their sit system as jerryrigged to hold it together. These older systems and talking about do not go through the more rigorous federal certificationmo system that we have no for security and as was noted, are disproportionately paperless. We are replacing this equipment is a major issue. In 32 states we spoke to Election Officials who say they want to replace their equipment before the next president ial election of 2020. In 21 states Election Officials told us they did not know where they would get their money. More recently, money. More recently, we interviewed a about 250 local Election Officials and a clear majority said they either needed to or should replace their equipment before 2020. 80 of those said that they didnt know where they would get the money for that. So i will close on that point. Thank you. Thank you i will request myself now for five minutes for questions. My first question is actually for all five of you gentlemen. Well start with you mr. Norden and go down the line. First well of all i appreciate your written testimony. I appreciate your oral testimony as well. St we are at an important time and there is decades worth of experience sitting at this table. Im looking at this important issue it and i think you give the American People some cuff comfort. So my first question i think is a yes no question to all of you. On eight november, kenna cyber attack change the outcome of our National Elections . Mr. Norden. Im confident that will not be the case. Secretary camp. Titi no. No. No. No. When you did your research in the equipment that was done in a controlled environment, that crack . [inaudible] wasnt one machine or were you able to access multiple machines. [inaudible where they connected or did you have to access them each individually. Ally . [inaudible] so, none of the machines connect to each others that correct . The kind of machine that hacked in new jersey do not connect to any network. And they dont connect to the network soat t theyre not on te internet as well. Ct thats right. The kind of machines we use in new jersey in the same machines used in louisiana, i dont know of any practical way to hack them through any kind of network. The only way i know they can be hacked by someone with physical access to them. So theres no practical way to hack these Voting Machines unless you have physical access, and that if you have physical access you have to have physical access to each box because none of the boxes are actually connected nor are they connected to the internet. Thats true. For many kind of touchscreen but in machines but not all kinds that are in use today. And secretary camp, i want to clarify that and i guess is question to you is as your role as vice chairman of the association of secretaries of state, there are no Voting Systems that connect to thehe a internet, correct. Will commissioner can may be back me up on the spine our systems are not, i would not want to speak for every state in the country, but i feel very confident same the vast majority probably all are not connected to the internet. Mr. Hicks you have opinions on that . From what we have determined no one and machines machines are connected to the internet. So lets take one municipality in one voting district, they probably have how many machines, is there an average number, 5 10, five to make 25 question five . In one voting location. One george it depends on the jurisdiction. Serling a precinct in Fulton County you could have over 100 machines. In a smaller role, you you may have five or ten. And so in that scenario an attacker would actually have to have access to all 100 in the one county in order to manipulate the records . In georgia that is not the case. The machines used in georgia have been demonstrated to be hacked both through a virus that is carried on by definition, cartridges very much like a virus that was inserted into Nuclear Centrifuges in iran. But in that auditing system of these machines we look at that, is that correct . Im sorry, can you repeat the question . So those machines that have that vulnerability in the auditing process, do we scan fo . I . Its difficult to scan for that bone mobility in the that if you ask a machine to report was software is loaded in it, if its fraudulent software it will live. So the accu vote ts machines used in georgia and a few counties and other states are particularly vulnerable to this kind of virus that can be carried to the machines even if the criminal attacker doesnt touch the machines or is not even in the same state with the machine the touchscreen Voting Machines used in most other states, i dont know of any such way to hack them through a virus carried on cartridges. You have any opinions on that and when you provide information sharing to folks that request your assistance that this type of vulnerability that you notify folks of . I think it is a Good Opportunity for me to elaborate on my answer. An first, we have to always be vigilant in the field of Cyber Security we can never relax. We have no indication that adversaries are planning Cyber Operations against infrastructure that would change the outcome of election in november. We have overall confidence in the system. Individual parts of the electiou system are more or less vulnerable, you you can never eliminate all vulnerabilities. But the layers of the systems are what gives us confidence, the fact that there is a wide variety of machines and use, wide, wide variety of procedurei across jurisdictions, many checks and balances and physical controls and the devices are not connected to the internet. I cannot speak to the security of an individual device, what i can speak to his that overall we view the security of the overall system is robust. We can never relax obviously and thats one reason we are offering voluntary assistance to state and local governments. Thank you gentlemen. I would like to recognize a gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chair earlier this year donald trump askna russia to hack american citizens. We know that russia has hacked the Democratic National committee as well as the Democratic Campaign committee and other entities with the purpose of influencing American Elections. My question for you is, whats debs is dhs taking to try to prevent russia or other foreign entities from influencing the American Election this november . Thank you, without speaking speaking as to the source of the intrusion, i do want to talk about some of what we are offering to state and local government officials. First, we are offering them best practices, for example we recently published a document on best practices for securing Voter Registration processes per we are also offering to scan their