    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       MARKUP OF H.R. 811; CONSIDERATION OF FOUR ELECTION CONTESTS; AND
               CONSIDERATION OF A COMMITTEE FRANKING ALLOCATION
                                   RESOLUTION
    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                  MEETING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8, 2007

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    36-562 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2006
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan,
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts      Ranking Minority Member
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                     S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
                     Will Plaster, Minority Staff Director

    CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; CONSIDERATION OF FOUR ELECTION CONTESTS; AND
          CONSIDERATION OF A COMMITTEE FRANKING ALLOCATION RESOLUTION

                                  ----------

                              TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in room
    1310, Longworth House Office, Hon. Robert A. Brady (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez,
    Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and
    McCarthy.
        Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Charles
    Howell, Chief Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/
    Parliamentarian; Tom Hicks, Election Counsel; Janelle Hu,
    Election Counsel; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk;
    Robert Henline, Staff Assistant; Fred Hay, Minority General
    Counsel; Gineen Beach, Minority Counsel; and Peter Sloan,
    Minority Professional Staff.
        The Chairman. I would like to call the meeting to order.
        Good afternoon everyone. The first order of business today
    will be the consideration of H.R. 811. On May 2nd, 2007, I
    discharged the Subcommittee on Elections from further
    consideration of that bill pursuant to committee rule 17.
        This is a bill that was very important to Chairwoman
    Millender-McDonald, as she cared deeply that every citizen of
    our great Nation should be able to vote, and that every vote
    should be counted. I now recognize myself for an opening
    statement.
        Today the Committee will mark up H.R. 811, the Voter
    Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, which
    amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002, or HAVA. The bill
    will require electronic voting machines to produce a voter
    verified paper ballot for every voter. This paper ballot would
    become the ballot of record in the event of a recount or audit.
    The bill would also mandate routine random audits as prescribed
    by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
    preserve and enhance the accountability requirements of HAVA.
    Other requirements are also added for voting systems.
        The Lofgren substitute to be offered today addresses some
    of the concerns that have been raised by voting officials,
    technology companies and other advocates who have previously
    expressed concerns about this bill. I hope that by addressing
    their concerns through this substitute, we can persuade these
    interests to support this vital piece of legislation.
        One of the biggest changes from the original bill is that
    this substitute increases the authorized appropriations from
    $300 million to $1 billion to help States pay for the
    implementation of the new requirements.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Ehlers for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I stated
    last week, following the decision to postpone the markup, the
    additional days between our last meeting and today's proceeding
    have provided us with an opportunity to review this bill in
    greater detail. Unfortunately, the additional time for review
    has not changed my perception of this bill. As I have said in
    the past, I continue to have deep concerns about H.R. 811.
    Realizing that time is limited, I will summarize just a few of
    them here. Let me emphasize that from the first time Mr. Holt
    introduced this bill, I favored the concept of the bill. The
    difficulty is in the details.
        First the burden placed upon the States by this bill is
    unnecessary, and, by all accounts, unmanageable. Over the past
    several weeks, this committee has heard from Secretaries of
    State, election experts, concerned citizens and other groups
    urging us to reconsider passage of this bill and suggesting
    many amendments.
        Let me just show you what we have received. I don't know
    what the majority has received. These are letters from State
    and county election officials from over 35 States objecting to
    the bill as it was originally introduced and are still
    objecting to the bill, even in spite of the few amendments that
    have been made.
        They are imploring us not to pass this legislation. The
    number has grown since our last meeting and the letters
    continue to come in from across the Nation. These are the
    people who are most familiar with our election systems, telling
    us that they simply cannot effectively administer the 2008
    election if Congress ignores their pleas and forces this
    legislation upon them.
        There are other factors. One of the chief provisions in
    H.R. 811 is the voter verified paper trail. As I have stated in
    the past, I am not generally opposed to the idea of a redundant
    method of capturing vote totals, but I believe all avenues
    should be explored to accomplish duplicate capture of this
    information--not just paper.
        As we all saw in the 2000 elections, in the days of hanging
    and pregnant chads, paper is far from foolproof. For example
    the punch card ballots are paper and that is what started this
    whole reform effort because people were not happy with that. We
    owe it to the American public to give thoughtful consideration
    to what method of duplicate capture votes would serve them
    best. I have not seen any effort by this committee to do that.
    To resort back to paper without additional research into
    alternative technologies that may be more reliable would be
    hasty and ill-advised.
        In addition, the VVPAT puts visually impaired voters at a
    greater advantage than those with other types disabilities
    creating an even larger disparity between segments of the
    disabled community and the general public. Intellectual
    property issues are also an area of concern, since this bill
    prescribes that electronic voting machine vendors must reveal
    propriety source codes for inspection by outside entities.
        Not only will taking such steps compromise the integrity of
    this system and put it at high risk of malfeasance, but taking
    some drastic measures will also limit the desire of these
    companies to continue to develop new technologies and improve
    their existing systems.
        Common sense will tell you if a businessman is required to
    give away his product for free--in this case, the product being
    the source code--you have also taken away his motivation to
    continue enhancing that product. We would be, in effect,
    cutting off our collective nose to spite our face if we took
    away the desire of these vendors to continually improve their
    technologies.
        Let me also decry the fact that while under HAVA, we worked
    very hard between the House and the Senate, with both parties
    involved in constant meetings to try to work out differences.
    In this case, we are rushing this bill through without adequate
    consultation between the parties, without an opportunity to
    hear our concerns expressed and to work with the Senate on this
    bill.
        Another area of concern is the funding request in the
    legislation which a number of election experts have said will
    be inadequate, leaving taxpayers holding the bill. We have a
    duty to spend the public's money wisely. Using it to implement
    legislation that the States have told us they can't comply with
    in time for the next election, corporations have told us
    compromises their financial health and the disabled community
    has told us puts them at greater disadvantage, is reckless.
        Finally, we will propose several amendments today that
    address weaknesses of H.R. 811, and I appreciate the thoughtful
    consideration of all the Members of this Committee when voting
    on these changes. HAVA effected meaningful change that met the
    shared goals of both the majority and minority parties to
    improve our Nation's voting system. HAVA also worked very hard
    with the voting officials from all the States. I am hopeful we
    will be able to change course today and put aside partisanship
    to achieve our shared objectives with this bill and many other
    measures to come.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other opening
    statements?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Gentlelady from California Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    Congressman Rush Holt for introducing H.R. 811, the Voter
    Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. As of this
    morning, H.R. 811 has 212 cosponsors, both Republicans and
    Democrats. It is a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support.
    Politics and political affiliation should not keep us from
    making the changes needed to restore the confidence of our
    citizens in the electoral process. Our election process must be
    open and transparent to ensure public confidence.
        Over the past few months we have held hearings in the
    Election Subcommittee that I chair on issues dealing with H.R.
    811. We have heard about problems faced by voters who need
    machines with disability access. We have listened to State and
    local election officials with very differing points of view.
    Some have no problems with their current voting systems while a
    majority of others find that the path to a transparent
    electoral process is through a voter verifiable paper trail.
        We have also heard from the guys I represent, the geek
    squad, as I like to refer to them, about voting systems
    software. The technology behind these voting systems needs to
    be accessible to the Government entities, academic experts and
    parties to ligation. That technology must also be tested and
    certified by labs that are, in no way, connected to interested
    parties.
        We have also spent time going through the audit process and
    the best ways to count ballots to ensure voter confidence. In
    the hearings, we have heard many different points of view. I
    will offer, at the conclusion of my remarks, an amendment in
    the nature of a substitute and will discuss the merits of that
    during the debate on that motion, the substitute motion. We
    have received letters of support from voting rights activists
    and countless individuals, and when our colleague, Mr. Ehlers,
    held up his stack, I asked the staff to bring those boxes up
    and put those on the table because within those boxes are
    185,000 signatures in support of the whole bill, one signature
    roughly for every precinct in the United States. Additionally,
    20,497 signatures additionally sent in favor of this bill.
        We have groups in support of H.R. 811, Common Cause, the
    Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Vote Trust U.S.A., the
    Electronic Frontier Foundation, and on and on. I ask unanimous
    support to put the list in record.
        We have heard the concerns of State and local election
    officials and will try to address them in the substitute, but
    we cannot let a flawed voting system continue. I know there are
    members of this House who do not feel that we need to make
    changes in our voting system.
        There are Members who think the best way to go is to leave
    our voting system untouched or to provide very vague guidance
    for improvement. While I wish we can just ask that our voting
    system be improved and it would happen, history has taught us
    that this does not always work. We cannot be faced with more
    Federal elections that are fundamentally flawed.
        The integrity of our voting system and voter confidence
    must be ensured for 2008 and beyond. And H.R. 811 is the first
    step in gaining the trust of the American voters and to get
    that trust back. So Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to offer
    my substitute for consideration and do offer my substitute for
    H.R. 811 for consideration.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other
    opening statements?
        Hearing no opening statements, the Chair now calls up and
    lays before the Committee H.R. 811, a bill to amend the Help
    America Vote Act of 2002, to require a voter-verified permanent
    paper ballot under title III of such Act, and for other
    purposes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.047

        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman I offer my substitute as an
    amendment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the first reading of the
    bill will be dispensed with and without objection, the bill
    will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
    Maybe before I recognize you, we should recess to go vote and
    come back and I will recognize you for your statement. Thank
    you all. We are recessed until after the vote. I think we have
    three votes on the floor.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I would like to call the meeting of the
    Committee on House Administration back to order. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlewoman from California. Ms. Lofgren,
    Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Elections, held three
    hearings on this bill in preparation for today's markup.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I am chomping at the bit to
    offer my substitute to the amendment, and I do so at this time.
        The Chairman. The amendment has been distributed to the
    Members. Without objection, the reading of the amendment will
    be dispensed with. The gentlelady from California is recognized
    for five minutes in support of her amendment.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.105

        Ms. Lofgren. My amendment is an attempt to meet the
    concerns or many of the concerns that were raised by various
    parties during the hearings and subsequent to them.
        There is no systematic auditing in place to catch the
    problems in Federal elections. The substitute language modifies
    the audit section by allowing States to create their own audit
    entity which is independent and nonpartisan. It also allows
    State and locals to choose to use the tiered audit formula
    outlined in the bill or to develop an audit that is deemed
    statistically equivalent by NIST.
        We have also clarified language, providing definitions for
    terms such as durable paper and language explaining that
    clearly readable by a voter now includes a reference to eye
    glasses or corrective lenses, a suggestion made by the
    minority. This is language actually in their amendment.
        Recognizing that the software issue has been a key concern
    for many who vote, the tech sector and the media, we have also
    modified the disclosure and security requirements to make them
    more practicable, and I will say that in extensive meetings
    with the software community, and specifically the business
    software alliance, I am advised that the business software
    alliance does not oppose the language that we have in this
    substitute.
        Their concerns about protecting intellectual property
    rights of voting systems and the like, we have modified the
    disclosure language to recognize these rights, while at the
    same time, allowing parties to litigation and experts access to
    information necessary to ensure the integrity of the voting
    system. The substitute also recognizes the need for more time,
    but balances the concerns of voters by providing waivers for
    some State and locals to move to paper ballots.
        All paper-based systems including thermal reel to reel
    systems and accessible systems that used or produced a paper
    ballot in 2006 can be used until 2010 and the waiver for
    thermal reel to reel is the new addition to the bill, since
    last week as a result of us having time to read the minority
    amendments.
        Only six States will be required to replace all voting
    machines by 2008. Those States would be Delaware, Georgia,
    Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Tennessee. A total of
    only 13 States will be required to place some of their voting
    machines by 2008. The time factor is also the reason we have
    made provisions to allow for States with legislatures that
    don't meet every year. We recognize that these changes are not
    going to be inexpensive. The substitute also includes the
    authorization of $1 billion and a formula to the allocation of
    these funds.
        We believe that this substitute deals with all of the
    issues that can be dealt with. I will note, I know that Mr.
    Ehlers will be offering a substitute to the substitute with the
    timeline that is not aggressive enough. A 2014 deadline
    delaying the implementation beyond 2008 will just cause further
    problems and distrust, and we also cannot place NIST in a
    position to set standards that are impossible. The Association
    For Computing Machinery, having reviewed the minority
    substitute, believes their amendment has some impractical
    computer security provisions as well.
        So in short, I think the substitute deals with the issues
    that can be dealt with. It has dealt with the technology
    issues, which is why the business software alliance does not
    oppose it. And I believe it will restore integrity to our
    voting systems and also confidence in our electoral process. So
    with that, Mr. Chairman, I move to yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize Mr.
    Ehlers, the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate that.
        The gentlewoman commented that her substitute deals with
    all the questions that can be dealt with. My question is: Do
    they deal with all the questions raised by election officials
    as contained by this stack of letters that we have?
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may, and you can see I am about out the
    door because I have a roomful of people waiting for me and I
    will be back to the markup--I think--in answer, if the
    gentleman will yield--some of the issues cannot be dealt with
    because they are offered by people who do not want change. I
    believe that the country wants change. And so we have dealt
    with those issues that can be dealt with while still proceeding
    with change for those who do not want change, we are saying we
    are sorry, but the country needs change and I yield back.
        Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time. I don't think we need
    change for the sake of change, but we certainly need
    improvement. I am willing to support and vote for improvement.
    What I see in this substitute is not improvement but more
    problems, more difficulties, and more than we have had in HAVA
    so far. I am very concerned about that. I would be happy to sit
    down with the majority and try to hammer out an agreement. That
    hasn't occurred. It has all been just take it or leave it, and
    so we will be offering amendments. We will offer a different
    substitute.
        Let me just say, I am concerned about the workability.
    Certainly, we cannot meet the 2008 deadline. That is clear in
    all the communications we have had from State and local people.
    Given that, then, how can we improve the bill?
        Let me just ask a few questions. States like Maryland and
    Georgia--I don't know who is going to answer this since the
    sponsor has left. But States like Maryland and Georgia have to
    acquire a paper-based system under this bill because they use
    paperless DREs as primary and accessible voting machines. What
    voting systems could these States get that allows a blind
    person to verify their vote? I don't know if there is an answer
    from anyone on the minority side or not. In HAVA, we worked
    very hard----
        Mr. Lungren. Majority side.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am sorry. I wish you wouldn't keep reminding
    me of that.
        The Chairman. I noticed one of your own reminded you. We
    know where we are at, and we are still trying to handle it.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am afraid you do. Anyone have any response to
    that question?
        Another question, does this bill outlaw lever systems, the
    old stand-by voting machines, which, incidentally, were
    instituted to get rid of the corruption that was endemic with
    paper ballots.
        Apparently no answer is available.
        Another question, what voting systems currently exist for
    purchase that meet the requirements in the bill?
        The Chairman. With all due respect, the lady that held the
    hearings isn't here at the moment to answer the question. She
    held the hearings and I am sure she has the answers to them and
    when she comes back we will have her address them.
        Mr. Ehlers. In that case, I will yield back and ask my
    colleagues.
        The Chairman. Did you offer a substitute? I don't know
    whether you offered it or you just had a comment.
        Mr. Ehlers. I have a substitute to offer which is a
    substitute to their substitute.
        The Chairman. She offered the substitute and without
    objection, the substitute amendment is considered as read and
    you are recognized now. I would like to recognize Mr. Lungren
    from California.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an
    interesting moment for me. I was not here when HAVA was passed,
    but I recall watching with interest the actions of the Congress
    at that time, and with all due respect, much of what the
    gentlelady from California said we are about to do now and why
    we have to do it now, is reminiscent of what was said when we
    passed HAVA just a few years ago, and the machines we are now
    concerned about are the machines that were purchased pursuant
    to HAVA, and now we are coming up again with our solution.
        And I would reject the notion that the election officials
    who have complained about the contours of this bill in terms of
    its impracticality and in terms of its uncertainty are all
    those who don't wish to make any change. I have here a letter
    from the American Association of People With Disabilities, the
    largest cross disability membership organization in the
    country. They support voting systems that are accessible,
    secure, accurate and recountable. These are their words. But in
    order for them to support this bill, they say it would require
    delaying the implementation date until 2014. They are doing
    this because they say the 2014 implementation date is realistic
    based on the experience of voting equipment manufacturers and
    election officials.
        That is not a group that is against change. It is a group
    that is against a version of a bill will make it impossible to
    succeed. The election officials in California have sent a
    letter talking about the impracticality of this approach. The
    letter that we received on April 25th from Karen Kean, the
    legislative, excuse me from Stephen Weir, the President of the
    California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials,
    expresses the concerns that they have.
        I have letters from individual election officers in
    counties from my State. They are not opposed to changes that
    would make it effective, but they are very concerned about this
    bill that we have.
        And so I hope that we are just not going to accept at face
    value that anybody who is opposed to the version of the bill
    that has been presented to us or the substitute presented to us
    by the gentlelady from California are against change or against
    ensuring that we have access to our polling places, that we
    have the ability for people to vote and not be confused about
    how they vote and the ability for us to ensure the integrity of
    the system.
        I appreciate the fact that my friend, the gentlelady from
    California, had to leave but it makes it very difficult for us
    to ask questions about the version that has just been presented
    to us so that we can not only talk about the general outlines
    of this, but so we can ask specific questions that would govern
    our introduction of several amendments to deal with the issues
    that we find as we read this bill.
        In short, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the Federal
    Government now telling the States that they have screwed up
    based on what we told them to do just a couple of years ago.
    The HAVA bill, as I understand it, authorized $3.2 billion to
    assist the States in this. And ultimately, the Congress got
    around to giving them $800 million. Now we are telling them
    trust us, we are going to give you a billion dollars to do this
    in the time limits that we have. And I think it is certainly
    realistic for them to have some concerns about this.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will have ample time for debate
    on the substance of what is before us and also on the
    amendments that we have drawn hopefully to the substitute that
    is here and take into concern the very specific questions we
    have about the bill as it has been presented to us. And I thank
    the chairman for the time.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.107