internet connected systems so boater Registration Systems primarily in tabulation for results reporting. Were offering to scannt thehe te regularly for any vulnerabilities and we will provide a weekly report on any vulnerabilities we detect and correct me on jet recommendations for dealing with that. Were also offering to send people onsite to do much more detailed assessment of the system. We have local Field Support personnel called Cyber Security advisors and protective security advisors. These individuals are available to provide assistance and advice to state and locall governments. Finally we have offered physical and protective security tools, training, and resources. All of those are available to state and local government officials and of course more broadly we have the multistate entity that we have funded for well over a decade to help support state and local government and their Cyber Security practice. Thank you commissioner hicks, thank you for your testimony. My understanding from the main part is that because we have 50 states, thousands states, thousands of different jurisdictions, the American Electionit system is complex, diverse, and robust because its difficult to hack all of them. My view is, my view is, they dont have to have 50 states. In a close election they just have to pack one swing date, maybe one or two or maybe just a few counties in one swing state. So i do challenge your premise that because we have 50 states we are robust. My question is, is, is there focus on these swing states to make sure and states potentially or close that we do everything we can to makei sure the integrity of the elections are protected. Thank you for that question. The eac and the rest of the Election Community is focused om all of the states, not just the swing states because we feel all votes are valuable in that realm. The basic premise of this is that if someone goes into a voting place and attempts to influence the election that is still a federal crime and they should be prosecuted. So we ar we are basically asking for people to serve as people who are on the front lines of seeing these things. So to answer your question, we would still need a tremendous amount of people to go into any polling place to try to influence an election that way. Even if it could be done. We dont believe it can be done. Thank you. As a recovering computer and science major i keep in mind that folks hacked computers will before they existed on the internet. We have had troubling reports of how these Voting Machines can be hacked quite easily. Then mr. Apple, you been aware of Symantec Corporation hacking machines . No. Okay then let me just say further records, there there is a bloomberg article datedsaying september 19 saying states asked for scans following the Election Hacking threats. Ill just read this, in a recent simulation they said its workers were able to easily hack into electronic voting machine. It was a switch boat and change the volume of data. And i was a if i could enter this into the record please . Without objection, so moved to. Can you explain how you hacked the machine and how if there is any reason why we would want to machine with no paper ballots . Wouldnt we always want a backup in case something was hacked . Yes, let me explain. The computer hacked as the hacked is the sequoia abc advantage, now called the dominion abc advantage. It is is in use in all of new jersey and louisiana and a few counties of pennsylvania and other states. The Computer Program that counts the votes on this machine is a readonly memory mounted on the socket of the motherboard. To hack the machine you have to remove the memory chip from its socket and install a memory chip on which you have prepared a Cheating Program. The Cheating Program that iepard prepared has an extra 100 lines of code basically that the polls are about to close it goes in there and changes some votes stored in the machine and there is electronic log so changes the log two. To install that the attacker does it need to be a computer scientist, he just needs to have a bunch of copies of this memory chip with a fraudulent program on it and for each voting machine, unscrew ten screws to remove the panel, pry out the wrong chip containing the good program and install the bad program. Other kinds of Voting Machinespg store their Computer Program that counts the votes and flash memory. This can be updated under the control of whatever Computer Program is running in the voting machine. These Voting Machines, typically the generation developed in the 1990s and after can be hacked without actually physically changing any hardware in the machine, just by installing a Software Upgrade memory card in the same slot one would normally install the ballot definition. At this particular attack was demonstrated my colleague atto princeton in 2007 working with two of his graduate students. This not just us at princeton, theres many kind of Voting Machines in the same kind ofun hacks are applicable to all Voting Machines and have been demonstrated at several other university including the university of connecticut, Johns Hopkins michigan, and others. Thank you. Congressman, can i just add a little bit to this, one of the things i want to make sure that is clear when we weren doing this voting act is that one of the reasons why the paper trail is not universal is that it does not allow for people with disabilities to basically be able to verify their vote and handle that paper. So someone who has a dexterity disability is not able to use that. But there are machines that allow for verification of the ballots and are able to be used by those with disabilities. So if congress decides in the next session to look at reforming the american vote act i would really encourage to encourage those with disabilities are not left behind with a paper trail. Can i we launched a rocket delivered payload state space station that landed on a barge, they design voter machines that actually you can have both a paper ballot and some sort of bl electronic input and have both. Its not like it cant be done. And in l. A. County they are actually about to do that. So my hope is we do not have any more machines without paper ballots. Thank you. Are now like to recognize congresswoman kelly for her light of questions. Thank you so much. I mentioned in my Opening Statement about hackersg the vo attacking the Voter Registration databases in illinois and arizona. I like to take a moment to understand what these attacks are and what they are not. Doctor was a cyber attack on the voting machine or was it on Voter Registration databases . Thank you representative. The Cyber Attacks youre referring to in arizona and illinois were attacks on Voter Registration systems and they seem to have been intended to just copy the data on those systems. Possibly for the purposes of selling personal information. We have not seen intrusions intended to in any way impact individual votes in actual voting. Wire these more vulnerable than actual machines . Voter Registration Systems are more commonly connected to the internet in part to ease that registration process and so because theyre connected to the internet they are obviously more susceptible to cyber intrusions. It seems like all of you into various answers are saying that it would be difficult for a w hacker to succeed in accessing the u. S. System and rigging the results in an undetected way, you all all seem to feel like that, that correct . Thats correct, because of the different layers of security in the system, even though o individual parts of the system may be vulnerable, we overall have confidence in the system. In what is being done to help state security databases . We we recently released a best documents excuse me. We recently released a best practices document focusing particularly on Voter Registration systems to help secure the systems. Also, our cyber hygiene scanning that we offer to states will be particularly helpful for those systems because many are internet connected. We have a host of Resources Available to state governments that are applicable to both their Voter Registration systems and other systems outside of the voting process. Is it correct that at least there are 40 states that the Network Defense device similar to the Einstein Center used by federal agencies . The majority of states, dont know the exact number absolutely take number of a service that we offer through the. Etwork that provides Network Protection for those states. And is it at the same Protection Level as the federal is it as good as the federal . Its a different capability than the federal system just suited to the network of state and local governments offer. There is one key difference, 11 federal system can take advantage of classified information that is not currently available through the multistate for governments, we have made that available in a different way for state and local governments. But wh but overall we have made all of those protections available to state and local governments through one mechanism ore another. And what is your agency doing to help state secure their election systems . One of the things i would include in the record is that eac has a checklist for securing Voter Registration data. That list out a number of things from Access Control to auditability to making sure that you document everything and everyone who has access to that system. I would like to make that available for the record. Without objection, so moved. And mr. Norden, can you briefly describe how Voting Machines are vulnerable and howi widespread the problem is . I would echo the comments that were readymade about the fact that because Voting Machines are [inaudible] the internet that certainly it is an important distinction to be made between the machines and that we are voting on election day and things like a registration database that is generallynt connected to the internet. In terms of vulnerabilities, can i would say my concern mostly is about for Voting Machines is mostly about that this equipment around the country is getting old. As the equipment gets older we are more likely to see failures, we see things and again im particularly worried about this in the age of social media. We saw this little bit 2012 but with touch free machines there are often as often calibration problems. In california there was a problem with the glue between the screen and the machine itself was was degrading. As as a result the kind of thing that happens is somebody, im sure youve seen the videos of this before, somebody selects one candidate and another candidate shows up. I think that is not very good for voter confidence. When thats posted on youtube as it is, the more more that we see of these things come again in the context of hearing about hacksor to Voting Systems, that can be very dangerous thing. That machine has to be taken out of service, you get long lines,o there is a study from researchers that harvard and mit that estimated between 500,000 and 700,000 people were not able to vote in 2012 because vote in 2012 because of long lines. I think that is a huge risk to the integrity of our elections. This might be a guest on your part but how old are the oldest machines that are still being used . There probably among the oldest in new jersey. Actually, ironically i think some of the oldest machines probably have less of a need of replacement and some of the newer systems that we bought because systems particularly bought just after the help america vote act was passed were designed in the 90s are essentially laptops from the 90s and those were not built to last much longer than ten or 15 years. Anything else tried. I think some of the oldest electronic Voting Machines in use inel this country date from the late 1980s. Some of those machines are still reliable in the sense of not breaking down. My concern with the machine is more, can they be hack of all without a paper trail that could let you recover the correct results of the election. Is there things the eac is doing now we are working on the next reiteration of our guidelines. So these guidelines will be an update since the last full ones were done before the iphone was invented. So we want to make sure that we incorporate the new technologies here today and looking towards tomorrow so we are asking for anyone to join our public working groups to give their input and to make sure the next that we do are basically the best that we put out. I would just add come i know we have been singled out with our voting equipment being fairly old and the early 2000s, but i would just remind the representatives that this is not the equipment that were using every day like your phone, your laptop or desktop, these is equipment that is used two or three, maybe four times per year. We have policies and procedures in the state where the counties have certain ways that they have to care for the equipment. They have held up well. So i think it is just important to realize that as well, even though the Technology May be old , does not mean it is bad and the equipment is wearing well, we actually do an assessment after every election the center for elections, we have a [inaudible] failure rate on our equipment. If that changes that will raise a red flag but right now we have not seen that. We have made an a point, i will give him the credit, of not just having hearings to have hearings and we always