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Ehlers, I think you had a substitute and I think that I
    want to recognize you for five minutes to speak on your
    substitute.
        Mr. Ehlers. On this substitute or on my substitute?
        The Chairman. Your substitute, we are on your substitute
    now.
        Mr. McCarthy. I was just going to ask a point of
    information. I am a little confused about where we are
    currently because the gentlewoman from California left. Are we
    going to debate her bill are we going to recess until she comes
    back?
        The Chairman. She introduced her substitute, and I thought
    Mr. Ehlers introduced a substitute to her substitute.
        Mr. McCarthy. Did you make a motion?
        Mr. Ehlers. I have not offered my substitute.
        The Chairman. We are still on Lofgren substitute. I would
    like to recognize Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. I want to make it clear. I voted against HAVA
    when it was first proposed. I voted against it because of a lot
    of things that happened since then. I thought I was right then
    and in hindsight, I think I was right still. But at the same
    time, we weren't allowed to offer amendments. We weren't
    allowed to have discussions in a serious way. I am a former
    elected official--a formal locally elected official--a former
    mayor.
        Mr. Ehlers. You are working on it?
        Mr. Capuano. Not yet. I will leave that one alone.
        But as a former mayor, we ran elections. I have hands-on
    experience with picking machines, talking to election
    officials, making sure that elections, both State, Federal and
    local, were run appropriately. The HAVA bill did not assure me
    in any level that number one, the money was going to be there;
    number two, that the bad actors were going to be told given
    standards; number 3 that the good actors were in any way going
    to be encouraged to continue to be good actors.
        So that was an easy vote for me. I agree that some of the
    provisions in the bill are still not done yet. I don't have any
    problem with that. I have yet to see a bill ever that is
    perfect no matter how you look at it.
        I do, however, believe this bill is a significant step in
    the right direction, as I understand, I am relatively familiar
    with most of the provisions in the substitute, I think it is
    still a step forward. There are still some problems I have with
    it. But again, I could sit here and talk about the negative or
    the positive. And the negative, there is still some time in the
    process for me to have input and everybody have input to make
    it better.
        At the same time, I think it is the right thing to do to
    move this bill forward, continue to work on it to make it
    better as we all see making it better might decide, let the
    process work and get this going. Because I think everybody can
    sit here today--I don't think anybody is going to argue that
    the process we have now, current law we are living under now is
    a good law.
        HAVA had huge holes in it. And if we can't fix every one of
    them, if we are not going to be able to address every single
    issue that is of concern to each and every one of us, that is
    not an argument not to make significant progress. So I want to
    make it clear. I voted against HAVA. I am glad I voted against
    HAVA. But I intend to vote for this bill. And I hope between
    now and the team, it actually gets to the President's desk,
    there is still some things I would like to have further
    discussion on as well, and I think there will be plenty of
    opportunity for all of us to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from California Mr.
    McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask a point of
    information. Is the time that is allotted right now my 5
    minutes, taking my 5 minutes to ask questions about this bill?
        The Chairman. You have five minutes now on the Lofgren
    substitute.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman if I may, I would like to
    withhold and I would like to allow others to go before me. I
    would wait until somebody comes back that can answer the
    questions on the bill if I may.
        The Chairman. Well, she is not here at the moment, but she
    will be back. Hopefully she will come back in time and you will
    have a chance to ask her questions, but right now we are going
    to move forward on her substitute.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I was the ranking member on the
    subcommittee that dealt--we did three hearings on this and I am
    very concerned. Couple of points. This bill you have mentioned,
    it wasn't ready. We have got a presidential election coming up
    where primaries are moved up. Florida is moving up to January.
    My home State moved it up to February. And we are now going to
    gut the system and change the system when we haven't finished
    even going through the HAVA and finishing paying and now we
    want to move a bill today that we had to postpone from last
    week and we don't have the ability to debate it? I am very
    concerned because in these hearings, many of you weren't able
    to be here because you weren't on the subcommittee. But
    election official after election official has come before us
    and said, this bill is not ready.
        And I think we are making a major decision here, one, with
    the lack of debate; two, with the inability to answer the
    questions, and I think from a perspective when we come to this
    issue, we should put people before politics. This shouldn't be
    a partisan issue, a partisan debate. And I don't think you
    would see it on this side of the aisle.
        But from my point of view, I am feeling frustrated because
    this is such a serious issue that we don't have the ability to
    debate it. We don't have the ability to answer the question.
    And we may be able to come to a point where we find common
    ground.
         So with all due respect, I am just asking for the point
    that I would gladly wait until she is back into the room where
    maybe we could find a place that we can get to. I yield back my
    time to you.
        The Chairman. If we could maybe hear Mr. Ehlers'
    substitute, debate that, vote on that and by that time Ms.
    Lofgren should be back and we can ask her questions then.
        Mr. Lungren. Is the suggestion that Mr. Ehlers' substitute
    is not going to be adopted?
        The Chairman. We don't know. We have to vote on that. We
    will have a vote.
        Mr. Ehlers. If I may reclaim the time I yielded back
    earlier. I was just so surprised that the offerer of the
    substitute immediately left the room making it impossible to
    ask questions or get answers. I share Mr. McCarthy's
    frustration on that.
        My problem is, as Mr. Capuano's about HAVA, it is a
    process. I would like to work together, have this be a
    bipartisan bill as HAVA was. I would like to work with the
    Senate, have it be a bicameral bill as HAVA was. I have already
    been told by people in the Senate that this version, even
    though with the substitute, is dead on arrival there, it seems
    like a waste of time to work on a bill that is going to be
    totally forgotten about once it reaches the Senate and they
    plan to write their own.
        So it is just a very confusing process. I suppose I could
    offer my substitute and run out of the room to avoid anyone
    asking any questions on it.
        But that is a hard way to accomplish progress. So Mr.
    Chairman, I understand the spot you are in. You are not
    responsible for what your Members do, but it is very
    disconcerting to try to have a discussion when one party leaves
    the room. I will yield back.
        The Chairman. We made an accommodation we will come back to
    that when it comes in, if it is dead on arrival I don't know
    why you are offering amendments on substitutes but we are
    allowing you to do that also. Oh, his isn't dead on arrival,
    only ours is dead on arrival.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for the substitute.
        Mr. Ehlers. To try to move things along, Mr. Chairman, let
    me just say I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the substitute is
    considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.116

        Mr. Ehlers. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What we
    have tried to do is make an honest effort to improve the bill
    as submitted and the version that this committee had originally
    developed, the majority of the committee had originally
    developed. It directs the Election Assistance Commission, with
    the help of NIST, to establish guidelines and standards for new
    Federal election equipment by January 1, 2010. Everyone we have
    talked to, all of the election officials, State election
    officials said 2008 is simply impossible.
        I take their word for that. They are the experts. So we
    have tried for 2010 effective date. This provides a technology
    that allows a contemporaneous, redundant and auditable trail of
    votes cast recorded on such equipment which was the purpose of
    the original Holt bill.
        It provides a technology that allows each individual who is
    eligible to vote in such an election to verify the ballot
    before the individual's vote is cast into the equipment.
        It provides a technology that ensures reliable security of
    the equipment from tampering or improper use. It provides a
    technology that ensures that individuals with disabilities who
    are eligible to vote in the election can vote independently and
    without assistance.
        States would need to be compliant with the new guidelines
    and standards as soon as they are able to do that. We estimate
    by 2014, they would certainly have everything in place and
    available for use. The real item that sticks in the craw of the
    States is the plan for audits. States are ready to have their
    own audits. They resent being told by the Federal Government
    how they should handle their audits. In particular, most States
    who have talked to me believe that the proposal in the bill is
    worse than nothing because it interferes with a recount
    process, interferes with a board of canvass review, and it does
    not really accomplish the audit the way it should be
    accomplished.
        State security plans. States would have to submit to the
    Election Assistance Commission by January 1, 2008, security
    protocols as far as voting machines and administering
    elections. So every State would have to prepare its security
    plan.
        State contingency plans. Each State must submit to the EAC
    by January 1, 2008 its contingency plans for election day
    emergencies or voting machine malfunctions. Plans must include
    a polling place and emergency ballot protocols.
        There are many other factors that make this substitute
    better than the Lofgren substitute. It is supported by the
    National Association of Counties, because they realize this
    approach fits with the proven idea of allowing the States to
    have the flexibility to meet Federal requirements in election
    law. H.R. 811 directly undermines the valuable gains from HAVA
    and takes us back to 19th century election systems and
    procedures.
        My substitute looks to use technology to improve the voting
    system, not revert back to requirements and problematic paper.
    It has been 5 years since the enactment of HAVA, and there are
    still States that have yet to fully comply with requirements.
    Until that happens, we are unable to accurately measure its
    successes and shortcomings. My substitute allows for enough
    time to rationally make changes to this system.
        Recently, EAC commissioner Gracia Hillman testified during
    an Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee hearing that if
    H.R. 811 were enacted, over 180,000 voting machines would need
    to be replaced or upgraded nationwide for the 2008 elections.
    Another factor there is technology being developed that would
    be accessible to disabled voters and allow them to verify their
    vote independently and privately. That technology is not yet
    ready available or certified.
        Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark testified there
    is no way under the sun we--that is State election
    administrators--can make the kind of changes that are
    contemplated in H.R. 811 by next year's elections.
        George Gilbert stated we are concerned that the
    implementation date of 2008 would actually collapse the
    election system. I could go on and on with this. But the pulp
    is simply the Lofgren substitute does not solve the problems in
    H.R. 811. It is a noble attempt, but it doesn't accomplish it.
    I believe that my substitute does accomplish what H.R. 811
    wants to accomplish, and it does so in a workable fashion. With
    that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.220

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.221

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.222

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.223

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.224

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.225

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.226

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.227

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.228

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.229

        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The question is on
    agreeing to the Ehlers substitute amendment to the Lofgren
    substitute. All of those in favor signify by saying ``aye.''
    All those opposed, ``no.'' No. The noes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. I ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The amendment is not agreed to. The noes
    are 5, the ayes are 3. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Ehlers. Not to be--Mr. Chairman. I have a number of
    amendments, individual amendments to the substitute, to offer.
        The Chairman. Well, right now I need to recognize the
    gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I do have
    an amendment to the substitute by Ms. Lofgren. And I ask for
    unanimous consent to consider it as read.
        The Chairman. Without objection. Do they have a copy of the
    amendment? The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five
    minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.130

        Mr. Gonzalez. I did inquire of staff because I wanted to
    make sure that you had the amendments. My understanding is that
    they were distributed prior to the calling of order of the
    committee, but surely they are not available, let's go ahead,
    these are technical conforming----
        The Chairman. Technical perfecting amendment.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. If I could be recognized for a few
    minutes, maybe my explanation will be adequate or sufficient. I
    don't think that members on the minority side are going to find
    anything objectionable.
        This amendment makes technical and conforming changes to
    ensure this bill is consistent and accurate. The first change
    ensures that we are consistent in making the independent
    testing agencies the escrow entities for voting software and
    not the Commission.
        The Commission is listed on page 17 of the bill where it
    should read ``laboratory accredited under section 231.'' The
    second change being made here is to include manufacturers in
    reporting security standards if requested by the Commission. On
    page 18, line 5, it should read ``manufacturer or appropriate
    election official.''
        And as I said, these are just basically conforming and
    changes one amendment, two minor changes. There were
    inconsistencies, we were making reference to commissions and so
    on. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Yes. Ranking Member,
    Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. The gentleman from Texas indicated that the
    minority could not find anything wrong with this. He sorely
    underestimates us, but in the hope of speeding things along, I
    am prepared to accept the amendment.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. The amendment then is accepted. The chairman
    now would like to recognize Mr. Capuano for offering an
    amendment to the Lofgren substitute.
        First, we still need a vote on the Gonzalez amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying ``aye.''
        Aye.
        Opposed, ``no.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ``ayes'' have it.
        So ordered, the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. Mr. Capuano offered an amendment. Without
    objection the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman
    from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.134