ask how can Congress Help make things better. Where do you think in any of you can answer this, where should the priority be investing in our election system to make surehe they are secure, the public does have the confidence and how can Congress Help . I spent 11 years as a staffer on the hill. I know the difficulty that members face in terms of making sure that things are done to tht correctly but also having a financial responsibility to that. I think my role now at the eac is 12 give congress a best advice as i can to move things forward. So in my own opinion, im looking at Voting Machines like a fire truck. Firetrucks are still are still to be out there, there gonna need to be used, if theres a fire theyre gonna have to be use. But until a new fire truck can be purchased you have to use that old one. So what can you do and what were doing at the eac is making sure that we give the best guidance in terms of managing those things. On our website we have ten things to do when managing voting equipment. And so in the future i would say that Congress Wants to look at this to look at how much it will cost to replace these machines if were going to do that but also look at other aspects of it. To say do we want to Start Talking about this third rail of using our own devices to cast ballots and things like that . But also we want to make sure that when you look at military and overseas voters as well because they dont have the same options of using the equipment that we have here. Im looking at disability groups, and and also looking at our aging population as well. G popula so there is a lot of things and i be happy to come up. Ti anytime to discuss any of those topics. I think that is a good question by the way. I think theres a couple of things that come to mind for me. I would encourage congress to let the states remain flexible and what systems theyre using. I think think there is great value in that. Another National Conference of state legislators agree with that assessment as well. E you to but i would also urge you to work with the National Association of secretary of states. I know commissioner hicks and his colleagues have been to many of our winter meetings that we have in d. C. I think i can pretty much 100 speak on behalf of the organization that we would love to have any member of congress or any those who made the winner meeting where you hear a different perspective. It is different. One size does not fit all and elections. What were. What were doing and georges can differ greatly from what might be done in vermont or california. Me and we would welcome and encourage that. I used to be a state representative and i know jesse right really well. Thank you. The chair knows the presence of our collie, from georgia, wee appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today. Ask unanimous consent that congressman be allowed to fully participate in todays hearing. Without objection so ordered. Mr. Hicks, and have a time deadline but i think you should be done by that deadline. I i would like to now recognize congressman heights for five minutes. Thank you very much chairman i appreciate you letting me be a part of this and the secretary camp i just want to say hello to you. Its always great to have some georgians appear. Its an honor to heavy surf, thank you for participating in all of ourr witnesses, thank you for being here. A secretary, let me just go there, the broader question of course that we are all concerned about and well should be is that a boater fraud regardless of how it shows its face. Can you explain some of the steps that georgia has taken in particular to prevent voter fraud across the board . Thank you congressman, its great to see you as well as representative carter. We have really done a lot. I know ive spoken a lot about our Voting System not being connected to the internet. We have policies and procedures about how we tie the number ofhe votes on a specific machine that is counted with our paper tape inside the machine back to the signed voter verification of the voter when they come into the precinct. I want to assure people that there is a way that we can tie that down. We have also seen and has not really been talked about today, but theres fraud that happens with paper ballots as well. We have have seen in many local jurisdictions with absentee ballots, weve had elections that have been overturned because the things of that nature. People manipulating the paper absentee ballot process in georgia especially in a local election in municipal election were literally five to make ten votes could sway an election. The things that weve done inon georgia besides having good state laws and state election board rules on how the counties should handle the statewide Voting System and training in that regard to protect the integrity of the election, we have also as commissioner hee said we have asked for the publics help not only as poll workers or poll watchers but we have to stop voter fraud hotline and an email we monitor, unlike some other jurisdictions across the country we actually have a lawenforcement division in the secretary of states office. Office. Any complaint that we get, any complaint, the can be a serious has potential vote buying to something, maybe a small as there is a handicap lift that was not working correctly at a precinct or theres not enough parking or long lines, we will respond to every single one ofte those cases or look into those to see if it wants an investigation. So we encourage georgians that may see something improper, if they feel like their vote has not been cast properly, if somebody was manipulating them in a precinct, what ever it is to report that and we strategically put our investigators and inspectors around the state in the early voting advance. And on election election day where we can respond quickly. We have a lot of ways we try toh stop voter fraud. Contrary toar some people not believing it happens, it actually does. When that does happen we bring those individuals or counties if theyre not following the rules and procedures to the state election board and we have a due process that we go through. We have actually had candidates that have paid heavy fines that have committed to never run for office again because of the actions we have taken. So that is something that we treat every case the same. When it comes to that. What about specifically when it involves electronic Voting Machines . Im sure there are glitches from time to time when someone offers a complaint duet to a machine, what, what is your process . As you can imagine that is something high on our radar so we will send somebody out, if we have an equipment problem theres a couple actions we can take, we can send an investigator, we have Emergency Preparedness plans were specially on big elections likee well be having november 8 wherl we have an coordinator with state patrol in the department of Public Safety to have a helicopter and trooper at the state election center, so lets say we have a server server go out which we have happen in the county, if you dont get on that quickly and the result still coming quickly than the public starts asked the question why is that happening. So we now have the ability to either fly or drive with a lawenforcement official, equipment or if weve had times where weve had ais ai failure with voting equipment and weve had to send a technician out to help get a memory card out of there something of that nature. So there are steps that we take to investigate also before the election to prevent those things from happening. But also to make sure Public Confidence stays intact by responding quickly to those type of things. Thank you mr. Chairman tailback. Mr. Secretary thank you, its great to you. I would like to now recognize my friend in the congressman from the great city of georgia, he carter for his five minutes. Thank you and i think all of you for being here, this is obviously very important subject that all of us are concerned with. Secretary camp, again its good to see you, thank you foru being here for your work in the state of georgia, we appreciate all your efforts efforts in making sure that our electionsts are run in a safe and effective manner and you are doing a great job and we appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity tot work with you in the General Assembly and have fond memoriess of that. I wanted you to provide some insight in your position as secretary of state. Also as i understand you serve as the cochair of the National Secretaries of state selection committee. Also as a member of the new dhs election infrastructure cyberuc security working group. Cyber security something we talk a lot about here. I also as a chairman he and i both serve on Homeland Security and we are very concerned about Cyber Security. An you b can you briefly describe your role as a member of the dhs election infrastructure cyber w security working group. Can you you tell me what you do . Its a relatively new task force if you will that was created by secretary johnson and dhs so that we can have collaboration between the states and the department of Homeland Security. I certainly applaud that. Ive had some people asked me why it would serve on thatrir when it was so critical of the Critical Infrastructure definition, but i feel very strongly that is a designation that should not be put on election systems but also feel strongly that there are ways that we can collaborate as secretary of state or state Election Officials with different branches of the federal government to make sure we are prepared, that we are informed, and we can better protect our system. So the working group right now is a series of phone calls to go over what dhs the role is about four states that neither may want to voluntarily take advantage of some of the things that have been talked about inke the cyber hygiene scanning and other things. Right now from all i know, unless we have some sort of other event pop up, theres probably going to happen before the election, other than the states know they can reach out to dhs directly. Ee from the state of georgia perspective we are already doing a lot of things that have been offered so we dont have the need for the assistance. Itser its not that were not grateful for it its just something that thankfully we have been working on this detailed but they have been more responsive than this issue. Should we eliminate them or transfer that work to another group . Im of the belief that we can do that at the state level. I will say that its been great that we have commissioners that have been appointed where they can work on certain things required at this time. I want to thank the secretary for his support. One of the reasons i spend 11 years appears i spent four and a half years as a nominee. The longest serving nominee i was confirmed. Who does the confirmation . The senate rules committee. We are doing all we they can and i feel your pain. We have to deal with the too. The staff has been without commissioners from host for years and without general counsel or executive director. When my fellow commissioners and i were confirmed we started it the ground running so i think that most of the secretaries of state have changed their tune to figure that we are more valuable now. What our role is to be the states and locals and other stakeholders like the voters themselves so i think that now we are proving that we ares ande valuable and hopefully we will continue to do that. Again gentlemen thank you for what you do. This is extremely important and we all recognize that and appreciate your work and your diligence. The gentlelady yields back the bounce of her time an invite to recognize the Ranking Member and member mr. Cummings. Spent the summer there were reports that russia was attempting to compromise our elections by hacking into elections systems. This is a very grave issue that threatens the foundation of oure democracy. On monday Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein the Senate Intelligence committee and Ranking Member adam schiff of the house Intelligence Committee said and i quote based on briefings we have received we have concluded that the russiann intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the United States elections end of quote. They issued a the statement after careful consultation with the Intelligence Community, our Intelligence Community and doctors ozment i assume you have no reason to question the t accuracy of the statement. Is that right . The executive branch does not attribute these incidents and the fbi is leading an Ongoing Investigation of these breaches. Heres what i dont understand. For some reason donald trump is defending russia against the attacking allegations and in fact a monday nights debate he said he doesnt know if it waskt russia, it could be china, could be a 400pound person and thench he said frankly the statement seem ridiculous to me. P not only has mr. Trump defended russia he has encouraged russia in the hacking. Doctors ozment he is escalated helping states protect thed pla election against cyberattacks. Is that right . Sir we are there to support state and local government. This morning the fbi director james comey told the House Judiciary Committee and that quote they are snowed out that some bad actors have been poking around end of quote. Heres my question. Without disclosing any classified information have