        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply allows
    voters to have a choice as opposed to having election officials
    have full control over the method of voting that a voter might
    wish to do.
        It allows people who walk into the polling place to take
    whatever is offered, or to ask for a ballot that is capable of
    being handmarked. To me, this is an amendment that is already
    full of compromises for me. It does take into account some of
    the earlier voting provisions. It exempts them. It doesn't take
    effect until 2010. It does not deal with voting centers because
    personally, I wasn't familiar with voting centers, but I have
    no problem at all working to make sure that voting centers in
    the future be excluded from this.
        For all intents and purposes, it renders the emergency
    provisions, the emergency provisions moot. And it does that by
    allowing every voter to make a decision and therefore requiring
    every polling place to have enough ballots to handle that.
    Provisions are not yet stricken by this. I have no problem with
    having discussions to not trying to be redundant. I don't think
    redundancy helps at all. And this amendment I think is very
    simple, very straightforward, and I would urge people to
    support it.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Any discussion? Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment
    again. I think it is an attempt to provide a clarification, and
    personally I have no objection, if you wish, to call for yeas
    and nays.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Initially, I was very supportive of this because I think that
    at some of the hearings that we heard from people, it became
    clear that there is a choice for voters. And we wanted to be
    able to provide that, whether you know we used the word paper
    or plastic, but essentially, to be able to allow people who are
    concerned, have problems, whatever that may be to vote with
    paper. I was then concerned that we might disallow people who
    are voting early to do this because election centers would not
    be prepared to handle that, but I think that has been clarified
    in the amendment.
        I think that it really does allow some choice. And I think
    over time, some of us will settle out because people will
    either choose to use the paper or they will have the confidence
    in whatever machines it is that they are using and they will be
    able to do what we are really doing here--focusing on the voter
    and encouraging an election system that has the confidence of
    people that are getting to the polls, so I appreciate that, Mr.
    Chairman, and I support it.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Any other discussion? All
    those in favor of the Capuano amendment signify by saying
    ``aye.''
        Aye.
        Any opposed? So ordered, the amendment is agreed to.
        We will move on to any other amendments?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a whole series of
    amendments here. The first one is labeled Ehlers Number 1,
    requiring paper as the official ballot. What this amendment
    does is allow States to decide what the official ballot of
    record should be.
        I think one of the flaws in the original bill, H.R. 811, as
    we have heard testimony from various governmental units, is
    that it insists that the only ballot of record is the paper
    ballot. I think there have been substantial cases showing that
    paper, in and of itself, is not necessarily more reliable than
    other methods of voting. I think it should be up to the
    election officials to have the capability and the freedom to
    decide, based on the record of what they see and the results of
    the voting, to decide which of the ballot--which of the
    redundant system they are using is the more reliable in terms
    of recounting the election.
        So this certainly clarifies that issue, removes the
    absolute nature of the statement. As I said before, the 2000
    presidential recount in Florida proved that paper ballots were
    not the answer and that was the genesis of HAVA. The main
    reason the Nation moved from paper ballots to mechanical voting
    machines was because of rampant fraud associated with paper
    ballots and the problems with discerning voter intent. Paper
    ballots can be--and frequently were--lost, stolen, or damaged.
    Entire ballot boxes were lost, stolen or stuffed with
    counterfeit ballots. That was the origin of the development of
    the old lever-style voting machines to get away from the
    problems of paper. I think we should let the election officials
    decide which is the appropriate record to use when recounting
    in a particular election based on the state of the ballots, the
    state of the equipment and so forth. I urge the adoption of
    this amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, the
    amendment is considered as read. Any other discussion on the
    amendment? Yes. The gentleman from Alabama.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.137

        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ehlers, I
    would pose this question to you and then yield you your time to
    answer it. I assume when you crafted your amendment, you may
    have possibly expected that the Capuano amendment would not be
    successful. It has now been successful. It just passed by voice
    vote.
        Can you reconcile your amendment with the Capuano
    amendment? It seems like from my standpoint, if the Capuano
    amendment gives the voter a choice that that is substantially
    undercut if the States could then come back and say we are
    going to ignore all paper ballots in adjudicating a recount,
    but I yield to you to answer that.
        Mr. Ehlers. I will be happy to yield. I don't see a
    conflict here at all because it gives the local election
    officials the choice of which to use for the record. If for
    example they have allowed some people to use VVPAT, paper
    ballots, and there is no alternative, obviously they have to
    depend on those paper ballots for those individuals as the vote
    for the record. But the intent of the bill is to make certain
    there are two indicators of the intent of the elector so that
    we can determine precisely what the elector meant.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, reclaiming my time. I am
    searching for the actual text of your amendment. If you have an
    extra copy of it, I would appreciate being given it versus just
    the executive summary of it. But if I am understanding the
    summary, it suggests that it would be up to a State to decide.
    But in the event of a recount, the State could choose something
    other than paper ballots. If I understand Mr. Capuano's
    amendment, the goal is to give a voter the option of making
    sure there is a paper trail. The only relevance of giving a
    voter that option would be that there was, in the event of a
    recount or in the event of a dispute, the availability of
    something more reliable than machines.
        So it may be that we simply disagree about your amendment,
    but it would seem to me given Mr. Capuano's amendment now being
    included in the bill that you would take away or you would
    undercut the voter flexibility Mr. Capuano creates by allowing
    the States to in fact ignore those paper ballots.
        Mr. Ehlers. No. They would not have that option. The intent
    here is that when there are two official records, whether it is
    a computer and a paper trail or whether it is some other
    alternative dual redundant record, which could be a computer
    with an additional server located alongside which verifies the
    votes, if there are two choices, let the State choose. If there
    is only one choice, if it is just the paper ballots that Mr.
    Capuano refers, that of course has to be the only option that
    the State or the local government can pick.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. In the interest of time, I will make
    this just my last observation. It would seem as a practical
    matter that if consistent with Mr. Capuano's amendment that
    there would always be in every jurisdiction a chunk of ballots
    that were paper ballots that would exist, perhaps in some there
    would be the overwhelming majority of the ballots that were
    cast. So as a practical matter, If I understand the point the
    ranking member is making, if there were an election recount or
    an election audit, it may create a very significant practical
    problem if the State were to decide to use one mode of
    verification if a significant number of ballots were cast.
        Mr. Ehlers. The State could never exclude ballots that were
    officially cast if that is the only ballot that was made. They
    could never do that.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Okay. I will yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, the lady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to--I am sorry that I had to
    briefly depart for a previously scheduled meeting. I did want
    to address the issue that I understand Mr. Ehlers raised in my
    absence, which is what machines are readily available now that
    meet the standards in the substitute. And that would be
    official optical scans and ballot marking devices, and I also
    understand that the question has been raised whether levers,
    the machines with the levers would be essentially outlawed
    under the substitute. And the answer to that is yes, they would
    be outlawed. However, only New York uses the levers, and the
    State of New York has itself outlawed the levers as of
    September of this year. H.R. 811--actually the substitute would
    actually not outlaw the levers until November of 2008. So I
    don't think New York would actually even be impacted since they
    have taken a step in advance of this. I think that the
    substitute does really nothing to advance our cause of
    transparency and voter recounts.
        And you know years ago, I was visiting in Silicon Valley,
    and all the techies are very concerned, at least in the valley,
    who have talked to me, that we take a step such as is
    envisioned in the bill and in the substitute. And I remember
    one of the scientists told me--I said, well, mistakes can be
    made under any system, and that is true. I mean there can be
    mistakes on paper ballots. There can be mistakes on optical
    scans. There can be mistakes on machines. I mean, nothing is
    perfect, and we all know that. And he argued back to me, yes,
    but the mistakes can't all be skewed to one side as they could
    be in a voting machine. And that is really what underlies this
    issue. You can't hack a paper ballot. And you can hack a voting
    machine, and you need to have a paper ballot at least to
    prevent that from happening, and I think to do anything less is
    a mistake, and I don't question the gentleman's commitment or
    his good will. I just think that he is mistaken, and I thank
    the Chairman.
        Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentlewoman yield?
        The Chairman. We are going to get back to you. We have
    agreed to hold open any debate on your substitute until you got
    back. But right now we are on Mr. Ehlers' amendment No. 1. If
    we could do this, get through the amendments, and as I agreed
    to, we could go back and have our discussion with the
    substitute. I believe Mr. Ehlers' amendment No. 1 is up for----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Addressing Mr. Ehlers'--I guess--amendment
    No. 1. Mr. Ehlers, could you give me an example of what you are
    talking about here where there would be an election by the
    election official and determine what would be the official
    ballot? What constitutes the official ballot for the purpose of
    an audit or a recount, a real life experience that we could
    anticipate occurring?
        Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gonzalez. I am sorry. I yield to you. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ehlers. I thank you for yielding. This is not an
    amendment that is just coming out of the blue. This is in
    response to the requirement in H.R. 811 that in the case of two
    extremes the paper ballot is the ballot of record, period. The
    local community has no choice, the State has no choice and this
    amendment is simply to make it clear in the case of a dual
    record. The State and the locality upon examination of the two
    records can decide which is the most accurate and use that as
    the official recount. It is not a new concept. It is simply
    taking away the requirement that it has to be paper, that you
    can't consider the voting machine as----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Reclaiming my time, I guess what I am trying
    to get at is, if you could give me an example of where you have
    two competing ballots that either could be recognized as the
    official ballot. Are we talking something that is
    electronically computed? Or something that we have that is
    actually a--obviously the paper ballot? The reason that I pose
    that question is, if you are going to give an option to the
    election officials to basically defeat the very purpose of what
    we are doing, and that is a paper trail, but not just a paper
    trail but something that can be examined, quantified as being
    more reliable than that which cannot be, which would be
    something that would be a nonpaper ballot. See what I am
    getting at? I am just saying, I would like to know of an
    example that you could provide me because maybe I am missing
    the whole point of your amendment.
        Mr. McCarthy. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. Gonzalez. And I would like to yield to Mr. Ehlers since
    it is his amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Let me first respond, and then I hope you
    will also recognize Mr. McCarthy. You are assuming, as the bill
    does, that the paper trail is automatically the better record.
    Now we heard testimony before this committee from Cuyahoga
    County, Ohio that this is not true, that they did run an
    election where there was a paper ballot as well as the machine.
    The machine turned out to be far more accurate than the paper
    ballot. Now I am not saying this would be true in every case. I
    am just saying in a case where that is true and it is evident,
    isn't it foolish of us to say, I don't care if the machine is
    proven to be more accurate, why do you exclude--why do you
    require us to use a paper ballot?
        So I am just giving the local election officials a choice.
    This is based on my strong feeling. Having served in local
    government, State government and Federal Government, I have
    discovered that not all wisdom resides in the Congress, and I
    think we ought to recognize the ability of the local election--
    --
        Mr. Gonzalez. Reclaiming my time, I know that it is
    probably almost expired. But I think just an important point--
    obviously I was just informed in that particular aspect or that
    particular county, the paper roll jammed and you had certain
    problems. I think we start from the basic premise. And I know
    that we have a fundamental difference about it that we are
    insistent on the paper ballot. I think what you are doing is
    you are allowing an election official to frustrate the very
    purpose of what we are attempting to accomplish and, further,
    find ways and manners of making sure that the paper ballot does
    in fact establish something that is very clear and
    quantifiable. That is my fear and my concern or that you
    actually put what we are trying to do here in jeopardy by--and
    I understand what you are saying, it is just the good faith of
    the election officials or so. But I can actually see where
    there would be a heck of a lot more mischief with that than if
    we say let's emphasize a quality paper ballot, a paper trail,
    because that is what brings us here today and this particular
    piece of legislation, and at this time I would yield back
    because I know----
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gonzalez. I would yield to Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would note to cite Cuyahoga County is pretty
    amazing since it is my understanding the election officials
    there were removed by the State because of irregularities and
    misconduct in the conduct of elections, and that has been
    widely reported in the press and I would yield back.
        Mr. Gonzalez. I yield back to the chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. If I could ask my questions, I guess.
    Referring to my friend from the other side asking for a
    specific example, during the hearings we did have an elected
    official from Ohio. It was a race this time, and it was close.
    I believe it was Deborah Pryce's race. It was a large county.
    It met all the criteria, all the matrix that you would want to
    see. And it went through with the State provision to have the
    recount. The interesting part that they brought up, they had
    electronic machine and they had the paper right there. When
    they went back and did the checking because that is what they
    have to do, the machine counted correctly. The paper--because
    you are using individuals there who have been trained but who
    aren't there all the time--jammed. So in this bill what Mr.
    Ehlers is saying and why he is offering the substitute, we are
    predetermining which one we look at. Even though in that case
    if this bill was to pass, the paper would be the correct answer
    even though we all knew it was wrong.
        So all Mr. Ehlers is saying with the substitute, don't
    predetermine the winner in the process. Allow the elected
    official who is elected by the body or appointed to actually
    weigh that issue so they have the option. And I understand your
    argument from there, but in this case we would have legislated
    what was right and what was wrong even though in that case he
    pointed out it was wrong, and I can see human error, just like
    Ms. Lofgren talked about earlier. The more people touch it, the
    greater a chance that there is an error. When you are feeding
    these in, you can't have error. And double checking, doing the
    parallel test, they found the machine had counted correctly.
    The paper had counted wrong so they were having the
    verification on both----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Would the gentleman yield? Thank you very
    much. My understanding is you had a reel and it jammed and you
    had those problems. I believe and I could be wrong, and I will
    defer to Ms. Lofgren and to Mr. Ehlers who are very
    knowledgeable about every aspect of this particular piece of
    legislation, my understanding is that we are going to have
    paper ballots available for those that are going to be
    requesting them. So I don't see that situation that we now
    allude to as ever repeating itself. Because if they had a
    problem with the printout, with the roll, the reel or whatever,
    we are actually going to have available for use in those
    circumstances a printed ballot. It is my understanding that we
    are going to have something that would address that particular
    situation. So that if anything, we have now built into this
    whole voting process a more careful and deliberate way of
    arriving at a paper ballot that we can rely on so that we do
    avoid the problem that you just set out. I just think that
    really defeats the whole purpose of what we are trying to
    accomplish here with paper trail, paper ballot and reliability.
        Mr. McCarthy. If I may yield back my time. The only thing I
    would state here is this is probably the problem where we are
    putting the cart before the horse. If we would debate the bill,
    maybe this would be a little clearer understanding, because in
    that instance you wouldn't have known the paper had jammed.
    Even though you do have paper and you have the paper ballot but
    the person was able then to go to the choice, what happens is
    only when the election was close did they go back, trigger an
    automatic evaluation. The election was close. That is when they
    realized that the paper count was not correct, but this
    legislation, if the answer is the way I read it, it says the
    paper is always right. The machine can never be right. And I
    would rather--instead of predetermining who the winner is, I
    would rather give that power to the elected officials who do
    this every day. And they could see from that instance, and that
    is in essence what the substitute, and let me yield my time
    to----
        Mr. Ehlers. If the gentleman would yield here, let me just
    follow that up. First of all, machines don't always function
    perfectly. That is true of computers, and it is true of paper.
    I am not arguing that we make the computer the automatic one. I
    am saying just allow the election officials based on the
    records to decide which one is right. I think it is absurd to
    say well, the paper always has to be right. We already have
    examples where it is wrong. It is also so argued that the
    computer has to be right. But I don't understand the underlying
    assumption here that somehow the computer is always wrong.
        Look, we sent out millions of Social Security checks every
    year. Our paychecks are run off by a computer. Right? I never
    even see it. It automatically goes into my bank account. Now I
    have a check because I can check it because--I wish I had more
    checks--but I could check my bank account and see that it was
    actually deposited correctly. The point is simply we trust
    computers for so many aspects of our lives. I think it is
    insane to have something that says the computer is
    automatically wrong.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Would the gentleman yield for one
    point?
        Mr. Ehlers. It is not my time.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Would you yield for one quick
    observation?
        Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Ultimately Mr. Gonzalez and I are
    making the same point. So I won't spend a lot more time on
    this, but I think, Mr. McCarthy, what you said perhaps
    unintentionally clarifies this debate. This side of the aisle,
    the supporters of this bill want to create a paper trail in
    every instance because this side of the aisle has made the
    judgment that that is, all things being equal, the best, most
    provable, most empirical way of verifying whether a vote has
    been cast. The purpose of this amendment is to depart from that
    intent and to say to local election officials, you can choose a
    different mode, and that just seems crystal clear to me. That
    is your position and we have ours. But I don't think it is
    accurate to say that this is consistent with the intent to move
    toward a paper verification. It is not. It would allow the
    opposite of paper verification.
        Mr. McCarthy. If I may yield back just for clarification.
        The Chairman. I am not sure if there is time left.
        Mr. McCarthy. Just to be short, maybe we are not clear
    because that is not our intention. All we are saying is you
    could have a paper trail and you can have a computer trail. In
    essence what you are saying, paper trail always, even in the
    instance when it jams, and this person got a hundred votes and
    the paper trail says----
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman. The gentleman has no more time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. We have nine amendments. We could do this
    back and forth forever.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to strike the
    last word. I come to this somewhat fresh.
        The Chairman. You have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lungren. And I have been one that had been concerned
    when I come up to certain machines and, you know, I push my
    finger on it and I hope it registers it correctly. And
    initially I thought paper verification, man, that is the way to
    go. And maybe this is the essence of the difference here. Isn't
    what we really want is to have a redundancy, a redundant system
    that is independently verifiable so that you can compare one
    against the other to see if in fact there was the accuracy of
    the machine involved, not just go back and check the machine
    and its internal operations? That is what I understand what we
    are trying to do here. And we are, it seems to me, making the
    judgment that the only way to do that is by a paper trail, and
    I don't know if that is because we doubt technology or we think
    that the constituents need--the voters need to have something
    in their hands to prove to them that in fact that is the best
    way to verify.
        Now, I am one of those who loves to have a check in my
    hand, loves to have a piece of paper in my hand. But at the
    same time, I recognize the world is changing and that we are
    going to paperless programs. And I just wonder whether it
    really does make sense. And this is not partisan on my part. I
    am trying to assure you. I want a redundancy. But does it make
    sense for us to predetermine the redundancy has to be paper?
        And I guess my question is a general one but then also a
    specific one. I understand--and maybe the gentlelady from
    California can correct me--but I understand in your substitute
    that you give a waiver to reel-to-reel paper, reel-to-reel
    machines for 2008?
        Ms. Lofgren. That is correct.
        Mr. Lungren. And that is because----
        Ms. Lofgren. That is because some of the States, some of
    the localities have complained that their State legislatures
    might not be able to act in time, and we want to accommodate
    that, but since the gentleman has yielded----
        Mr. Lungren. And I yield to the gentlelady.
        Ms. Lofgren. I think it is important to be clear about what
    the underlying bill says and what it doesn't say. It says----
        Mr. Lungren. It would be very helpful.
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. In section 2(b)(1) that if there
    is an inconsistency between any electronic vote tallies and the
    vote tallies determined by counting by hand that the paper
    ballots shall prevail, as has been discussed. It goes on to say
    if it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, as
    determined in accordance with the applicable standards in the
    jurisdiction involved in any recount, audit or contest of the
    result of the election, that paper ballots have been
    compromised by damage or mischief or otherwise and that a
    sufficient number of ballots have been so compromised that the
    result of the election should be changed, the determination of
    the appropriate remedy with respect to the election shall be
    made in accordance with the applicable State law. And so there
    is room for using commonsense in the case where the reel-to-
    reel, for example, jams, as we saw in one of our hearings. I
    would note also that in Ohio there was no parallel testing--I
    just wanted to correct the record on that--in the election
    contest previously referenced. The difference here I think is--
    and I don't want to talk about Florida 13 specifically because
    that is a separate committee that we belong to. But we do know
    that looking at that issue, there is nothing to recount. There
    is no paper ballots to recount. And that is the greatest
    argument I can find----
        Mr. Lungren. Reclaiming my time, the gentlelady has just
    directed us to in the substitute actually goes to what the
    amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers is, and so therefore the
    gentlelady accepts the argument but is suggesting that you have
    taken care of that in your base substitute. That is, at times
    if there is proof that the paper ballot method is somehow
    insufficient, they can go to something else, is that correct?
        Ms. Lofgren. Not exactly.
        Mr. Lungren. Oh.
        Ms. Lofgren. If it is demonstrated by clear and convincing
    evidence that the paper ballots have been compromised and that
    a sufficient number of the ballots have been so compromised
    that the results would have been changed, the determination of
    the remedy shall be made in accordance with applicable State
    law.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time is up. Anyone else?
    Question on the Ehlers amendment? All those in favor, signify
    by saying ``aye.'' Any opposed? The noes have it. The amendment
    fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Could I have a recorded vote on that?
        The Chairman. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote.
    Recorded vote on the Ehlers amendment No. 1.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 6, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, Lungren No.
    1.
        The Chairman. Lungren No. 1. Without objection, the
    amendment is considered read. I will now recognize the
    gentleman for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.138