you seen any uptick in attacks by foreign adversaries over the past three months . Sir i dont think we have a concrete answer for that question. What i will tell you is obviously there are two incidents in arizona and illinois that resulted in breaches of Voter Registration systems and what i will say applies only to Voter Registration and therefore does not impact the actual passing of a vote. As part of our response to that we and others in the federal government have shared information with state and local government. That is to be on the lookout which are called cyber indicators. State and local governments are using that to more carefully monitor their systems. Anytime you carefully monitor system you are going to see more bad guys poking in because they are always poking and prodding. What i can tell you is that i think its safe to say that Voter Registration on line will always be the subject of interest for bad guys whether for just whether stealing personal information by criminals or other nefarious purposes and thats why we think its important that state and local governments constantly focus on the security of the systems. We published guidelines to help them secure the systems. August 30 of 2016 i sent a letter to the Ranking Committee member on Homeland Security asking whether the fbi is investigating the troubling connections between members of the department in russia. I ask unanimous consent that this right letter b. A part of the record. Doc or ozment earlier this morning fbi director comey was asked about this letter before the House Judiciary Committee. Comey said the fbi is trying to figure out quote just what mischief is russia up to in connection with our elections end of quote. He also said he would not inform congress at this stage about any interviews with individuals working for mr. Trump who are listed in this letter because he does not comment on an Ongoing Investigation. I want to ask you specific questions about this but generally does the dhs work with the fbi investigating foreign adversaries . In july the president release president ial policy directive 41 that laid out the role of dhs india ti investigating Cyber Incidents and you can think about it as a significant cyber equivalent of a real arson and the real world. You have the firefighters and the cops to show up. In this analogy via the i or the cops, theres league of threat responders. Meyer crustaceans are the lead firefighters that we focus on helping the victim and taking information to share with other victims or other potential victims to help them protect themselves so we do collaborate closely with the fbi that the fbi is the fbi isnt is in the lead role for ascertaining who is the perpetrator and bring in a perpetrator to justice. I was the question again. If you come across any evidence that anyone in the United States is aware of these illegal acts. S then collaborated with foreign embassies. Would you work with prosecutors and investigators . If at any time we across any evidence of a crime in us we are prohibited from sharing that we would share it with lawha enforcement. I yield back. Thank you Ranking Member and mr. Hicks thank you for your time and contribution to this hearing. Dd i know you have to slip away and if you do please go ahead. Ease o i cant leave with my own congressman who just showed up. I can take five minutes for him to ask questions. With that i would like to recognize my friend from the commonwealth of virginia mr. Connolly for five minutes. I know mr. Sadberry is not flying home. Im ashley going to iceland. Thank you mr. Chairman andd thank you to the panel and good luck mr. Hicks. Last month the department of Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson said and i quote we should consider whether our elections process is Critical Infrastructure like the Financial Sector like the power grid. Mr. Ozment what did mr. Johnson mean by that . First i should note that dhs is not formerly designating it as Critical Infrastructure. We are focused on providing whatever resources and assistance we are able to provide the state and local government in which ever resources they want from us. Longer term i think thats a conversation we want to have the state and local governments. There are additional capabilities that we can provide to those governments if we designate the system as criticat infrastructure. That includes additional protections and classified information. If for example we wanted to get into a conversation with state and local governments we could better protect the information that those vendors provide to us we have, we can better prioritize the resources we want to give to them and it improves their ability to bring ample lenses to folks involved in this process. I would like to highlight if wei were to make that designation it does not give us any regulatory powers. All of our resources in the system would still be voluntary and the state and local governments would remain in charge of elections. So if however we did declare Critical Infrastructure i think mr. Appel said there were 12 states that still use touch screen technology. Is that correct . Some states used touch screen so i would say approximately 10 states use them. If we declare Critical Infrastructure we might be able to provide it if those states chose pay for electronic alex. We can offer assistance now. I think would help us in our ability to offer systems that we would not for example be able to replace their systems. Mr. Kemp i thought i heard you say elections are governed strictly by state localities and it was not really the business of the federal government. Am i getting this correctly . Gets the constitutional duty of the states to run elections. Is not also a concern of the federal government in a federal election have some uniformity to them . For example the Voting Rights act. Ertainly und certainly understand your point but i think the whole argument is Critical Infrastructure just like mr. Ozment just said protecting vendors information really goes against the open process that be have now at the state level where when we test our voting equipment is advertised in the local ordinance. The local newspaper editor or reporter can come and watch that process at. The local election boards do it in any citizen and i think the idea of federalizing our elections to where we have a a onesizefitsall Registration System or mandating the states to use a certain Voting System or one type of Voting System creates all kinds of problems and quite honestly i think it would make our system, make the system more formidable, not less. So are you saying from your. Point of view the 50 different state systems plus tens of thousands of localities is justt fine and we shouldnt even look at it . I wouldnt say that you shouldnt look at it andld everything is just fine. There are certainly jurisdictions out there that do better than others. We have that in the state of georgia but i believe that we are better suited as a state to provide solutions for that than the federal government is. What about the Voting Rights act . The 1980 back in the 1950s and 60s the federal government has the states jurisdiction and frankly the federal government hadad passed the Voting Rights actha they would still be disenfranchised including in your home state of mind. I would say the voting righty act is still intact. Yes, but isnt the opposite of what you are asserting. An example of a federalist system. The states werent doing it. In fact the states were actively suppressing votes. You dont deny that, do you . Im not sure understand what that had to do with election system. In dealing with your assertion of the program that we should centralize any aspect and im arguing that the Voting Rights act is a clear exception to your principle and perhaps the federal government in federal elections at least has an interest that overlays a state interest when it comes to protecting at the cyber level. Thats certainly your opinion and mine differs. I yield back mr. Chairman. Ai. Thank you mr. Connolly. I now would like to ask unanimous consent to letters for the record one from the association of secretaries of state an open letter from the nations secretaries of state ti Congress Talking about how we can Work Together to share the facts about cybersecurity and our elections. S. The second letter is from Electronic Privacy Information Center about this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Hicks one of the things you said in one of the three points that the eac is responsible for is providing grants. Is there grant money available to help upgrade aging equipment . T most of that money has already been accounted for so there is no money available to replace voting equipment. Tank u. N. Dr. Ozment i want to be clear this conversation about designating Voting Systems as Critical Infrastructure that is off the table for this election, right . T . Its not what we are focused on in the near term. Over the next three months voting has started and voting is occurring in a number of jurisdictions across the u. S. For the next few two months we are focused on how we can help state and local governments. I would just like to end with my takeaways from this. Pieces of our Voting Systems are vulnerable but its really hard to hack our Voting System. To ha there are some that need to be upgraded. We should never rest on outdated legacy systems and we should be looking at how we solve this problem working together and resources within dhs for states who voluntarily ask for it and not forcing a particular program on individual states. While in my remaining three minutes i would love to go down the line and take 30 seconds to give your final points. This is an important topic. I appreciate you all being here. I think this is your last conversation with the American People so lets start with you mr. Norden and work your way backwards. Thank you chairman hurd. I guess i would emphasize two things. What i said earlier i think the most important things that we can do is to ensure that there is confidence in the system. I think that the issues of access and confidence and the integrity of our Voting System are all interdependent and linked to access are seen as representative as op oppositional. I do think there is a role for congress after this election to start thinking about what investments the federal government can make to ensure there is confidence in the system through Research Grants for innovation and for replacing some of the oldest equipment that really is a challenge. One last thing and point i want to make is because so many states are leaving it to counties to purchase this equipment we are really starting to see a twotiered system in this country with counties with less money and less resources are often broke and are left without being able to invest and replace their equipment. We are talking about local elections but also federallk elections. Thank you mr. Norden. Second. After the election would be a good thing for congress to find a way to assist and encourage those 10 states that still primarily use touch screen machines to shift to opticalal scan machines. Also there are many safeguards in our elections which have been explicitly discussed in this hearing in those have to do with the inherent transparency of the canvassing process in many states. Most states where the resultss are announced he each precinct and how many votes each candidate got got in a precinct in the Party Challengers in any position can see for themselves that those numbers add up to what the Elections Officials are reporting. That is a safeguard against hacking of the computers that might be adding up thoseng up precincts. So we should encourage measures that elections administrators are taking to make transparent the process of reporting the precinct by precinct numbers in a way that they can see thats they add up. Secretary kemp. With the chairman yield or one second . Yield per to mr. Appels point because we had a we were able to see an anomaly in absentee ballots cast but clearly there was an anomaly in one rational district in churn up was the ballot box that have been asked in light put aside if it malfunctioned in the votes had not been counted. It actually made a difference in the outcome. What mr. Appel is saying is critical in getting accurate results in our election. I will add kind of transparency you get from that means you dont have to be a cybersecurity experts understanr that anomaly. Chairman hurd thank you fornk having me and i appreciate the opportunity to be here. My 30 seconds i would just encourage you to continue toto o collaborate with the secretaries secretaries of state, lieutenant governors and other electionshe officials back home and asked them what they are doing to prepare. I would encourage all american citizens due to that as well. I think they will be very pleasantly surprised to see that the preparations that are going on all across this country make sure we have secure access of all elections in georgia and i would certainly appreciate any more collaboration that we can have with this committee or other members of congress and the National Association of secretaries of state to Work Together in the future. 