        Mr. Lungren. I thank the Chairman. This amendment I think--
    well, I hope is somewhat noncontroversial. It attempts to try
    and deal with a particular problem that occurred to me, and
    this amendment tries to deal with that problem. It would allow
    the States that currently use the direct recording electronic
    systems with the voter-verified paper audit trail that have
    thermal paper to continue to use these voting machines in
    Federal elections. It is my understanding that 27 States
    currently use DREs with reel-to-reel voter-verified paper audit
    trails. This bill would require that States junk these new
    voting machines after the 2008 election. I could find no
    compelling reason to require the States to replace these
    machines because DREs with voter-verified paper audit trails
    that use reel-to-reel thermal paper still provide the paper
    record that we are talking about. It seems to me this is the
    kind of thing that the election officials were complaining
    about. This would be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars to
    replace something that is working and that provides the paper
    auditable trail that is desired by the majority in this bill.
    State and local election administrators have advised members of
    the committee that an alternative to reel-to-reel voter-
    verified paper audit trails cannot be developed, tested,
    certified and implemented for the 2008 elections and there is
    some question, according to them, whether it would be available
    for the 2010 elections.
        So this amendment would simply allow States to use these
    reel-to-reel voter-verified paper audit trails for the life of
    the machine. And as I understand it, that could be 10 to 15
    years or until the State decides to purchase new equipment.
    This does not change the underlying premise of the bill, as I
    understand, brought to us by the majority. It does have the
    paper trail there established. It would save money even though
    I know we are promising that we are going to send the money
    down there. I think we ought to be realistic, there is always
    cost involved. And if this serves the purpose of what we were
    talking about, I would hope that we could adopt this amendment.
        It does nothing to undercut the premise of the majority. It
    does nothing to undercut the idea of a paper trail. It allows
    the use of the machines that, as I understand it, have not
    proven to be problematic to this point. And that is the purpose
    of my amendment, and I think it is fairly simple and
    straightforward.
        And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I would like to thank the gentleman. The
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. As
    referenced earlier by, I believe it was Mr. McCarthy, the reel-
    to-reel are not optimal technology. I mean, they can jam. They
    are not perfect. And the provision in the substitute that
    permits their use through the 2008 election is a compromise,
    really in deference to the county and State officials who said
    that they could not meet the 2008 deadline. But I think to
    ignore the problems that we are aware of forever would be a
    mistake, and that is why the substitute gives a waiver but
    actually says these machines need to have a durable paper trail
    that is readable and countable in the future. And I think that
    to adopt the gentleman's amendment, although I am sure it is
    well intentioned, would be a mistake, would undermine the bill
    and the progress that we hope to make with it, which is why I
    oppose it, and I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.
        The Chairman. Thank the lady. Any other discussion? The
    question is on the amendment? All those in favor of the Lungren
    amendment No. 1 signify by saying ``aye.'' Any opposed?
        Mr. Lungren. Recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk
    please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. This amendment----
        The Chairman. I am sorry. Without objection, the amendment
    is considered as read, and you are recognized for five minutes.
    Which number is this?
        Mr. McCarthy. No. 1.
        The Chairman. No. 1. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.140

        Mr. McCarthy. It is my understanding that they have all
    been numbered by name, hopefully everybody has it.
        It is pretty straightforward. It allows States to continue
    to use the DRE for early voting and advanced voting. As many of
    us know, a lot of the States have moved up their voting such as
    Nevada and others to help when it comes to lines, to help in
    the process. And this allows them to use the DREs because they
    are necessary in urban areas to serve voters from anywhere
    within the county who wish to vote early at the voting
    locations. In some of these areas you can have 1,100 different
    ballot styles. And from this perspective, I believe it will
    help the individuals, it will shorten the lines, and one thing
    we found, a significant ballot printing and delivery problems
    for the optical scanners occurred in 2008, 2004, 2006. And as
    everybody moves their election up faster, with the presidential
    coming and the primary, I just think this gives an opportunity
    to mend into your bill to actually give some flexibility at the
    same time.
        I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any discussion? The
    question is on the amendment? All those in favor signify by
    saying ``aye''. Any opposed? The noes have it.
        Mr. McCarthy. I would ask for a roll call vote.
        The Chairman. Roll call is requested. Would the Clerk
    please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read and the Ranking Member is recognized for
    five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.143

        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is very
    straightforward. It strikes the audit provisions, which have
    been the most disturbing and difficult for the States and local
    governments to deal with. It strikes all of the other
    provisions, but it does not get rid of auditing. It allows the
    States to develop their own plan for auditing Federal
    elections. States will develop plans and get approval by their
    respective State auditors or equivalents and then submit their
    plan to the EAC. Election administrators are the ones who have
    to administer the changes and many of them have testified and
    sent letters testifying to the burdens and unintended
    consequences of the audit requirements in H.R. 811. I have
    alluded to that earlier in terms of the election officials who
    have talked to me. So the proposed audits will greatly
    interfere with the actions of the canvassers in deciding the
    final totals for local and State elections. With the testimony
    that we have received on this, this is not a good way to audit.
    They have better ways of doing it. We are happy to work with
    their State auditors to improve it if it needs improvement and
    submit their plan to the EAC.
        I ask for approval of my audit provision change.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, as the
    substitute actually deals with some of the issues raised by
    State officials relative to the audit. In the substitute the
    audit board has been removed but has been replaced with a
    requirement that the entity chosen by the State to conduct the
    audit satisfy the requirements of independence as set forth in
    the GAO's government accounting standards and also provides for
    an alternative, that States could instead use auditing
    procedures established by NIST, and I know the gentleman has
    great respect for, as do I. So I believe, however, that
    independent random audits are very important, and certainly in
    talking to local government officials in California they concur
    that a randomized audit is absolutely essential.
        As the gentleman knows, I was a local government official
    for more years than I have been in Congress. I was on a board
    of supervisors in Santa Clara County for 14 years with
    responsibility for elections. We supervised and funded the
    registrar of voters in that fourth largest county in the State.
    And I would never, as a local official, have said that a
    randomized audit that was independent was somehow to be
    resisted.
        So I think the amendment undercuts the bill, an important
    element of the bill. We have in the substitute change
    provisions of it to accommodate what we think are legitimate
    issues raised by State officials so that we do not unduly
    constrain the development of audits, but we need to have
    independence and I think the gentleman's amendment would
    undercut that.
        And I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
        The Chairman. Any other discussion on the Ehlers amendment
    No. 2? The question is on the amendment? All those in favor of
    the amendment signify by saying ``aye.'' Any opposed signify by
    saying ``no.'' The amendment fails. We ask for a recorded vote
    with a roll. Would the Clerk please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have Lungren No. 2, amendment
    No. 2 at the desk.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for five
    minutes. Without objection, the amendment is considered as
    read, Lungren No. 2.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.145

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
    amendment deals with the question of disabled accessibility. As
    I mentioned earlier, when we had general debate the American
    Association of People With Disabilities, the Nation's largest
    cross-disability membership organization, has expressed their
    concerns about the impracticality of the implementation of this
    bill. While they take pains to laud the impact of HAVA, HAVA's
    requirement that all polling places have at least one
    accessible voting machine by 2006 because it has, in their
    words, resulted in significant improvements in voting access
    since the 2002 elections, they go on to say that they fear that
    the Nation might move backwards on accessible voting
    technology, not because that is the intent of the author of
    this bill or the substitute but rather because of the
    impracticality in implementing this bill in this way.
        That is why I offer this amendment. This amendment would
    simply allow States to continue to use the DREs that meet the
    accessibility requirements under current HAVA law. This
    guarantees that the progress achieved under that law for the
    disabled community, as referenced in the letter from the
    President and CEO of AAPD would continue. Testimony before the
    committee indicates there still exists access problems with
    paper ballot and paper trails. Dr. Diane golden, disability
    access and technology witness, stated the following, quote,
    there are two access problems that we have still got in
    existing products related to print. It is not going to work to
    have an accessible electronic vote record or ballot and an
    inaccessible paper one. You can just see the problem with that.
    It is clearly lack of equal access. And quote, when you add
    paper into the process, we certainly don't have equipment on
    the market readily available that delivers all of those access
    features when a paper ballot is involved.
        Congressman Holt stated that, one, our legislation requires
    that there be a voter-verified paper ballot. Now what goes
    along with that we really don't specify. There is some
    accessibility issues that, you know, purely a paper system
    cannot help the voter with disabilities along with the process.
    And that is an admission by Congressman Holt that we have a
    problem here.
        So it just seems to me that if we are going to require
    voter-verified paper audit trails, we should first ensure that
    it has accessibility standards for all disabled voters before
    requiring the States to purchase technology that does not now
    exist. I believe a paper option can still be offered for those
    who are disabled and want a paper backup and prefer to have
    assistance in the voting booth.
        I understand the intent of the author of the underlying
    bill and the gentlelady from California with the substitute to
    try and somehow come to a reasonable compromise on this. I just
    fear that under the current terms of the bill that doesn't make
    it. I would just ask that there be serious consideration of my
    amendment so that we don't have an unintended consequence as a
    result of the terms of the bill that we pass.
        And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Is there any other
    discussion on the amendment? The lady from California, Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I oppose the amendment. And as mentioned
    earlier, there is a grandfather clause through the next
    election for those systems that have reel-to-reel. On page 7 of
    the substitute, starting at line six, there is also a provision
    requiring that the use of at least one voting system equipped
    for individuals with disabilities at each polling place that
    allows a voter to privately and to independently verify the
    individual durable paper ballot and ensures that the entire
    process is equipped for individuals with disabilities.
        I will note that we worked very closely with the disability
    community in crafting the substitute, and I believe that it
    does address their very important issues, and the amendment is
    unnecessary and also redundant, and therefore I would oppose
    it.
        The Chairman. Any other discussion? The question is on the
    amendment? All those in favor signify by saying ``aye.'' Those
    against, ``no.'' The noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. Recorded vote, please.
        The Chairman. A recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk
    please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have Lungren amendment 3 at
    the desk.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lungren with
    amendment No. 3 at the desk. Without objection, the amendment
    is considered as read and I recognize the gentleman for five
    minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.146

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes
    to a very controversial part of this bill. It goes to the
    question of source code and the availability of the source code
    to a large number of potential parties. This amendment would
    strike the provisions in the bill relating to election
    dedicated software and source code disclosures.
        As I read the bill, and I believe this is still true in the
    underlying substitute, it allows access of voting machine
    software to parties of a rather large universe. As I understand
    it, all someone would have to do is file a lawsuit, they would
    then be considered a party and they would have access to this
    information under the terms of this law. As I understand it, it
    would be both pre-election and post-election. As I understand
    it, there would be a requirement for disclosure--nondisclosure
    agreement to someone who successfully sought this information.
    However, I have looked in vain to find any provision in the
    bill before us that has an enforcement mechanism.
        Now, I don't know, but I would think that we would want to
    protect intellectual property to a greater extent than that. A
    nondisclosure requirement that has no backup in terms of a
    penalty to someone who did disclose, either administratively or
    any other way, is not the way we normally look at important
    issues of intellectual property. As a matter of fact, we know
    we have international disputes with any number of our trading
    partners, and if we were to visit Taiwan or visit the People's
    Republic and they were to tell us, look, we are going to
    protect your intellectual property by requiring nondisclosure
    agreements under certain circumstances but there is no
    enforcement mechanism, I think we would be very, very upset.
        These are crucial issues out there. I understand the
    importance of being able to check to make sure that machines
    have not been in any way tampered with, but I think this goes
    far too far. There are inherent security concerns and
    reservations about allowing a broad spectrum of parties, some
    of whom may not have real interests in the source code, to view
    sensitive and security-related voting machine equipment and
    software. And maybe I am mistaken on this, but I understand
    this is allowed pre-election as well as post-election under the
    terms of the bill. If we are concerned about securing
    something, maybe the last thing you want is individuals having
    access to these things prior to an election where they might be
    able to do testing to find out what the vulnerabilities are. I
    know that is not the intent of the gentlelady from California,
    but I have a concern that that could be the result, and
    particularly when we have no enforcement mechanisms in the
    underlying proposition before us.
        So my amendment would strike the provision in the bill
    relating to the election dedicated software and source code
    disclosures, and I would hope to get support for my amendment.
        The Chairman. Is there any discussion on the amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The lady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I oppose the amendment, and let me tell you
    why. I think there is no section of the substitute that I spent
    more personal hours on than this section, and to strike it
    would mean that no party or voter to--no party to litigation
    would ever be able to have access to voting system technology
    and might never be able to find out whether votes were
    miscounted. Now the language in the substitute is crafted to
    provide protection needed to get access to the information
    while at the same time respecting the rights of third-party
    vendors and off-the-shelf software. The provision relating to
    nondisclosure agreements is one that I think provides the
    opportunity for penalty for disclosure when it comes to
    election specific software.
        I would note that the section which begins on page 11 of
    the substitute and extends into page 16 of the substitute is
    one that was crafted with the input of technology companies,
    many of whom are in my congressional district in Silicon
    Valley, and that the language is not opposed by the Business
    Software Alliance. I am not going to pretend that any software
    company wants any disclosure. I understand they don't. But
    there is also a recognition that when there is election-
    specific software there is going to be a need in certain cases
    to have access to that software so that one can be assured as
    to what happened, and that is why we put these protections in
    place. I think that the provision is a balanced one that
    achieves its end, and I think the amendment simply striking it
    would lead us in the dark and would be a huge mistake, and I
    yield back. I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
        The Chairman. I would like to recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of
    questions for Mr. Lungren and then I would like to yield him
    some time as well. In your amendment you say strike it because
    you raised the issue about no penalty, that anybody could just
    go in and file a lawsuit that day and then get--I mean I could
    file a personal lawsuit currently as the bill is written?
        Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. McCarthy. I will yield.
        Mr. Lungren. As I understand it, the definition of the bill
    is someone who has an interest--a party of interest would be
    anyone who filed a lawsuit involved in this issue, whether or
    not they succeeded in the lawsuit, whether or not the lawsuit
    was thrown out later on, as I read the bill.
        Mr. McCarthy. And yours would--because there is no penalty
    as well. If someone goes in and signs that paperwork, I filed
    the lawsuit, I signed the paperwork, I get the source code. Is
    there any penalty if I do----
        Mr. Lungren. Well, if the gentleman would yield. And the
    gentlelady from California can correct me if I am wrong. But I
    read through the bill and could not find, or referring to my
    bill, the staff did a good job of reading through the bill--I
    could not find a reference to the penalty attached even
    administratively, civilly, criminally, any otherwise.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. On that point, if you would look, I direct
    your attention to line 24 on page 13 on the nondisclosure
    agreements. The NDAs, what we decided would be prudent would be
    not to try to write the NDAs for the software companies. Let
    the companies write their own NDAs. Ordinarily--I have signed
    plenty of them--there are penalty provisions for disclosure
    that would be included in the NDA itself. So it was really in
    deference to the variety of companies. But there are limits
    that are put into the bill on what the NDA could contain, for
    example----
        Mr. McCarthy. If I may reclaim my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
        Mr. McCarthy. So if I recall correctly here, what you are
    saying is we are giving it up to the companies to put out any
    penalty they want, and how would it be reinforced then, through
    the legal course there?
        Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lungren. I understand what the gentlelady is saying, it
    is a nondisclosure agreement to be reached between the
    manufacturer or the possessor of the intellectual property and
    the person asking for it. But the fact that we don't specify
    any type of enforcement leaves that hanging out there. I would
    suggest that if one reads this bill, the impetus is to get this
    document or this information source code and other information
    out and for a company to stand there and say, look, we don't
    believe the nondisclosure agreement is sufficient to protect
    us, they will not be in a very strong position to do this. And
    I mean I would just say if the gentlelady is telling me that
    the high tech industry has signed off on this, this is news to
    me. And if that is the case, maybe on the Judiciary Committee
    we ought to understand they are not as concerned about source
    code protection as they have told us they are. And that is what
    I frankly find surprising, that somehow I am being told that
    they don't oppose it or they agree with it or they accept it.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. Before that, I would just say if I were their
    lawyer and I saw this legislation and I saw that I was required
    by the Federal Government to give this information up pursuant
    to a nondisclosure agreement and there are no elements of
    protection for me that is specified there, that this is the
    penalty if you fail to do this, I would recommend to my client
    that they get out of the business.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman----
        Mr. McCarthy. Reclaiming my time. If I could just ask you
    this question, it might be yielding the answer you want. You
    said the industry doesn't oppose it. Does the industry support
    it, this provision of the bill?
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may----
        Mr. McCarthy. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. On page 15, line 1, the NDA is ``silent as to
    damages,'' and on line 19, ``provides the agreement shall be
    governed by the trade secret laws of the applicable State.''
        I am on the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the
    Judiciary Committee and have been on that subcommittee for the
    past 12 years. I think this is very much in keeping with our
    tradition of protecting intellectual property. I would note
    also that this relates only to election dedicated voting system
    technology, which is--we tried to define it and finally
    realized it is already defined. And so we simply reference the
    definition under current law.
        In terms of support, I will say that if you go to any
    industry and say, would you like to have a provision such as
    this? I mean they didn't ask for this. But in multiple meetings
    and really I don't know how many hours but many, many, we came
    to the point where the Business Software Alliance said that
    they do not oppose this.
        Mr. McCarthy. They do not oppose it but they do not support
    it?
        Ms. Lofgren. I don't want to say they support it yet. I do
    not know. But they do not oppose the language that we have in
    this amendment.
        Mr. McCarthy. Can I ask another question? You bringing up
    the subcommittee you serve on of the Judiciary, would this bill
    need to go through that committee as well?
        The Chairman. We are getting close to time. I will let you
    go a little bit longer, but not much.
        Ms. Lofgren. I hope not.
        Mr. McCarthy. Yield back my time.
        The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the part that
    bothers me the most. It just seems very strange to me. I don't
    know if the Business Software Alliance or Microsoft, et al.,
    have taken leave of their senses. Considering the battles we
    have had just obtaining access to the source code thus far, but
    it has been obtained when it is appropriate. I am not even sure
    why we need this provision, but certainly I think it does
    incredible damage to the intellectual property laws of the
    country. I hate to think of how the Chinese might interpret
    this and say, well, this can apply to our case as well and it
    is okay if we violate the intellectual property laws. I think
    it is very strange, and I don't know if they were brow beaten
    into this or what. I think it is a very, very dangerous
    precedent for the high tech industry, especially the computing
    industry. Let me just ask if Mr. Lungren would like more time.
        Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would yield. Look, I think we
    want some of the best in the business to be involved in this. I
    think we want not just one person who is sitting out there to
    look at this. This is specialized software. I would hope that
    we would have--we would at least not set up a scenario where
    companies are afraid to get in this because their intellectual
    property can be so easily compromised. I think you have to look
    at that side of this. It is one of the purposes of intellectual
    property. It is to allow the great competition of ideas, but
    people knowing they have some value in that property, that is
    one of the toughest concepts we have in developing countries is
    to have them understand the concept of intellectual property as
    a thing, as a right, as something that you protect, as a
    property interest. It is not immediately ascertainable. After
    developing countries understand how they actually promote
    themselves and their industry with the protection of these
    rights, they all of a sudden start protecting intellectual
    property that comes from other countries because they hope to
    have theirs protected. And that is why if we hope to have some
    of the best companies in the world giving us the best, most
    reliable machines, it seems to me we should be very careful
    about that. That is why I offered the amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Just reclaiming my time, I have a question for
    you, Mr. Lungren. You alluded earlier that this might stir the
    interest of the Judiciary Committee. Would you anticipate that
    this might trigger a referral of this bill to the Judiciary
    Committee?
        Mr. Lungren. If I were in the majority I guess I could give
    you an answer. I would--well, it is intellectual property. It
    goes about enforcement, but traditionally at least it is
    something that we would look at in the Judiciary Committee and
    past chairmen have jealously guarded that, and Mr. Conyers is
    not known to be a wallflower.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I will yield.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am advised the bill does not change any
    underlying intellectual property laws, and I am advised by
    someone who has checked with the Parliamentarian that it would
    not require a referral. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Ehlers. Let me just conclude by saying that I still
    have serious concerns about this. I think it is of great
    importance to the computer industry and that we should at least
    be very worried with that provision. With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Any other discussion? The question
    is on Lungren amendment No. 3. All those in favor signify by
    saying ``aye.'' Any opposed say ``no.'' The noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, could I have a recorded vote on
    that, please?
        The Chairman. Recorded vote is requested. Would the Clerk
    please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 6, the ayes are 3. The amendment fails.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk, McCarthy Number 2.
        The Chairman. McCarthy Number 2, without objection, the
    amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized
    for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.154

        Mr. McCarthy. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
    comes directly from our hearings. The one thing we talked about
    in the name of this bill is voter confidence. We are talking
    about auditing the election, having the ability to know that
    the election, the outcome, is what took place. And that means
    auditing it all the way through.
        And in our hearings, one of the individuals talked about
    from all of the different stages. And it dawned on me at that
    moment, at that time, that we are auditing those votes that
    have been voted, but we have never put the confidence back into
    the people who were allowed to vote, do we ever look at, do
    they have the right to vote?
        The outcome may--the votes may tabulate, be correct, of
    those who voted but we never looked at, for the confidence part
    of that. So what this amendment does, effective 2010, voters
    will be required to provide a photo ID much like every week
    when I get on the airplane, I show my ID. If I were to going to
    a store and purchase cigarettes or alcohol I show an ID.
    Effective 2010, voters who arrive at polling places without the
    required ID will be given a provisional ballot. And there will
    be 48 hours to present a qualifying ID. Effective 2010, people
    voting by mail must include a photocopy of a photo ID. The bill
    states to set up a program to distribute the IDs and provide
    them at no cost to the individuals. Funds are authorized to
    reimburse the states for the costs of providing free IDs. I
    believe IDs will preserve and bring integrity back to
    elections, and actually go to the heart of what this bill says,
    the confidence in the voters. If you are going to audit an
    election, but you are never going to audit whether the
    individuals could vote or not, how do you know you have the
    right outcome?
        And I will tell you there is broad support for this. It is
    really common sense. In a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll,
    demonstrated that 81 percent of the people surveyed expressed
    supporting requiring IDs at the polls. The bipartisan Carter-
    Baker Commission on Federal Election Reforms have recommended
    that we require IDs at the polls. I really believe this goes to
    the heart of it, that if we are to move this bill, the first
    thing we should do is the ID portion of it.
        And the bell rang, so I give back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, can I weigh in on that
    or do you want to recess?
        The Chairman. Sure. The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis from
    Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I have a little bit of experience on
    this, Mr. McCarthy, being from Alabama and the south, a number
    of these southern States have these photo ID provisions. They
    sound seductive for the reasons that you outline, but there is
    a big practical problem with them. The folks in our society who
    do not have a photo ID tend to have the following
    characteristics, they tend to be very old, they tend to be very
    poor, and they tend to be blacks or Hispanics.
        And there are all kinds of reasons those four eventualities
    occur, but that is just the empirical fact. So if you impose
    any kind of voter ID, the result is that you strike at groups
    of vulnerable people who often participate at lower levels than
    they should in the political process.
        And there is another core problem, and by the way, that is
    what a number of courts have found. As you know, there have
    been a number of challenges to voter ID provisions on Voter
    Rights Act grounds and courts have tended to find that there
    are significant implications with respect to the Voters Act.
        There is another issue we are talking about legislation
    that aims at practical wrongs that exist. I am on the Judiciary
    Committee, which I served on with Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Lungren,
    we had an individual from the Department of Justice and I
    remember posing a query to that individual about the number of
    prosecutions that have happened in this country involving
    individuals who walk into a voting booth who claim to be
    someone that they are not. And the number is negligible. The
    number of elections that we have had in this country where
    there has been some taint or some evidence of corruption based
    on people walking in claiming to be John Jones when they are
    not John Jones is just a negligible number.
        On the other hand we have had, as we know from the Florida
    race, as we know from Ohio, as we know from the Florida
    presidential and congressional races in 2001 and 2006, as we
    know, are the Ohio race in 2004, there have been, whenever we
    think of the outcomes of those races, all kinds of questions
    raised around other aspects of the electoral process. So while
    this legislation sounds good, as a practical matter it aims at
    a problem that doesn't exist and it singles out a vulnerable
    class of voters. So I would yield to Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for yielding. And I would just add,
    this is something that I think the Election Subcommittee is
    going to take a look at later in the year because there has
    been so much discussion about it. But I will say this, people
    often say, well, you have to show ID to buy a beer, but you
    know a beer is not a constitutional right. We know that
    substantial numbers of American citizens do not actually have a
    photo ID. And in fact, we had hearings--and Mr. Ehlers was
    present at one of the hearings I attended, I believe, in New
    Mexico. We heard from the Navajo Nation--and it is about
    250,000 Americans. And indeed, they are the first Americans.
    And we were told by their leadership that they basically don't
    have photo IDs, and when we were having that hearing, the
    gentleman, who was a wonderful representative of his tribe
    said, you know, don't ask us for birth certificates because we
    don't have them. And don't ask us for utility bills because we
    don't have those either.
        So essentially, a photo ID imposition for voting would
    essentially say to a quarter million Navajos, our first
    Americans, you are not allowed to vote.
        I want to say also that the other studies we have heard
    about in the committee seem to indicate that there would be an
    enormously disproportionate adverse impact on people who are
    poor and people who are minorities. In fact, one of the studies
    that we learned about last Congress was in Wisconsin--I was
    stunned to see this--that a huge percentage, over somewhere in
    the neighborhood of half--of the African American young men
    between the ages of 19 and 26 don't have a driver's license and
    do not have a photo ID and cannot get one. I would note also
    that the Eagleton studies that was sponsored by the Election
    Assistance Commission, I would say rather cynically, suppressed
    and even distorted--and that is another thing we are going to
    look into later this year--indicated that there would be a
    disproportionate adverse impact on minorities with this voter
    ID impact, and it also pointed out there is virtually no
    evidence that there is fraudulent voting, and the Justice
    Department has shown that also through their lack of
    prosecutions.
        I think this is a very poor amendment. It would have a
    very, I am not sure not intended, but adverse civil rights
    impact and should be vigorously opposed. And I know the time of
    the gentleman has expired.
        The Chairman. I would like to recognize Mr. Capuano from
    Massachusetts hopefully for a very brief comment so we can vote
    on this amendment and then go and come back again.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I would wish to discuss it too.
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I won't vote for this amendment.
    I don't care how long any subcommittee looks at this issue. I
    won't vote to require Americans to carry IDs unless there is a
    need for that requirement. It is basic civil liberties. I kind
    of feel like the roles have been reversed here. It used to be
    that the right didn't like the Federal Government telling
    people to carry IDs, apparently now it is the left. I am the
    left and I don't want it.
        And this proposal, first of all, is I haven't had anything
    to say on the other amendments. They are all on point. They all
    have some reasonable purpose to say it. This is a whole other
    issue. This is basic civil liberties. Have all the hearings you
    want. There is no way that I would ever vote to require
    Americans to carry an ID and show it to anybody unless there is
    some clear and unequivocal need and purpose for the society.
        There is no allegations by anybody that I have heard of
    widespread voter fraud. People already have the ability if
    there is some known reason to ask somebody if you are really
    who you say you are. You can already do it in a voting place.
    And this is an incredibly slippery slope. What is next? Showing
    an ID and requiring certain information to buy a gun? Oh no, we
    can't do that, can't never do that. But this is okay.
        This is ridiculous. This goes to the basis of civil
    liberties here in America. The last time they tried this to
    require National IDs was in Nazi Germany in World War II.
    Didn't work there and not going to work here.
        The Chairman. Maybe we should recess and come back and I
    will recognize you when we come back. We will have a brief
    recess we have three votes on the floor and then we will
    return. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Chairman. I would like to call our Committee back to
    order. I believe we were on McCarthy Number 2. I think that Mr.
    Lungren had his light on and he agreed to hold off until we got
    back, so I now recognize Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I
    understand that some people get very exercised over this but
    frankly to suggest that this amendment is somehow anti civil
    rights is, I think, a little extreme.
        Let's remember what the Carter-Baker Commission said.
        The Carter-Baker Commission said to make sure that a person
    arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the
    list we propose a uniform system of voter ID based on the real
    ID card or an equivalent for people without a driver's license.
    The Commission noted specifically that there is likely to be
    less discrimination against minorities if there is a uniform ID
    than if poll workers can apply multiple standards.
        In fact, Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and mayor of
    Atlanta, supports the photo ID requirement.
        Now the suggestion is that somehow we will have or
    discriminate against certain peoples, that somehow it will
    diminish or depress voter turnout. Well, voters in nearly 100
    democracies around the world use a photo ID card without fear
    of infringement on their rights. That is the language of the
    Commission.
        Let's take our closest country to the south. In Mexico,
    strict anti fraud regulations in voting have actually increased
    voter turnout. Three Mexican presidential elections since the
    photo ID reforms were implemented in 1991, 68 percent of
    eligible voters voted compared with only 59 percent in the
    three elections prior to the rules change.
        The Mexican ID program is far more than what we suggest
    here. It includes multiple security features, a hologram,
    special fluorescent ink, a bar code, special codes and magnetic
    strip. And it appears that where people have greater confidence
    in the election process there is greater rather than lesser
    participation.
        One of the big issues now on the front pages of the
    newspapers, on television every night in my last town hall
    people talked about this, it is identity theft. People are
    concerned about people using their identity to gain some sort
    of advantage, to gain some sort of benefit, in some cases to
    raid their personal bank account.
        Here we are talking about the essence of democracy, which
    is, that people have the right to vote, but your vote and my
    vote is diminished if someone who doesn't have that right to
    vote votes. And I don't understand why, when we are concerned
    about the integrity of the system we are so afraid to deal with
    this issue and come up with arguments that suggest it is going
    to be oppressive against certain individuals.
        As I say, Mexico has this card system. Canada has a system
    in which you get a ticket in the mail after registering and you
    have to bring that to the voting place. In the Netherlands you
    need a passport or driver's license to be presented. In Brazil,
    you need a picture ID to be presented.
        And for the life of me, I don't understand when we are
    trying to make sure that the person who is voting is the person
    who is supposed to vote, that we somehow say that is an
    infringement on their rights.
        Now, the suggestion has been made that we don't have a
    whole lot of examples of this. I recall when we tried to
    investigate it in California when I was attorney general, the
    lack of proof is there because you have no means of showing at
    the poll that someone is someone other than what they who they
    say to be. And if you suggest that someone stand outside with a
    sign that says only if you are a citizen can you vote, that can
    be viewed as voter intimidation whereas, if, in fact, you
    require everybody to present a photo ID at the time that they
    vote, everybody is treated the same. Every single one of us is
    treated the same.
        And so at a time and place where we are worried about
    identity theft, why aren't we worried about identity theft for
    that most precious of gifts that you have as a citizen of the
    United States, the gift and the responsibility to vote? And so,
    I just don't understand when we are so concerned about a paper
    trail making sure that it properly records votes, we are not
    concerned in the first instance with who it is that is voting.
        And so I wish that we would not view this as an effort to
    diminish voter participation that somehow it is aimed at one
    group or another. If that were true, Mexico, last time I
    checked, is not as wealthy a country as we are, maybe I am
    wrong on that--has far greater poverty than we have, and yet,
    they have greater participation in voting since they have had
    this identification and one--and perhaps for one great reason,
    it instilled a greater confidence in the integrity of their
    system than they had before. Is it perfect? Of course it is not
    perfect. But is it better because of this? Yes, it is. And I
    would hope that we would seriously look at the gentleman's
    amendment and adopt it.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mrs. Davis of
    California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was
    hoping if I could have the author address the issue of absentee
    voting and how you see that. I see the language that you have
    here. How would you--how do you see that in terms of absentee
    voting?
        Mr. McCarthy. You have the ability to send in a photocopy.
    Libraries have copy machines, others you are providing when I
    did it by mail, absentee voting, I have it there for a number
    of days, I can go to a Kinko's, to other places, just photocopy
    my ID and send it in.
        Mrs. Davis of California. And how do we verify that is you?
        Mr. McCarthy. When you sign--when you vote for absentee you
    sign on it. If I worked for this committee and we had one
    contested race. When you turn it in you sign on the card itself
    and they--when they get it into the election office, they
    identify your signature based upon your voter registration.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I am familiar how they do that. I
    have checked those. But I am also trying to get at the whole
    issue of do we know it is that person?
        Mr. McCarthy. We will know more than we know today.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I have to sign my name alongside
    my registration at the precinct itself and so for many people
    obviously they have been voting at the same precinct for years,
    people know them, they don't have to have an ID.
        Mr. McCarthy. You don't have to have an ID today.
        Mrs. Davis of California. You don't have to have an ID, but
    people know you are signing your name and they have that
    verification. But if you are voting in absentee voting--I
    happen to be very supportive of absentee voting--but I also
    think that in some ways, we set up kind of an unequal system
    here because and it is possible for someone to Xerox somebody
    else's license, of course, if they are choosing to, if somebody
    wants to engage in fraud----
        Mr. McCarthy. If the gentlelady would yield.
        Mrs. Davis of California. We can't prove that.
        Mr. McCarthy. When you sign, when you go in and vote in
    person, never does the election department check that signature
    if it was really you who voted. When you vote by absentee
    before that vote is counted, they check that signature. So the
    absentee vote is actually checked more than the person going
    forward. So when you send in that absentee vote and photocopy
    ID it is checked whether that signature is correct before they
    open the ballot.
        Inside when you go to vote, you sign the book. But that is
    never checked unless there is a problem. So you have greater
    checks and balance in absentee in vote by mail than you do any
    other way.
        Mrs. Davis of California. In your system then when you are
    asking for people to go to the trouble, if you will, of trying
    to find a way to Xerox whether it is a license or any other
    kind of ID that that would really be an important----
        Mr. McCarthy. I understand the debate from the other side,
    but I do believe we live in a society where we show our IDs
    many times. We all just used our ID just to vote. I believe
    this is capable of doing. And the name of this bill is the
    ability that we are going to bring confidence back. We are
    willing to shift a whole system that we just went through with
    HAVA on how we want these machines because we want voter
    confidence. We should have 100 percent voter confidence. We
    should make sure those who are allowed to vote like 100
    countries do this, but we don't ask, but you can't get on an
    airplane, you can't rent a car, you can't shop, you can't cash
    a check.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Let me, right now, pose this in forms
    of questions to Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lungren, certainly won't
    take very long to do it.
        Mr. Lungren, you were making the assertion that you didn't
    understand the argument or you weren't very sympathetic to the
    argument on the other side that this had the effect of diluting
    minority voter rights as you were probably aware, the Eleventh
    Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an overwhelmingly Republican
    circuit, ruled several years ago that the Georgia voter ID was
    unconstitutional exactly because it created a dilution of black
    voting participation in Georgia.
        So I would ask you to address that.
        Mr. McCarthy, if I can pose a question to you, if an
    individual walks into a polling place with an intent to commit
    fraud, obviously that person has at least to know the name of
    the voters list. You have to walk in and say your name that is
    on the list obviously. If someone has an nefarious intent to do
    that, I think we would all agree the easiest thing in the
    world, if you doubt this, talk to a 16-year-old, the easiest
    thing in the world is to get a fake ID.
        So if someone is nefarious enough to decide I want to
    pretend to be John Jones and go through a list of voters and
    just distribute the names, it would seem to me that person is
    almost certainly nefarious enough to engage in fake IDs. But I
    would yield to both of you to address it either of those
    points.
        Mr. McCarthy. Well, I will answer first and I will yield
    some time to the former attorney general of California. The
    only thing I would say if today you can walk in and say you are
    somebody and you never can be questioned on it or show an ID,
    that is much easier than going to the task of creating a fake
    ID and trying to show it to vote. I just think it is another
    checks and balances that protects us in the long run. And I
    yield the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. It is not your time to yield. I just want to
    let you know that I am paying attention.
        Mr. Lungren. As understand it, the Eleventh circuit struck
    down the Georgia ID law because of the fact that it did not
    provide dollars--money for indigents for ID cards. And I
    understand, this amendment does provide that benefit so that we
    would get around that number one.
        Number two, look, I don't want the gentleman to think I am
    not sensitive to the concern he expresses. And I believe that
    Andrew young is concerned about what the gentleman expresses
    and came to the conclusion that this would not discriminate
    against any particular group if we applied it across the board.
        And so the gentleman from California's amendment allows
    this, for the provision of funds to reimburse the States for
    the cost of providing such free IDs to the indigent and I
    believe that will take care of the gentleman's problem.
        If I could just also mention one thing, when I was in
    Congress, I think it was 1981, we had a situation in which a
    Member of Congress voted on a resolution that I had on the
    floor which dealt with the disciplining of a Member here who
    had been convicted of 29 felony counts.
        The Member was registered as voting with his electronic
    card, but at the time we voted he was in Chicago conducting a
    hearing for the committee he then chaired.
        It ended up that for whatever reason, apparently some
    Members thought it was okay to vote other Members cards when
    they weren't here. The gentleman first made excuses, finally
    took ill and never did return to the Congress deciding not to
    vote and it brought to me that even as honorable a body as
    this--which I think is an honorable body, and I will defend the
    House of Representatives with attacks by a lot of people--we
    had a situation in which identity theft or identity fraud can
    take place. And we had to take action in this House to make it
    clear that that is a violation of the rules and that Member
    would have been expelled had he not left of his own accord.
        I am just saying that if we found that situation here,
    ought we not to extend that same sort of concern about someone
    voting who doesn't have the right to vote?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Let me reclaim and I will wrap this
    up because I know the chairman wants this moved to an end, but
    I do want to correct one factual point my friend from
    California made. If I understand your amendment correctly, you
    put a provision in place for individuals to obtain a government
    ID, in effect, for voting, but you still got to obtain some
    proof of who you are before you get the government ID. For
    example, a birth certificate would be one obvious way to get
    it. Birth certificates aren't free, they cost money. Passport,
    passports cost money, naturalization papers if you don't have
    them, cost money. So in other words, it is not quite as simple
    as you make it sound.
        To obtain the special ID for voter purposes, you would have
    to have an ID for which you would have to pay money
    potentially, and that is squarely what the 11th circuit ruled
    in Georgia was impermissible. They ruled what was impermissible
    was imposing a fee or requiring a fee before one could exercise
    the right to vote.
        If the identification process pushes one in a direction
    toward obtaining fee based documents, I would argue that would
    still run afoul.
        The Chairman. Time is running out. The only people who have
    time left are myself and the Ranking Member. Mr. Ehlers, go
    right ahead.
        Mr. Ehlers. I thank the gentleman. First of all,
    unfortunately Mr. Capuano is not here, but I want to reassure
    them that I am not a Nazi. I also want to inform everyone that
    you do need an ID to buy a gun and I won't comment on his other
    statements.
        I am really appreciative of the fact that we don't have any
    more votes, so we can go for several hours yet without
    interruption.
        The Chairman. I doubt that if I am still here.
        Mr. Ehlers. Here is where the strong gavel comes out. Let
    me just make a couple of points. The gentleman from California,
    the one to my right, commented that when Mexico adopted a voter
    ID, the turnout went up. That is not the only case. Arizona in
    a referendum last year adopted a photo ID. Their voter turnout
    went up. So those who say it will go down when you have a voter
    ID are just dead wrong. The evidence is there.
        Another factor is that last year this committee approved
    and the House passed precisely what we are talking about here,
    a voter ID. We--Mr. Davis, for your information on that made
    certain that anyone who is indigent not only get the ID paid
    for, but they get the backup paper records paid for and any
    legal requirements that were necessary paid for. So no one
    would be discriminated against on the basis of income or access
    or anything else.
        And as I said it passed the House. Everyone seemed to think
    it was a good idea.
        I think that this is a very good idea, something that
    should be required. I am amazed it hasn't been required before.
        The arguments against it are very weak. I just defeated all
    of them. Everyone on our side here has indicated that they are
    not valid arguments. It is something that we simply should
    require for something as valuable as voting. Now, this clearly
    was not necessary in the town where I was born, because the
    voting officials knew everyone in the town. And so when you
    went in to vote they would say, hi Sam, good to see you again,
    et cetera. In today's world, with the tremendous growth in
    population, plus the tremendous mobility of our Nation moving
    from one place to another, I think it is perfectly reasonable
    and logical and, in fact, necessary that we require a voter ID
    from voters if we are required to use a photo ID for so many
    other activities, cashing a check, buying certain goods, buying
    a gun, I can go on and on. What is so awfully bad about
    requiring a voter to carry an ID to indicate that he or she is
    who he or she says they are? I think it is a very, very good
    idea, and I strongly support this amendment.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The question is on the----
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman I will be very brief.
        The Chairman. I heard that before no matter how long it
    takes.
        Ms. Lofgren. The Eagleton study, which the EAC sponsored
    pointed out that in States where voters were required to
    present ID documents, African Americans were 5.7 percent less
    likely to vote, Hispanics 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian
    Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote, and the Brendan
    Center said as many as 13 million United States citizens--or 7
    percent--do not have ready access to citizenship documents.
        I would like to make the letter from the Leadership
    Conference on Civil Rights a part of our record, but they
    strongly urge us to oppose this requirement and say that voter
    ID requirements represent one of the most serious threats in
    decades to our efforts to ensure the right of every eligible
    American and that is from Wade Henderson, the leader on civil
    rights in America.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.156

        Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note that last year when
    we adopted this provision, not everyone did agree. I certainly
    did not agree. And we have ample evidence that these measures
    do have a discriminatory impact on low income Americans and on
    various ethnicities. And I hope that we can take a broader look
    at this in the Election Subcommittee later in the year, and I
    thank the chairman for his indulgence in letting me say that
    and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The question is on the amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying ``aye.''
        Any opposed signify by saying, ``no.''
        No.
        The noes appear to have it.
        Mr. McCarthy. I would ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. Clerk please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The noes are 5 the ayes are 3. The
    amendment, McCarthy Number 2, fails.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment Number 3 Mr.
    McCarthy at the desk.
        The Chairman. Without objection the amendment is considered
    as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.164

        Mr. McCarthy. Having thought ahead of time of some of the
    arguments you may have to amendment Number 2, I offered in the
    worst case scenario that Number 2 failed, amendment Number 3.
    Such as the earlier amendment, individuals are required to show
    photo ID at the polls. But I have heard from some of the
    arguments across the aisle that maybe you disenfranchise
    somebody. Gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis, stated people
    sign their names when they are in there. So all I would say is
    this provision establishes the important principle that voters
    have to show the photo IDs. If they do not absolutely have the
    voter id when they go in there, all they have to do is sign a
    piece of paper claiming they are who they say they are. So we
    would take away the argument of disenfranchising somebody. This
    is not 100 percent voter proof. But I think it is a step in the
    right direction. They can find a common ground to the arguments
    that are made by the other side that we could come together
    because it wouldn't disenfranchise somebody. They are already
    signing their names at the polls. So they would just have to
    sign their name, stating they are who they are and listening to
    the former attorney general of California saying the reasons
    you don't find cases because you don't have the evidence to
    move forward. So this would also give the ability to have the
    evidence if somebody was providing voter fraud, and then go
    right back to what we have--about this bill itself, giving the
    voters the confidence in it to be able to move forward. I yield
    back my time.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Lady from California,
    Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I note that even though we postponed this
    hearing from last week to this week so that everybody could
    have an opportunity to look at everybody's amendments, I am
    advised by staff that this amendment was received by them only
    15 minutes before the markup began.
        I don't know what the impact of this amendment would be,
    and I think it is something that when we look at this overall
    issue and the Election Subcommittee later in the year we will
    look at, but I think to throw it out at this time with 15
    minutes notice is not the appropriate way to proceed, and so I
    would urge that we oppose it at this time and I thank the
    gentleman for yielding--or I would yield to Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Two quick points. I thank the
    gentlelady for yielding. What is unclear from the amendment,
    let's say the individual, for whatever reason, was not English
    speaking. How would they go about signing the affidavit that
    that is an ambiguity that is contained in the amendment? I can
    also imagine some instances frankly that this would amount to a
    de facto literacy test. And again, someone presumably would
    have to go through some step of reading the document and
    signing it. And I hear the gentleman thinking that well,
    someone should be able to read when they walk in the polling
    places and the problem is, we have had that debate in this
    country before and we have said no literacy tests. And we
    also--I am troubled by the language implications. I yield.
        Mr. McCarthy. Was that a question?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Yes, I yield so the gentleman can
    respond to that.
        Mr. McCarthy. To vote in the first place, we make people
    fill out voter registrations. So I think we take the assumption
    from the very beginning that a person can read when they fill
    that out. So I wasn't going to anything further. Plus when a
    person goes to vote, they already are signing their name. They
    have to be able to read where they sign their name. I would
    accept a friendly amendment if you wanted to clarify within
    this amendment that we would provide the language in which the
    person speaks much as if they are----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Reclaiming my time let me ask the
    gentleman one quick question if someone were to walk in right
    now and were to fill out the wrong name on the voter form would
    they be prosecuted inside your opinion?
        Mr. McCarthy. Any decision on the prosecution goes up to
    the individual, the DA----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No----
        Mr. McCarthy. Reclaiming my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Actually it is my time.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I am trying to get an answer to the
    question. If an individual were to walk in and I were to say I
    am Zoe Lofgren and I were to put Zoe Lofgren down, could I be
    prosecuted today? Because it seems if I could be prosecuted
    today, this amendment is completely unnecessary.
        Mr. McCarthy. No. Only your intent to go forward--to apply
    yourself just like identity theft that you were Zoe Lofgren.
    You had explained to me in the earlier debate that there are no
    cases such as this or not very many. And I have heard from the
    attorney general who says that he couldn't move forward in
    those cases because there was no evidence----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. The state of the law today, I am
    asking use prosecutorial discretion, and if I walked in and
    said I am Bob Brady under the law today, can I be prosecuted?
        The Chairman. Yes, you would be prosecuted.
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time I would just note that Mr.
    Davis is a former U.S. Attorney, and I think has some
    background in all of these things. I think this discussion
    leads me to the conclusion we certainly need to know more about
    this proposal than we do now. And I am sure that when we have
    hearings on this subject matter, we will hear it further.
        I also want to note that the majority staff has indicated
    that the minority staff sent the amendment at 9 p.m. last
    night. I was not sitting in my office at 9 p.m. last night, so
    I don't know. I still think it is way too hurried, but I do
    hope that we can look at this later in the year in the Election
    Subcommittee. And I understand the Chairman wants a vote on
    this. I will yield back so that he may take our vote. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Lungren from California.
        Mr. Lungren. I would like the last word. Mr. Chairman, this
    whole bill is about redundancy. This whole bill is to have a
    second way of checking the accuracy of the voter count, if you
    will, the attestation required by Mr. McCarthy's alternative is
    a redundancy.
        It is another check to ensure that people are not going to
    commit fraud. As the gentleman knows, when you prosecute,
    sometimes it may be easier to prosecute for someone
    intentionally signing something under oath that is untrue as
    opposed to them attempting to prove the intent to vote
    improperly.
        The other thing is, I am just sorry, but the arguments I
    hear about this could be utilized as a literacy test or this
    could be utilized as a voter fee. I mean, all those arguments
    can be used by registration. If I were to take a logical
    conclusion of my friends on the other side of the aisle we
    ought to do away with registration. I presume that would
    increase voter participation. Anybody just shows up off the
    street can vote. I know there might be fraud involved but it is
    more important that we get more people voting whether or not
    they qualify.
        I mean, the manner in which these amendments are being
    dismissed suggests that there is no concern about the identity
    of voters, that somehow this bill which purports to ensure that
    we are going to protect the integrity of the voting process,
    doesn't believe that identity fraud or identity theft has any
    place in our discussions, even though it is the hot topic out
    there in terms of credit cards, in terms of all sorts of things
    in this new world that we live in. And I just find it hard to
    believe that Mexico can be ahead of us in terms of its concerns
    for the integrity of its system and yet we say if we did this
    sort of thing it would somehow violate constitutional norms
    because it would be utilized in ways to depress turnout, when,
    in fact, just the opposite has been the case in Mexico, in any
    number of countries around the world.
        Someone diminishes my vote by voting when they don't have a
    right to vote as surely as if you refused to allow me to vote
    when I have the opportunity to vote.
        And we look at this only on one side.
        And I just think that that is a terrible shame. And I would
    hope that we would at least look at the gentleman's amendment
    for what it is and not for some of the outrageous things it has
    been suggested it is for. I yield.
        The Chairman. The question is on the amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman before we vote, may I ask
    unanimous consent to add into the record the article from Roll
    Call, of The New York Times and The New York Times editorial on
    this subject and the National Leadership Council letter?
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.182

        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly lend my
    support to what the gentleman from California just stated. Mr.
    Lungren has made his case very clearly and very eloquently. I
    strongly support that. I just cannot, for the life of me,
    figure out what the opposition is. We have answered all the
    questions of the majority. We have made sure that others can
    establish an ID if they wish, and we would pay for it. If they
    don't have it, they simply sign their name saying that they are
    who they are.
        There must be some other reason for opposing it. I would
    also just close by saying that if we don't pass something like
    this, I predict it is going to pass State by State probably
    through referendum or other means. Then once again, we will
    have a hodgepodge system. It would be much easier to have one
    law that covers the Nation, makes it very clear from State to
    State. With that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The question is on the McCarthy
    amendment Number 3.
        All those in favor, signify by saying ``aye.''
        Those opposed, ``no.''
        No.
        The noes have it.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairman. Roll call vote. Clerk please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5 the yeas are 3, the amendment fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman I have Lungren Number 4.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.183

        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the provision of a
    private right of action contained in the bill and contained in
    the manager's amendment or substitute. This amendment would
    strike the provisions allowing individuals to bring action in a
    Federal court to enforce requirements contained in Title 3 of
    HAVA.
        Already pursuant to HAVA, States have set up administration
    complaint procedures to provide sufficient Federal and State
    enforcement of the requirements.
        This private right of action provision would open the DOJ
    and attorney general to thousands of claims and force the
    attorney general to respond in some manner to any complaint
    meeting the standards of the bill.
        I fear the language is overly broad and will result in
    slowing down the process of determining election results and
    subject local governments to spend millions of dollars on what
    could be politically motivated lawsuits.
        The DOJ if you examine their budget, in their current
    situation does not have the capacity of staff to handle the
    volume of potential claims.
        You can promise something. You can give an authorization to
    a department such as DOJ, and the ability for something to get
    done may not be there.
        I recall having 1,000 attorneys and 5,000 employees when I
    was attorney general of California, not nearly the size of the
    Federal DOJ, but nonetheless, you have limitations on your
    resources. And just because there is a law saying that it comes
    within your ambit, if you don't have a budget that allows you
    to do it, it just--the purpose of the law is frustrated.
        And that is why, when under the preexisting law, HAVA, a
    requirement for the States to set up administrative complaint
    procedures, is now in place, you wonder why we change under
    this provision and open up private rights of action and require
    the DOJ or presumably require the DOJ and the attorney general
    to respond to the potential of thousands of claims.
        The intent of the law, HAVA, was to improve elections, I
    thought, not to expand litigation.
        As an old trial attorney, I love litigation. And some of my
    colleagues, and even I, on occasion, made money on litigation.
        But, I also saw the limitations of litigation. And
    oftentimes, administrative complaint procedures worked far
    better than the formal court system.
        The National Motor Voter Law has private right of action
    for claims. And there is section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act
    which is available if they qualify under that.
        And so I would just ask that we reach a mid course
    correction here, which is to say that the administrative
    complaint procedures were established under HAVA, they exist,
    as I understand it, in all States, and that that allows for
    sufficient and timely enforcement of the requirements where
    this may very well lead to litigation with endless processes
    which would not allow for final determination of claims.
        And with that I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Any other discussion on
    the amendment? The question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying ``aye.''
        Those opposed, ``no.''
        No.
        The noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman could I have a roll call vote on
    that.
        The Chairman. Clerk please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The noes are 5, the yeas are 2, the
    amendment fails.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment Number 4.
        The Chairman. I recognize Mr. McCarthy from California.
    Without objection the amendment is considered as read and you
    are recognized for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.185

        Mr. McCarthy. I thank you for your patience Mr. Chairman.
    This is pretty straightforward. As we move forward, we have to
    remember where we have been. In these hearings, we have heard
    time and time again about just recently how we passed HAVA and
    that we have not funded HAVA, there is still approximately $800
    million that has not been funded through HAVA. A lot of States
    have spent a lot of money buying machines, going forward with
    counties and others. This would put an amendment into the bill
    that would suspend the requirements of this bill until the
    authorization amount of the money is fully appropriated.
        Now why do I offer that? Is to build the trust. We have
    just forced these States to go through something saying this is
    the direction we wanted to go. Now we are coming full circle
    right back and saying we want you to do something else. We say
    we have authorized the money but history shows we have not
    funded it all the way. And I have come from State government.
    The first thing I have always had problems with was unfunded
    mandates. Now we are directing it. We say there is money there.
    All this is saying is that if that is truthful, if the money is
    there, there wouldn't be a problem because this would suspend
    the problem if the money is not there. If the money is there,
    there is no problem whatsoever. So to me it is a friendly
    amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt with
    respect to No Child Left Behind.
        The Chairman. We get like that after 4 or 5 hours. Does
    anyone else want to be recognized? Discussion on the amendment?
    The question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify
    by saying ``aye.''
        All those opposed? No.
        The noes have it.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairman. Roll call vote by the Clerk please. McCarthy
    Number 4.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The noes are 5, the yeas are 3, the
    amendment fails.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I think I have the last
    amendment.
        The Chairman. Oh, whoopee.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Lungren. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read
    and you are recognized for five minutes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.189

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It would
    delay implementations of the bill until 2012. Based on the
    testimony and the letters that we have received from election
    officials across the country, that the dates proscribed in the
    bill are unattainable. Testimony presented to the subcommittee
    on elections suggest that the changes that are required under
    this bill would require approximately 18 months to 4 years to
    accomplish.
        As a matter of fact, the letter from the one disability
    organization, American Association of People with Disabilities,
    they believe it would be even longer. They suggest that we have
    a date of 2014, however being very reasonable I thought that
    was very too long. So my amendment has 2012 in it.
        Mr. Lungren. There is no voting system currently certified
    and in use that meets the very specific requirements proposed
    in this bill, nor are there such systems available in the
    market that can be and have been or can be appropriately tested
    and certified for use through the EAC voting system
    certification program by the year 2008. State and local
    election officials and voters continue to absorb the sweeping
    changes brought about by our previous law, HAVA--almost sounds
    like a school on the East Coast as spoken of by some members
    from Massachusetts--but HAVA and State legislation. It is
    unrealistic for the States to implement all these new Federal
    mandates by 2008. Standards and guidelines should be
    established before requiring States to purchase this new voting
    equipment.
        The bill before us unfortunately fails to recognize the
    need for public outreach and education associated with new
    voting equipment and procedures, including poll workers and
    poll worker training for these new machines. Compliant voting
    systems under this bill are limited. DRE systems that would
    comply do not exist at all. Ballot conversion equipment and
    software to meet the disability access requirements has not
    been tested or certified or used by any existing voting system.
    And when you realize we have what I consider to be
    unenforceable or absent penalties in this bill with respect to
    source code nonpublication information, then I think you
    understand we might even have more difficulty in getting
    vendors out there to participate.
        A famous political scientist named ``Dandy'' Don Meredith
    once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day
    would be Christmas,'' and it appears in many ways that's what
    this bill is. We have been told that those who are out there
    that would be given the responsibility for doing this can't do
    it. We have been doing that from counties as large as Los
    Angeles to counties as small as in my district in Amador County
    up in the mountains. And yet we carry on with this bill as if
    we believe it is going to happen because we wish it so. It
    would be wonderful if that is the way the world works, but it
    doesn't.
        So I am attempting to not do anything else in the bill.
    Everything else remains the same but delay implementation so
    that we can actually ensure that those things that we believe
    are required under this bill can actually come to fruition. So
    it is a delay of the implementation until the year 2012.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and I
    have no more amendments. I know the chairman will be
    disappointed to hear that.
        The Chairman. I am having fun.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, the lady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I oppose the amendment and urge that all of my
    colleagues oppose the amendment. To delay this process, to
    delay the ability to recount in elections and to have a
    transparent process until 2012, which would be two Federal
    elections from now, is I think entirely unreasonable. The
    timing of the bill is not too aggressive. If we enact this
    promptly, I think there is adequate time to implement it. Those
    of us on the Election Subcommittee, I am sure all remember that
    the Republican Governor of Florida came and was a witness at
    our hearing. And he advised us at that hearing that the entire
    State of Florida is going to transition to an optical scan
    voting scheme before November 2008--actually before February
    was what he told us. We know that in the past jurisdictions
    have been able to transition rapidly. Aside from the fact that
    the bill, the substitute allows jurisdictions to retain their
    DREs equipped with thermal reel-to-reel printers or accessible
    voting systems that use or produce the paper trail until 2010,
    only the jurisdictions that use voting systems that had no
    voter-verified paper trail at all have to upgrade, and that is
    a small jurisdiction.
        Take a look at New Mexico. New Mexico enacted a law March
    2, 2006 requiring conversion from a mixed system with paperless
    electronic voting machines to a uniform statewide system using
    paper optical scan ballots with accessible ballot marking
    devices. All 33 counties fully deployed the system 8 months
    later in time for the 2006 mid-term election.
        Nevada's then Secretary of State, now Representative Dean
    Heller, mandated in December of 2003 that the State would
    obtain new voting systems with voter-verified paper records. By
    the following August, just 8 months later, 16 of 17 counties
    deployed voter-verified paper record systems countywide in time
    for the primary, and all counties had them for the November
    2004 presidential election.
        In North Carolina they enacted a law requiring voter-
    verified paper records on August 26, 2005. Eight months later,
    in time for the May 2006 primary, the entire State had
    completed the conversion process, including RFP, testing
    certification and training to the new systems.
        West Virginia enacted a law requiring voter-verified paper
    records in May of 2005. Every county had new voter-verified
    paper record equipment in place for the primary the following
    year.
        What is at stake is whether we have another unverifiable
    Federal election, potentially a presidential election, the
    results of which might depend on one State, and the results in
    that State might not be independently verifiable because there
    are no voter-verified paper ballots. We don't have to put up
    with that. We can get this done in time for the 2008 election.
    We have ample waiver opportunities for those who have old
    systems, but I think it is time for the Congress to say enough
    is enough. Certainly we can ask States and localities to step
    forward and take the action that they are capable of taking, as
    New Mexico did, as Nevada did, as North Carolina did, as West
    Virginia did, and as Florida is going to do.
        I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman just
    guts this bill, and I hope that all of us will vote against it
    and, noting that the time is late, I will----
        Mr. Lungren. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Lofgren. I will yield back to the chairman because he
    wants a vote.
        The Chairman. Recognize Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. First of all, I believe this
    amendment summarizes what needs to be done to make this a
    workable bill. This is just one aspect of it, but let me
    discuss the whole bill as a whole. I am really bothered by it.
    First of all, this authoritarian view that what we do in the
    United States Congress is the right way to do it. We don't care
    what the States think, we don't care what the local governments
    think, we don't care what the county clerks think, and we don't
    care what the city clerks think.
        I show this stack of letters over two inches high, Indiana,
    Arizona, Iowa, North Dakota, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio,
    South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming,
    Vermont, California, Kentucky, Los Angeles, which is not a
    State of its own, but I think most people know where it is.
    Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois,
    Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, New York, and so on down.
    I don't want to take all the time to list all of them. These
    people know what they are doing. They have to work with us.
    They all wrote in and said this bill is not good. It should not
    pass in its present form. And yet the majority insists on
    passing it just as is without a single word changed, not
    accepting any of our amendments.
        I am also concerned about the attitude displayed by the
    majority, that somehow computers are bad, but paper is good. I
    think it is a gross mistake to require them to use one of the
    two alternatives without letting them use their own judgment.
        This bill supersedes the judgments of the city clerks, and
    the county clerks, and the State election officials. It is
    simply wrong for us to force our ideas and our opinions on the
    good people of this country who are used to running elections,
    know how to do it, and know what problems this legislation
    brings.
        Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for you. I know
    you are running for another office and I wish you well. I hope
    you make it. But I hope this bill doesn't pass. I would like to
    keep you here, by the way. I want to make it clear, but for
    your own benefit since you want the job, I hope you will get
    it. I also hope for your sake if you do get it that this bill
    doesn't pass because you would have to live with it.
        The one consolation I have throughout all this is that I am
    sure the Senate will not accept the bill as it stands. I am
    sure they will drastically rewrite it, and I hope that it
    becomes a good bill before it becomes law. But I am very
    disappointed in the discussion today and the rejection of all
    of our amendments even though there is no logical argument why
    we should not accept them.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ehlers. With that, I will yield back my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
    clarify a few things that were said. I was here when the
    Governor of Florida came. He never endorsed this bill, and the
    legislation that Florida passed out down allows continued use
    of DRE machines without paper into 2012. We have gone through
    HAVA and it took 4 years. I come from a large State of
    California where we just made everybody switch. Just to put
    this out to bid, just to go forward--and we have moved our
    primary up. And to have this type of confusion in a year of a
    presidential election I don't think is the right way to go
    about it and does not really come to the commonsense as we move
    forward.
        I listened to the Governor of Florida and I listened to
    each and every organization that represented election
    officials. They were unanimous in their approach that they
    thought this was the wrong way to go.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other discussion?
    The question is on the amendment. All in favor signify--I am
    sorry. I recognize the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Gonzalez. I didn't know if this was the appropriate
    time. Mr. Chairman, I would just be asking unanimous consent at
    this time to be allowed to file today the papers of this
    hearing, that they be made part of the record. The statement of
    concern regarding the nature of H.R. 811 and the problems of
    electronic voting technologies and electronic ballots from the
    Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to briefly address the issue of
    amendments because we have not accepted amendments here today
    because we didn't agree with them, but I think it is important
    to note that when we postponed the markup last week we did look
    through the amendments that had been offered. We did adopt
    several of them in the substitute, and prior to the markup our
    staffs went through and scrubbed the substitute, making changes
    that were suggested by the majority in about eight instances.
        So I understand the minority still disagrees with the bill,
    but I think it is important to note that we have tried to
    collaborate where we can.
        I would further note that of the list of states that the
    ranking member just read, only six would have to make changes
    by 2008. In some cases--you know it reminds me of the election
    official from North Dakota who said gosh, you know, this would
    require optical voting systems. But his State already has
    optical voting systems. So I think there is a lot of resistance
    to change from individuals in States that have already fully
    complied with the act and with the substitute, and with that, I
    would yield back to Mr. Gonzalez and thank him for yielding me
    the time.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. Simply
    again, just ask for unanimous consent to allow me to file the
    statements.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.193

        The Chairman. All those in favor of the Lungren amendment
    No. 5 signify by saying ``aye.'' Any opposed ``no.'' The noes
    have it. A roll call vote is requested.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are 5, the yeas are 3. The amendment fails.
        We are now on the substitute. Ms. Lofgren had to leave. We
    wanted to have some more discussion on the substitute. We will
    open the floor up for discussion on Ms. Lofgren's amendment in
    the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have already said my piece
    about the Lofgren substitute, and I just registered my dismay
    that the bill is passing in this form. I yield to any of my
    colleagues who wish to make a closing comment.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had some
    lengthy debate here into the amendments and some of the
    concerns that we have with this bill, starting out the time,
    second the money. We had three hearings in the subcommittee,
    and I will tell you, election official after election official
    that does this came forward and said, there is real concerns
    about this. I have sat down and talked to many of them. They
    want to work with us. The Association of Counties, the
    Association of Elected Officials--that is not just your
    Secretaries of States. That is all the way down--are opposed to
    it. And I understand when Ms. Lofgren says we are not going to
    sit and wait for them just to support something all the way,
    but I do believe there is a way to do it where we can find
    common ground.
        When we have a presidential election, when this society is
    able to be strong together with the trust they have in an
    election, and this is what this is about, bringing greater
    confidence, when we are not even going to deal with who is
    there to vote and we are going to predetermine who is the
    winner and loser, saying that the paper is always right even
    though we see elected officials come to us and say the paper
    jammed. So knowingly, we are voting for a bill that determines
    the outcome of an election, knowing that system doesn't always
    work right. We would rather have a checks and balance.
        I believe there is an ability within this committee to
    craft a bill that is bipartisan, commonsense and that everybody
    can be behind. That is where I would want to be. I would think
    when you are dealing with elections, you put people before
    politics. And I just feel frustrated with the outcome of which
    way I see this going.
        Yield back my time.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Ehlers, do you yield?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I would be pleased to yield to my
    colleague.
        Mr. Lungren. I am with those who believe we ought to be
    concerned about the integrity of our system and that we ought
    to have a system in which our constituents have confidence, and
    that can come about in a number of ways. Evidently this bill
    has made the determination that paper is the way to do it. When
    I was a kid I remember playing rock, scissors, paper. But I
    guess now it is rock, scissors, paper and computer, and paper
    always wins. Now maybe that is what we have to do. I am just
    not convinced that we have made that determination
    appropriately yet. And also from my experience at the State
    level, maybe I am conditioned by this because I remember the
    FBI used to always come in and tell us they knew best. They
    always wanted information, they rarely shared information, but
    they knew better than we did on how to do things. And I hope we
    are not doing that with this bill because there does seem to be
    on the part of most of the election officials I know a desire
    to have a system that works well and a system that does have
    integrity within it. And the frustration I get from the folks
    back home is, you folks told us how to do it just a couple
    years ago. We tried in good faith to do it. Now you are telling
    us that didn't quite do it, so you are asking us to do
    something completely different, you are giving us less than
    half the time frame you gave us before, we saw you didn't give
    us the money that we needed last time. Please accept our
    promise you are going to get the money, and in reflecting on my
    experience at the State level, that is a whole lot to swallow
    and to accept.
        And I just hope that we understand that this bill probably
    is not going to go very far in the Senate, and I don't say that
    as a threat because we ought to pass what we think is right and
    then deal with the Senate. But if in fact that is true, I hope
    we can come back and work on a bipartisan basis to do what I
    hope we all want to do, which is to extend the possibility of
    participation in our electoral process, give a greater sense of
    confidence in the integrity of our system and do it in a way
    that is user friendly, both to the voter and to the local and
    State officials that are required to enforce the law.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree totally with
    the statements of the two members on my side of the aisle. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The question is on agreeing to the
    Lofgren amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
    All in favor signify by saying ``aye.'' All those opposed
    ``no.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. I ask for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman. Okay. I will help you along here. Recorded
    vote is requested. The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Aye.
        The ayes are 6, the noes are 3. The amendment in the nature
    of a substitute, as amended, is agreed to. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlewoman from California to offer a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report
    the bill, H.R. 811, as amended, favorably to the House.
        The Chairman. The motion is not debatable. Those in favor
    say ``aye.'' Any opposed say ``no.'' The ayes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. I ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. I will have the Clerk call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Aye.
        The ayes are 6, the noes are 3. The motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the
    table and the bill as amended will be reported to the House.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Yes, Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Pursuant to clause 2(L) of House rule XI, I
    announce that I am requesting the two additional calendar days
    provided by that rule during which members may file
    supplemental minority or additional views for inclusion in the
    report to the House.
        The Chairman. Members will have two additional days
    provided by House rules to file views. Without objection, the
    staff will be authorized to make technical and conforming
    changes to prepare H.R. 811 for filing.
        We have a couple other pieces of business that we have to
    dispose of. The Committee will now consider four original
    resolutions to dismiss pending election contests. Each of these
    resolutions will then be reported to the House as privileged.
        I now call up an original resolution relating to an
    election contest in the 5th District of Florida, the text of
    which is before the Members. Without objection, the first
    reading of the resolution will be dispensed with and the
    resolution shall be considered as read and open for amendment
    at any point. I now recognize the gentlewoman from California,
    Mrs. Davis.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.194

        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, we have reached a
    bipartisan agreement that the election contest relating to the
    5th District of Florida is without merit and should be
    dismissed.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the resolution? Mr.
    Ehlers agrees. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California for the purpose of making a motion.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move
    that the Committee report favorably to the House an original
    resolution, the text of which is before us, to dismiss the
    election contest in the 5th District of Florida.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion by the
    gentlewoman from California. All those in favor say ``aye.''
    Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the
    table. The resolution will be reported to the House. Members
    will have two additional days provided by House rules to file
    views.
        I now call up an original resolution relating to an
    election contest in the 21st District, Florida, the text of
    which is before the Members. Without objection, the first
    reading of the resolution will be dispensed with and the
    resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at
    any point. I recognize the gentlewoman from California.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.195

        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, we have also
    reached a bipartisan agreement that the election contest
    relating to the 21st District of Florida is without merit and
    should be dismissed.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    resolution?
        Mr. Ehlers. The minority agrees.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California for the purpose of making a motion.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
    Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution,
    the text of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest
    in the 21st District of Florida.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion by the
    gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by
    saying ``aye.'' Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is
    agreed to.
        Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the
    table. The resolution will be reported to the House. Members
    have two additional days provided by House rules to file views.
        I now call up an original resolution relating to an
    election contest in the 24th District of Florida, the text of
    which is before the Members. Without objection, the first
    reading of the resolution will be dispensed with and the
    resolution shall be considered as read and open for amendment
    at any point. I recognize again the gentlelady from California.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.196

        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have
    reached another bipartisan agreement on the election contest
    relating to the 24th District of Florida.
        In this case, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention because
    I know members have heard from individuals from the community.
    We certainly realize that Mr. Curtis and his supporters have
    worked very diligently to demonstrate that this contest merits
    further consideration. They have knocked on thousands of doors,
    and we recognize their dedication. But under our strong
    protection for secret ballots, the law can not recognize sworn
    affidavits as a substitute for votes cast via secret ballot.
    Under the Federal Contested Election Act, this contest fails to
    reach the necessary thresholds to warrant further
    consideration, and therefore it is also to be dismissed.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Is there any additional debate on
    the resolution?
        Mr. Ehlers. We agree.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California for the purpose of making a motion.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
    Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution,
    the text of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest
    in the 24th District of Florida.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion by the
    gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by
    saying ``aye.'' Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is agreed
    to.
        Without objection a motion to reconsider is laid upon the
    table. The resolution will be reported to the House. Members
    will have two additional days provided by House rules to file
    views.
        Finally, I call up an original resolution relating to an
    election contest in the 4th District of Louisiana, the text of
    which is before the Members.
        Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will
    be dispensed with, and the resolution shall be considered as
    read and open for amendment at any point. I recognize the
    gentlewoman from California.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.197

        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have
    indeed reached another bipartisan agreement that the election
    contest relating to the 4th District of Louisiana, that this
    case is not a proper subject for a contest brought under FCEA
    and should be dismissed.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    resolution?
        Mr. Ehlers. The minority agrees.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California for the purpose of making a motion.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
    Committee report favorably to the House an original resolution,
    the text of which is before us, to dismiss the election contest
    in the 4th District of Louisiana.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion by the
    gentlewoman from California. All those in favor signify by
    saying ``aye.'' Any opposed? The ``ayes'' have it. The motion
    is agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
    the table. The resolution will be reported to the House.
    Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make
    technical and conforming changes to prepare each of the four
    resolutions for filing.
        The final item of business today is approval of a Committee
    resolution to approve franked mail allowances for the standing
    and select committees of the House for the 110th Congress.
        The Chair now calls up Committee Resolution No. 4, which is
    before the Members. Without objection, the first reading will
    be dispensed with, and without objection, the Committee
    resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.199

        The Chairman. Committee Resolution No. 4 provides franking
    funds for committees and select committees for the 110th
    Congress and is not sent to the House floor. Our Committee is
    responsible under statute for limiting the amount of franking
    funds each committee may spend. The franking allocation is
    unrelated to the operating budgets that we give committees in
    the omnibus funding resolution. We adopted a similar version of
    this resolution two years ago with the same $5,000 with
    bipartisan support.
        I will inform each Committee Chairman of our action today.
    If any committee needs, and can justify, additional franking
    funds, I will bring that request back to House Administration
    for consideration.
        The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member.
        Without objection, the previous question is ordered. The
    question is now on agreeing to Committee Resolution No. 4. All
    those in favor say ``aye,'' those opposed ``no.'' The ``ayes''
    have it. The Committee resolution is agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
    the table. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to
    make any technical and conforming changes to the Committee
    resolution.
        One more announcement of ``interim authority'' actions. The
    Chair would like to conclude by making an announcement of the
    exercise of ``interim authority'' on behalf of the Committee.
    This announcement is usually done at the organizational
    meeting. With the Chairwoman no longer with us, I will complete
    the process today.
        The Chairwoman undertook the following actions on behalf of
    the Committee in the 110th Congress prior to its organization.
    She approved 5 consultant contracts, 15 detailee requests, and
    5 Federal retirement waivers. In addition, she requested the
    preservation of equipment relevant to the pending election
    contest. I am not aware of any other actions under interim
    authority.
        There being no more further business before us, the
    Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.200

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.201

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.202

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.203

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.204

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.205

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.206

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.207

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.208

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.209

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.210

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.211

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.212

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.213

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.214

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.215

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.216

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.217

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.218

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36562.219