45 days mr. Hicks. Saturday marked 4045 before the election and that day ballots were sent out to men and women overseas so they could start casting their ballots back early voting will start soon foo many states and the message i want to make sure is clear today is that our elections are secure we on our web site throughout the nation where we have gone around this country to talk about are we ready 2016 campaign to talk to states about how they can secure their elections and make sure the ballots are counted accurately and so forth. And come november 8 we know that we will have an election and that the election will be secure. Dr. Ozment. We must be vigilant as we must always be in an area where there are Cyber Threats particularly as many states upgrade their Voting Systems over the next four years. We must build those systems and that more cybersecurity that stops not just the attacks of the day but the text of thebu future and will still be used in 2030 or 2040. Overall it might now we have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. We have no indication of adversaries are planning Cyber Operations against the u. S. Election structure that would change the outcome of the election. We believe that the diversity at many Different Levels of checks and balances in our electoral system are sufficient that we should all have confidence in the integrity of the system for the election. Now id like to recognizeze Ranking Member cummings for five minutes. Thank you very much. Im concerned very much about the cyber situation but im also concerned about africanamericans, hispanics and so many others who have been blocked from voting. I think i will go to my grave trying to do everything in my power to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to vote. My poor parents were denied it over and over again and im seeing a lot of the thing same things happening today. Mr. Kemp you were secretary state of georgia which is one of three states that would allow to modify the federal forms of citizenship faithbased on the unilateral decision that eac executive director. I understand he submitted aan request for this modification but in addition to that did you or anyone in your office have some indications with mr. Newby or anyone else at the eac relating to this request . I would have to look back and see if that was the case before are after. I know we had written letters asking for this issue to be treated like the eac had treated previous instances where we could simply treat the everall form the same way that we treat the state or in our state. Can you please provide the committee with copies of all emails or other communications with you or anyone in your office and anyone at the eac about this . R we can do that. Thank you. Mr. Kemp what evidence did you submit to the eac demonstrating that the modifications you requested were necessary for the administration of elections inth we weat . We were simply trying to as i said earlier match the state form with the federal form. Were you provide the committee with all documents relating to that issue also . We certainly can look into that. That i would as to. They said would you provide us with the documents . D you provid i wouldnt be able to answer that question but i canour certainly look into it and get back to you. I would like you to provide a to the committee and in allnt documents relating to any analysis regarding the impact of one eligible voter that your request would have. Did you look and to that . Keep in mind in North Carolina they systematically, when black people but they figure out how theyd vote and then with precision, with precision they made sure they did everything in their power to stop them from voting. So i just want to make sure that we have documentation. Ta im sure whatever you did isdo proper but i would just like tok know with congressional malpractice on my part as the son of people who could not vote to sit here and have you all here and not address this issuen i would just like to have a document. Thats all. Representative its a simple thing that we are trying to do. We were simply trying to make the federal form have the same questions as the state form but i will tell you in the state of georgia under mike administrations leadership we have implemented on line voterim registration for anybody that has a drivers license or state issued i. D. Card can register to vote 24 hours a day seven days a ho week and we had printed 60,000 people have used that system. Right now we have a student of a Masters Program that we started last year with a pilot to 14 high schools around the state in 150 kids in its ballooned to over 800 students in any kind of high school you can imagine across the state of georgia. We have over 102 high schools where we are teaching students in the schools to register their peers to vote so i can assure you anybody who meets thesu requirements and want to register to vote in georgia they can easily do so. Im glad to hear that. I just have one more question. The court order appeal for the d. C. Circuit temporarily halted and reversed the unilateral action by the eac executiveecute director however prior to that do you know how many voters inin georgia have tried to register using the federal form and were turned away because they did not provide proof of citizenship . I wouldnt be able to answer that question. How long will you need to get back to us . Can you get that information . I will have to check on that and get back to you. Esther chairman as i said i am just concerned when Justice Ginsburg was talking about taxeh i think you was in the selbyit case and she was saying that 600,000 texans would not be able to vote. I mean if we want to have an emergency thats what the emergency out to be about. Every Single Person i dont care whether they are tea party, Green Party Democrat or a public and i will fight for their right to vote and i just want to thank you chairman for your courtesy and i look forward to your responses attorney general, secretary of state kemp. Let me just make one point. While we were asking for the form to be changed we nevernever stopped taking the federal form. And you understand and im almost finished mr. Chairman but can you understand why africanAmerican People and hispanics and others might be upset when people are blocked . Im not saying you are at blocking them from voting when they are paying taxes and working hard and doing everything they are supposed to do and not be able to vote . I mean can you understand that . I can understand that but i can assure you thats not u happening in georgia. We have seen minority participation increase in our state. Ive like to thank your witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. If theres no further business without objection the subcommittee stands adjourned. [ina [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible con