House Report 107-263 - VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS ACT OF 2001

[House Report 107-263]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-263

======================================================================

VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS ACT OF 2001

_______

October 31, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 2275]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
2275) to amend the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act to ensure the usability, accuracy, integrity,
and security of United States voting products and systems
through the development of voluntary consensus standards, the
provision of technical assistance, and laboratory
accreditation, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................4
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................4
IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................6
V. Committee Actions...............................................8
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................9
VII. Section-By-Section Analysis.....................................9
VIII. Committee Views................................................10
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................11
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................12
XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........13
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............13
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........13
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................14
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................14
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................14
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........14
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........14

XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................14
XX. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup.............................14
XXI. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................22

i. Amendment

The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Technology Standards Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``technical standards'' means performance-based
standards and conformance specifications; and
(2) the term ``voting products and systems'' includes
products and systems relating to every stage of the voting
process, from voter registration through recounts and
archiving.

SEC. 3. VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS.

(a) Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to
develop voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability,
accuracy, security, and integrity of United States voting
products and systems.
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of--
(A) the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, who shall serve as the chair
of the Commission;
(B) two representatives of the National Association
of State Election Directors, selected by that
association, one Republican and one Democrat;
(C) one representative of the American National
Standards Institute, selected by that institute; and
(D) nine additional members selected by the members
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) by unanimous
vote, of which at least two shall be local election
officials;
(3) Terms.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), (C),
or (D) of this paragraph, each member selected under paragraph
(2)(B), (C), or (D) shall serve a term of 6 years.
(B) Four of the members initially appointed under paragraph
(2)(D) shall be appointed for an initial term of 3 years.
(C) The members initially appointed under paragraph (2)(B)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 4 years.
(D) The member initially appointed under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 5 years.
(E) Members may serve for more than 1 term, but not more than
3 terms.
(F) Any member appointed under paragraph (2)(D) to fill a
vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which
the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office, but not more than 1 year. A vacancy in the Commission
shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(4) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Quorum.--The Commission shall conduct no business, other
than appointing members under paragraph (2)(D), before all
members of the Commission have been appointed. Nine members of
the Commission shall constitute a quorum.
(6) Administrative and technical support.--Upon the request
of the Commission, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall provide to the Commission the
administrative and technical support necessary for the
Commission to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(b) Development of Voluntary Technical Standards.--
(1) Procedures.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register a description of the procedures it will use to
establish voluntary technical standards under this subsection,
along with a list of the members of the Commission.
(2) Establishment of voluntary technical standards.--Not
later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall establish, and publish in the Federal
Register, such voluntary technical standards as are necessary
to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and integrity of
United States voting products and systems.
(3) Review and update.--The Commission shall review the
voluntary technical standards established under this subsection
at the conclusion of every even-numbered year, and shall
determine whether new or updated voluntary technical standards
are necessary to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and
integrity of United States voting products and systems. If the
Commission determines that such new or updated voluntary
technical standards are necessary, the Commission shall publish
in the Federal Register the findings of its review, an
explanation for its decision, and the new or updated voluntary
technical standards.

SEC. 4. LABORATORY ACCREDITATION.

Not later than 6 months after the initial publication of voluntary
technical standards established under section 3(b)(2), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology shall accredit independent, non-
Federal laboratories to test and certify that voting products and
systems conform with the voluntary technical standards established by
the Commission. The National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall make an effort to accredit at least one minority-owned
laboratory.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, after
consultation with the Commission, shall--
(1) disseminate voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b), other relevant technical information,
guidelines for usage of the voluntary technical standards, and
any other information appropriate to assist in the
implementation of the voluntary technical standards;
(2) maintain and make available a list of laboratories
accredited under section 4; and
(3) maintain and make available, including through the
Internet, a list of United States voting products and systems
that have been certified by a laboratory accredited under
section 4 to conform with the voluntary technical standards
established by the Commission.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall establish a program for research and development in areas to
support the development of voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b) for voting products and systems, including research
and development on--
(1) the security of computers, computer networks, and
computer data storage used in voting products and systems,
including methods to detect and prevent fraud;
(2) protection of voter privacy;
(3) human factors in the design and application of voting
products and systems, including assistive technologies for
persons with disabilities and varying levels of literacy; and
(4) remote access voting, including Internet voting.

SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) One-Year Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the Congress a
report that--
(1) assesses the areas of human factors research, including
usability engineering and human-computer and human-machine
interaction, that feasibly could be applied to voting products
and systems design to ensure the usability and accuracy of
United States voting products and systems, including to improve
access by the disabled and to reduce voter error and the number
of spoiled ballots in elections;
(2) assesses the potential demand by State and local
governments for technical assistance in implementing voluntary
technical standards established under section 3(b), and makes
recommendations on how best to address that demand;
(3) makes recommendations for methods of promoting the
implementation of voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b); and
(4) assesses the need for a grant program or other mechanism
to ensure the accreditation and operation of a sufficient
number of laboratories to test and certify voting products and
systems.
(b) Ten-Year Report.--Not later than 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the Congress a
report that--
(1) identifies the States that have voluntarily complied with
standards established pursuant to this Act; and
(2) assesses the impact of this Act on the accuracy of vote
tabulation.

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to ensure the usability, accuracy, integrity, and
security of United States voting products and systems through
the development of voluntary consensus standards, the provision
of technical assistance, and laboratory accreditation, and for
other purposes.

II. Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of H.R. 2275 is to ensure the usability,
accuracy, integrity, and security of United States voting
products and systems through the development of voluntary
consensus standards, the provisions of technical assistance,
the accreditation of laboratories, and for other purposes.

III. Background and Need for the Legislation

Reports of problems in Florida and elsewhere in the nation
during the 2000 election brought to the public's attention many
weaknesses in the ways elections are administered and the
specific failures of voting technologies, especially punch card
voting machines.
While the problems with various voting technologies caught
most Americans by surprise, experts in voting technology and
the computer sciences have warned of potential trouble for
decades. In 1975, the General Accounting Office (GAO) in
conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) issued a report entitled Effective Use of
Computing Technology in Vote Tallying. The report recommended
more extensive use of audit trails and other internal control
techniques, improvements in computer program design, and
additional documentation to verify the results of elections. In
addition, the report concluded that research was needed to
improve voting equipment and suggested such high priority areas
for research as the engineering of voting equipment to improve
human usability and methods to improve convenience while
preserving voter privacy.
In 1988, NIST issued a second report entitled Accuracy,
Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying, which
made a number of recommendations to improve computer-based
voting systems, including recommending that the use of pre-
scored punch card voting systems be eliminated.
Despite these reports, no Federal agency has ever been
assigned explicit responsibility by legislation or executive
order to develop and maintain standards for voting equipment.
However, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) acted on its
own, developing and issuing standards in 1990 for voting
equipment. The standards apply to the three kinds of voting
technologies in use in the United States that employ computers
to register, record or tally votes: Votomatic- and Datavote-
type punchcards, marksense (also known as optical scan), and
direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. The standards do not
apply to hand-counted paper ballots or mechanical lever
machines.
The FEC standards are voluntary, in recognition of the
tradition that States take responsibility for administering
elections. As of April of this year, 37 states had adopted the
standards in whole or part, according to the FEC. Still, those
standards proved insufficient for such states as Florida to
avoid problems with voting equipment during the last election.
In addition, many states exempted equipment already in use
before 1990 from meeting the standards.
The current standards regime is implemented by a system of
laboratories that test voting equipment against the FEC
standards. Overseeing this critical function has not been
assigned to any Federal agency either by legislation or
executive order, nor has any Federal agency assumed
responsibility. Instead, the National Association of State
Elections Directors (NASED) has assumed responsibility by
accrediting independent laboratories to test and certify voting
equipment. In addition, while some states require that voting
technologies meet specifications beyond those required by the
FEC, few states have independent testing laboratories to
certify that voting equipment meets those more stringent
standards.
In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, a number of expert
panels and commissions issued reports making recommendations
for improving elections in the United States. Those
recommendations included strengthening standards and testing
for voting equipment. In July, a team of experts at the
California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology reported that up to 1.5 million votes
were lost in the 2000 election due to ``faulty and outdated
voting technology.'' The report recommended that a federal
agency ``independent'' of the FEC set standards for voting
equipment and that voting equipment be tested in conditions
that resembled those of real elections to ensure that designs
would prevent common voter errors.
Also in July, the National Commission on Elections Reform
co-chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford
issued a report recommending that Congress explicitly grant
statutory authority to a federal agency to develop voluntary
standards in consultation with and for the benefit of State and
local election officials. Standards, the report said, should
cover security, human usability, and maintenance. The report
praised NIST as being ``highly regarded and relatively
independent'' and recommended that NIST select and supervise
independent testing authorities that would evaluate voting
equipment against the new standards.
Despite the previous research NIST has conducted on voting
equipment, the agency's technical expertise in technical
standards, computer security, and laboratory accreditation, and
its reputation for professionalism, NIST has no ongoing or
formal relationship with the FEC to assist in the development
of technical standards and testing specifications. In addition,
no current research effort supports the development of
standards for the usability, accuracy, integrity, and security
of voting systems.
In October, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued
several reports on the problems that occurred in the 2000
elections, including a report on the status and use of Federal
voting equipment standards. Noting that performance standards
should be established for a well recognized set of specific
performance benchmarks, GAO reported that FEC's standards
failed to set standards in such essential areas as security
certification, human usability, and quality assurance.
GAO further criticized the FEC for failing to maintain the
standards, allowing them to become outdated. Only in 1999 did
the FEC begin to update the 1990 standards. According to GAO,
given the advances in the voting equipment field, standards
revisions must be made much more frequently. Even now the
updated standards exist only in draft form and are not expected
to become final until next year, twelve years after the
original standards were published.
Futhermore, GAO found the new draft standards continued to
fail to address requirements for security, quality assurance,
and human usability. Only after GAO provided its report in
draft form to the FEC did the agency issue additional draft
standards for security certification. GAO did not comment on
the quality of those standards. Although the FEC's
responsiveness to the GAO should be commended, the agency's
last minute submission of security certification standards
raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the standards
and the process by which they were developed.
Security certification standards are perhaps more important
than ever. While few if any of the problems uncovered during
the 2000 election stemmed from the lack of adequate security
features of voting equipment, experts in the field of computer
science warn that the move in many States to purchase new
computer-based voting equipment could put our elections at even
greater risk of fraud. Computer-based voting programs operating
on common platforms (for example, Microsoft Windows) may be
vulnerable to computer viruses that can disrupt those
platforms. Data transmissions may be vulnerable to interception
or fraudulent modification by computer hackers. In cases where
elections data are transmitted by the Internet, law enforcement
could be made more difficult if computer hackers were to launch
their attack from another country.
In addition, those who write computer programs for voting
equipment could have unchecked power over elections.
Unscrupulous programmers may, for example, purposefully create
``trap doors'' or other vulnerabilities in voting system
programs to allow later access by the programmer or others for
fraudulent purposes. Finally, computerization could increase
the vulnerability of the vote count of entire districts. If a
district were to adopt an insecure system, the vote of the
whole district could be put in jeopardy as the result of a
single break-in. Security standards must be robust enough to
avoid the potential break-ins or breakdowns of our voting
systems that could make future mishaps even more disruptive
than those of the 2000 elections.
In addition to the flaws in the standards, GAO uncovered
serious deficiencies in the process for accrediting
laboratories to test voting equipment, despite the importance
of testing in assuring that voting products meet the standards.
GAO noted that while NASED has developed requirements to
periodically reaccredit the laboratories that test voting
equipment and to conduct on-site inspection visits, NASED has
not reaccredited a single testing lab nor conducted any
inspections.
GAO concluded that voting standards must be current,
complete, and relevant if they are to be useful to State and
local election officials in assuring the public that their
voting equipment is reliable. GAO said the development,
maintenance, and implementation of voting equipment standards
are such important responsibilities that Congress should
consider legislation explicitly assigning responsibility for
these functions. H.R. 2275 does just that.

iv. summary of hearings

On May 22, 2001, the Science Committee held a hearing to
examine the role of standards in voting technology. The
Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor
of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and the Project Manager of the Caltech-MIT Voting
Project; (2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Assistant Professor of
Computer Sciences at Bryn Mawr College; (3) Dr. Doug Jones,
Associate Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of
Iowa and Chairman of the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting
Machines and Electronic Voting Systems; and (4) Mr. Roy
Saltman, consultant and retired employee of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dr. Ansolabehere testified that there are several
fundamental problems with the various voting technologies
currently available. Referring to studies his team of MIT and
Caltech specialists undertook in the months following the 2000
Presidential election, Dr. Ansolabehere noted:
Punch cards and electronic equipment have higher
rates of uncounted, unmarked, and spoiled ballots than do hand-
counted, lever machined, or optically scanned ballots.
The sheer size of voter registration databases
presents technical and management problems, which make it
difficult to get accurate voter registration to the polls where
it is needed. According to the 2000 census, 7 percent of voters
who did not vote reported registration problems as the reason.
For the disabled, inaccessibility to voting
equipment remains a problem.
Electronic equipment poses new problems for
ensuring the security and integrity of the vote count.
In terms of standards, Dr. Ansolabehere suggested that:
The minimum criteria standards implemented by the
National Association of State Elections Directors covering
equipment durability and accuracy should be extended to the
areas of usability, accessibility, and auditability.
Federal agencies should compile and distribute
information about equipment performance, cost, and
administration so that States can better learn from each
other's experience.
Although standards that require uniformity among
voting technologies should be avoided, in some cases, such as
electronic security, such standards may be necessary.
Dr. Mercuri identified a number of inherent flaws in the
application of computer technology to the voting process:
Currently available electronic voting systems do
not allow the voter to independently verify that the ballot
they filled out was actually recorded, transmitted, and
tabulated. Furthermore, many electronic voting systems lack an
independent audit trail, making manual hand-recounts of ballots
impossible.
Electronic voting machines limit the role of
elections officials and increase reliance on unregulated
computer programmers and manufacturers.
Many electronic systems on the market are so
poorly designed that they actually make the voting process more
lengthy, tedious, and confusing, especially for the elderly or
those unfamiliar with the operation of computers.
Encryption programs alone cannot be relied upon to
provide complete privacy assurance. Many other technical
requirements must be met to ensure the integrity of the entire
system.
Internet voting raises new concerns about ballot
authentication and vote selling.
In the case of an election challenge, electronic
balloting and tabulation does not allow poll workers or
election officials to perform bipartisan checks, since no clear
audit trail exists.
Technology does not, at present, provide a
comprehensive solution to the problems of ballot tabulation.
Mr. Saltman, the author of two NIST reports in 1975 and
1988 on the problems caused by various voting technologies,
testified that the Federal government should play a leading
role in voting reform, although without federalizing elections.
He urged the Federal government to:
Undertake data collection, data analysis and
reporting.
Accredit independent laboratories to test voting
equipment and document voting equipment performance.
Support statewide voter registration programs and
encourage grant programs for states and local governments.
Undertake research into voting technology,
especially in the areas relating to voter usability of
different vote-casting methods, new types of voting systems,
techniques to help the sight-impaired and new methods of voter
identification.
Dr. Jones testified that the setting of stronger standards
for voting technology is essential and that the FEC's Voluntary
Certification Process standards are not stringent enough. In
his testimony, he said:
The State of Iowa has rejected a large number of
voting systems that have been tested and found to meet the
FEC's voluntary standards.
Electronic voting lacks an independent, verifiable
record of the voter's actions.
States should not rush to embraced computerized
voting systems until their fundamental problems are resolved.
Internet voting should be prohibited until
effective standards are in place and audit requirements are
met.
The country should slowly phase out poor
performing voting systems, such as punch cards, and move
cautiously toward adopting newer voting technologies.
There is no perfect voting technology, and that
the nation must not yet abandon ``old tech'' voting systems.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On May 22, 2001, the Science Committee held a hearing to
examine the role of standards in voting technology.
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 2275, for
himself and Representative James A. Barcia, on June 21, 2001.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on June 27, 2001, to consider the bill. Subcommittee
Chairman Vernon Ehlers and Ranking Member James Barcia offered
a manager's amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. The
Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 2275, by voice
vote, as amended.
On July 18, 2001, the Committee on Science met to consider
H.R. 2275. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee offered an en bloc
amendment to restrict Voting Standards Commissioners to serving
no more than three terms, ensure the accreditation of at least
one minority-owned testing laboratory, and require a report to
Congress. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
The Committee on Science favorably reported the bill, H.R.
2275, as amended, by voice vote.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 2275, the Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001,
ensures the development of robust technical standards for the
accuracy, integrity, security, and usability of voting products
and systems used in the United States. Specifically, the bill:
Establishes a 13-member commission to develop
voluntary technical standards for voting products and systems.
The Commission consists of the Director of the NIST, who will
serve as its chair, a member of the American National Standards
Institute, and representatives from state and local
governments. NIST provides technical and administrative support
for the Commission. Among the Commission's duties is to review
the adequacy of voting standards after every federal general
election and ensure their timely revision.
Directs NIST to accredit laboratories around the
country to test voting equipment. NIST is to publish
information regarding which products and systems have been
certified by accredited labs as meeting the standards and make
this information available to State election officials.
Establishes a research program at NIST to help
improve voting system technology. NIST is to conduct research
on methods to improve computer security, detect and prevent
fraud, protect voter privacy, ensure the security and integrity
of Internet voting, and improve usability.

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS COMMITTEE VIEWS

Section 1. Short Title: The Voting Technology Standards Act
of 2001.
Section 2. Defines technical standards to mean performance-
based standards and the specifications necessary to ensure that
voting products and systems conform to those standards. Defines
voting products and systems to include products and systems
used in every stage of the voting process, from voter
registration through recounts and archiving.
Section 3. Establishes a Commission to develop voluntary
technical standards to ensure the usability, accuracy,
integrity, and security of voting products and systems operated
in the United States. Requires standards to be published within
nine months of the date of enactment. Requires after every
Federal general election that the Commission review technical
standards, and update them as necessary.
Requires the Commission to include at least two
representatives from the National Association of State
Elections Directors (NASED), a member of the American National
Standards Institute, and local election officials. Establishes
the Director of the NIST as the Chair of the Commission and
requires administrative and technical support for the
Commission to be provided by NIST, upon request of the
Commission. Establishes the term of each Commissioner to be six
years.
Section 4. Directs NIST to accredit non-Federal
laboratories to test and certify that voting products and
systems conform to the Commission's standards.
Section 5. Directs NIST to disseminate the voluntary
technical standards; maintain and make available the list of
accredited laboratories; and maintain and make available a list
of certified U.S. voting products and systems.
Section 6. Establishes a program for research and
development to support the development of voluntary technical
standards in areas including computer and data storage
security, voter privacy protection, Internet voting, and human
factors, including assistive technologies for persons with
disabilities.
Section 7. Requires the Commission to issue a report to
Congress within one year of the enactment of the Act.

VIII. Committee Views

The Committee believes that robust technical standards are
necessary to improve the usability and accuracy of voting
equipment and ensure the integrity and security of voting
systems. Of all types of standards necessary for the proper
operation of federal elections, those that are technical in
nature are most in need of being updated and strengthened. The
Committee intends the term technical standards to be construed
narrowly to pertain only to voting equipment and technologies
for voting systems and not to include the rights of voters or
policies regarding the administration or management of
elections.
The Committee believes that technical expertise is an
essential complement to election administration expertise in
developing technical standards for voting systems. The
Committee has balanced the areas of expertise of the four core
members of the Commission the legislation establishes to
develop voluntary standards. As the Commission selects
additional members to fill its remaining seats, it should
consult widely with interested parties including the National
Association of Secretaries of State; the National Association
of Towns and Townships; the National Association of County
Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks; manufacturers of
voting equipment; advocates for the disabled; and top experts
in the fields of computer security and human use engineering.
The Commission should operate in an open and nonpartisan
manner to develop voluntary standards on the technical aspects
of voting, developing its own rules to conduct business,
develop and approve voluntary technical standards, and receive
testimony from outside experts. The Committee expects the
Commission to publish any modifications it may make to its
operating rules in the Federal Register.
The Commission should be sure to develop standards that
encourage competition among voting technologies and
manufacturers. The Committee believes that a single type of
voting system is unlikely to be appropriate for every voting
district in the country and that a monopoly market is likely to
be detrimental to the goal of improving voting technology.
The Committee notes that critics have faulted the FEC's
voluntary standards for being out-of-date for too long. The
Commission should update technical voting standards to keep up
with evolving technology.
NIST should accredit non-Federal laboratories to test
voting equipment, according to testing procedures and
conformance specifications established by the Commission to
determine compliance with the standards. The Committee also
believes that voter mistakes due to faulty design can best be
discovered in tests under conditions that replicate those of an
actual election and expects that voting systems tested for
conformance with performance-based standards will be tested
under such conditions. NIST should accredit a number of labs
sufficient to serve the needs of the voting equipment
manufacturing industry and State and local elections officials
in each region of the country. The Committee is aware that a
slow testing process discourages voting equipment manufacturers
from updating their products to correct for design flaws.
The Committee believes that information relating to voting
systems standards, testing specifications, and laboratories
accredited to test voting equipment are important to the voting
systems manufacturing industry and to State and local elections
officials. NIST should make available to the public information
regarding the performance of voting equipment, including which
models are the best performers in each class of voting
equipment.
The Committee believes that research is essential to
maintaining high standards for voting technology. In
particular, the Committee believes research is imperative to
develop robust standards for computer security; fraud detection
and deterrence; protection of voter privacy; the design and
operation of voting systems to improve ease of use, including
use by those with disabilities such as blindness; and,
eventually, voting by Internet. NIST should consult widely with
industry, academic laboratories, other Federal agencies, and
other appropriate experts, on how best to conduct such a
research program.

IX. Cost Estimate

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report accompanying each bill or joint
resolution of a public character to contain: (1) an estimate,
made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in
carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year
in which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years
following such fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if
less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate of
costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by
such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any
Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate
levels under current law. However, House rule XIII, clause
3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report
pursuant to House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate
and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on Science
prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section X
of this report pursuant to House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report that accompanies a measure
providing new budget authority (other than continuing
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R.
2275 does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
2275 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2275, the Voting
Technology Standards Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Ken Johnson.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 2275--Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001

Summary: H.R. 2275 would establish a new commission to
develop voluntary standards for voting equipment and other
systems. The bill also would require the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide technical support to
the commission, establish a new research and development
program on voting systems, and accredit independent
laboratories to certify that voting systems conform with the
commission's voluntary standards.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2275 would cost $35
million over the 2002-2006 period, subject to the availability
of appropriated funds. The bill would not affect direct
spending of receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would
not apply.
H.R. 2275 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2275 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370
(commerce and housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level...................................... 7 7 7 8 8
Estimated outlays.................................................. 5 7 7 8 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: Based on information from NIST, CBO
estimates that it would cost the commission and NIST about $2
million a year to develop standards for the operation of voting
equipment. These funds would be used to hire about 10
technicians and purchase necessary equipment. In addition, CBO
estimates that NIST would incur annual costs of about $5
million under the bill to pay for testing machines and the
salaries and benefits for about 35 engineers, statisticians,
and other staff needed to conduct the research and
accreditation programs. Base on NIST's historical spending
patterns and adjusting annually for inflation, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 2275 would cost a total of about $5
million in 2002 and about $35 million over the 2002-2006
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2275
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Ken Johnson; impact on
State, local, and tribal governments: Shelley Finlayson; impact
on the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimated approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

xi. compliance with public law 104-4

H.R. 2275 contains no unfunded mandates.

xii. committee oversight findings and recommendations

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include oversight findings
and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule
X. The Committee on Science's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

xiii. statement on general performance goals and objectives

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of
Representatives the general performance goals and objectives of
H.R. 2275 are to develop voluntary technical standards for the
proper operation of voting products and systems used in federal
elections in the United States, and to establish a NIST a
research program to support the development of the technical
standards and to disseminate information relating to technical
standards for voting standards to the public. H.R. 2275 also
requires several reports to Congress relating to voting systems
standards and the effect of the legislation on improving voting
systems.

xiv. constitutional authority statement

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives
requires each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character to include statement citing
the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution
to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States
grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2275.

xv. federal advisory committee statement

The functions of the Commission established by H.R. 2275
are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or
more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing
advisory committee.

xvi. congressional accountability act

The Committee finds that H.R. 2275 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

xvii. statement on preemption of state, local, or tribal law

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.

xviii. changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.

xix. committee recommendations

On July 18, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Science favorably reported the Voting Technology Standards of
2001 by a voice vote, and recommends its enactment.

xx. proceedings of the subcommittee markup

H.R. 2275, VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS ACT OF 2001

----------

JUNE 27, 2001

Committee on Science,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J.
Ehlers (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Chairman Ehlers. The subcommittee will be in order.
Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards is meeting today to consider the
following measure: H.R. 2275, Voting Technology Standards Act
of 2001. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess
the subcommittee at any time and without objection, it is so
ordered.
I will proceed with my opening remarks and then we will
hear from the Ranking Member. I introduced this legislation
with Ranking Member Barcia in a bipartisan effort to ensure
that voting technologies are accurate, secure, reliable and
easy to use. And every one of those is important.
[Statement of Chairman Vernon Ehlers follows:]

Opening Statement of Chairman Vernon Ehlers

Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, I want to welcome you
to the Subcommittee markup of H.R. 2275, the Voting Technology
Standards Act of 2001. I introduced this legislation with
Ranking Member Barcia in a bipartisan effort to ensure that
voting technologies are accurate, secure, reliable and easy to
use.
Last November, as the world placed Florida under a
microscope to scrutinize its election, we saw just how
vulnerable our nation's voting systems are to error. In the
months since, we've discovered these problems are not limited
to Florida. They are rampant among many other states, but went
unnoticed because the elections in those states were not nearly
so close as in Florida.
Over the last few months, Congress has had the change to
explore some of the problems that plague our voting systems
through several Congressional hearings on this issue, both in
this Committee and in the other Committee on which I serve--
House Administration. It is clear from testimony's we've heard
during these hearings that we must develop updated standards
for voting systems if we expect those systems to perform
reliably on election day. The current federal standards
governing voting equipment just don't measure up to the needs
of our local, state and federal electorate.
Updated standards can ensure that voting machines tally
voter's ballots accurately. They can help reduce voter error by
ensuring that new voting equipment is more user-friendly, and
provides clear, simple procedures. And, as more and more
counties and states buy voting technologies that rely
increasingly on computers, standards for security will help
prevent hidden voter fraud by clever computer hackers. To a
large degree today, and even more so in the future, elections
data will be recorded, counted, and achieved by computer, as
well as transmitted over computer networks; we must be ready
with robust standards to ensure that these systems meet the
highest standards for computer security, integrity, accuracy,
and privacy.
I am pleased that the Ehlers-Barcia bill that we have
before us today addresses these concerns.
But before we get on with the markup, I want to take a
moment to commend my colleague, Mr. Barcia, for his leadership
on this issue and for bringing this problem before the House
Science Committee. The legislation he introduced at the
beginning of this Congress helped provide the foundation for
the legislation before us today. In keeping with the bipartisan
practice of this Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia and I have worked out
an amendment, which I will describe later in the markup, that
reflects both our ideas on how Congress can help solve this
problem.
I look forward to continuing my work with Mr. Barcia, and
all my colleagues on this Subcommittee, to pass this
legislation through the House Science Committee, the full House
of Representatives, and into law.

Chairman Ehlers. Last November, as the world placed Florida
under a microscope to scrutinize its election, we saw just how
vulnerable our Nation's voting systems are to err. In the
months since, we have discovered these problems are not limited
to Florida. They are rampant among many other states and local
jurisdictions, but went unnoticed because the elections in
those states were not nearly so close as in Florida. Over the
last few months, Congress has explored some of the problems
that plague our voting systems. Through several Congressional
Hearings on this issue, both in this Committee and in the other
Committee on which I also happen to serve, the House
Administration Committee.
It is clear from testimony we have heard during these
Hearings that we must develop updated standards for voting
systems if we expect those systems to perform reliably on
election day. The current Federal standards governing voting
equipment just don't measure up to the needs of our local,
state, and Federal electorate. Updated standards can ensure
that voting machines tally voters' ballots accurately. They can
help reduce voter error by ensuring that new voting equipment
is more user friendly and provides clear, simple procedures.
And as more and more counties and states buy voting
technologies that rely increasingly on computers, standards for
security will help prevent hidden voter fraud by clever
computer hackers.
To a large degree today and even more so in the future,
elections data will be recorded, counted, and archived by
computer, as well as transmitted over computer networks. We
must be ready with robust standards to ensure that these
systems meet the highest standards for computer security,
integrity, accuracy, and privacy.
I am pleased that the Ehlers/Barcia Bill that we have
before us today addresses these concerns. But before we get on
with the markup, I want to take a moment to commend my
colleague, Mr. Barcia, for his leadership on this issue and for
bringing this problem before the House Science Committee. The
legislation he introduced at the beginning of this Congress
helped provide the foundation for the legislation before us
today. In keeping with the bipartisan practice of this
Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia and I have worked out an amendment,
which I will describe later in the markup. This amendment
reflects both of our ideas on how Congress can help solve these
problems.
I look forward to continuing my work with Mr. Barcia and
with all of my colleagues on this Subcommittee to pass this
legislation through the Full House Science Committee, the House
of Representatives, and into law.
I recognize Mr. Barcia, the Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee, for his opening statement. Mr. Barcia.
Mr. Barcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind remarks and say that I
know this is a very busy day, so I will be very brief.
Early on, members of this Subcommittee identified the
importance of standards for voting products and equipment to
address the problems that were uncovered in the last election.
We recognized the role of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology in developing these technical standards. We also
realized the Science Committee can play an important role in
highlighting not only how standards could improve our voting
system, but also stressed important areas of research that need
to be done on voting technologies. And I want to thank all of
these members for their work on, and support for, legislation
related to voting technology standards.
If this Committee intends to emphasize the importance of
standards in addressing the problems uncovered in the last
election, we need to work together in a bipartisan way and
present a unified Committee position. This Subcommittee is
doing just that here today. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute represents a valid and reasonable approach toward
developing standards to improve the accuracy, integrity, and
security of voting products and systems.
And it is my understanding that this legislation will be
taken up by the Full Committee right after the Independence Day
District Work Period.
In closing, I want to especially thank Chairman Ehlers for
working closely with me to develop an amendment in the nature
of a substitute and for continuing the strong bipartisan
cooperation of this Subcommittee. I also want to say that I
will work diligently with the Chairman to ensure these
provisions are incorporated into any comprehensive election
reform bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Opening Statement of Hon. Jim Barcia

This is a very busy day, so I will be very brief. Early on
Members of this Subcommittee identified the importance of
standards for voting products and equipment to address the
problems that were uncovered in the last election. We
recognized the role of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology in developing these technical standards.
We also realized the Science Committee could play an
important role in highlighting not only how standards could
improve our voting system but also stressing important areas of
research that need to be done on voting technologies. And I
want to thank all these Members for their work on, and support
for, legislation related to voting technology standards.
If this Committee intends to emphasize the importance of
standards in addressing the problems uncovered in the last
election we need to work together in a bipartisan way and
present a unified Committee position. This Subcommittee is
doing just that here today. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute represents a balanced and reasonable approach for
developing standards to improve the accuracy, integrity and
security of voting products and systems. And it is my
understanding that this legislation will be taken up by the
Full Committee right after the Independence Day district work
period.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Ehlers for working
closely with me to develop the amendment in the nature of a
substitute. We have continued the strong bipartisan tradition
of this Subcommittee. I also want to make it known that I will
work with the Chairman to ensure these provisions are
incorporated into any comprehensive election reform bill.
------

Opening Statement of Hon. Constance Morella
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding this markup on HR
2275. With the clear problems associated with the last Presidential
election, it is imperative that we take some action to improve the
voting process.
America is still the gold standard of freedom, but we have a crisis
of confidence in our electoral process. It is the right of every
American to vote and have their vote counted. Yet, after 200 years of
elections, we are apparently still unable to make this simple guarantee
to the American people. We need to do better.
However, despite the obvious problems there are no obvious
solutions. While partisan groups have predictably taken this
opportunity to push their agendas, their rhetoric makes bad dialogue
and even worse policy. It is true that we have neglected our electoral
system for far too long. It is true that the last election had
tremendous problems and grievous errors. However, we must not let the
pendulum swing from one extreme to the other. We cannot simply replace
our neglect with knee-jerk regulation and one-size fits-all policies.
Replacing our current problems with unknown ones is not the way to
strengthen and galvanize the process.
In a previous hearing, we heard about the difficult choices and
potential future problems we now face. In particular, we heard about
the uncertainty and concerns of voting experts with regard to both the
current process and the proposed fixes. We learned that futuristic
measures like Internet voting and digital recording, while seemingly
attractive, have problems of their own and worse track records than
punch cards. The last thing we need to do is replace our current system
with an expensive new one that doesn't work any better. A haphazard
guess is not a policy vehicle.
A measured response is far superior. It may not be as emotionally
satisfying or make for a great sound bite to take home to our
constituents, but the proper response when we have no idea what we are
doing is to study, not to act. This bill is a good start. We need a
mechanism for a formal review of our electoral process and our voting
equipment. We need objective standards against which to measure our
progress. And we need to periodically review our procedures and upgrade
our technologies when prudent. With this bill, we will have these
things. NIST is the nation's premier developer of measurement and
standards and is well equipped to accomplish the goals of this
legislation. Under this leadership, we will soon have the prescriptions
for our voting ills.
Like many others, I would prefer a clear solution to our voting
problems. I would like to make a clean sweep and enact a trouble
ending, freedom-enhancing reform. If there were one, I would support
it. There isn't. But hopefully with this bill, one isn't too far off.

Chairman Ehlers. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
would also like to just take a moment to recognize the minority
staff, which put a great deal of work into the original bill. I
appreciate the efforts they did and also, the majority staff
for their considerable amount of work on this, and both staffs
for the way they have worked together in developing a final
product. Without objection, other members may place their
opening statement in the record. So ordered. We will now
consider H.R. 2275, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001. I
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and
open to amendment at any point. So ordered. We will move to the
first amendment on the roster, which is an amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Barcia and myself.
Chairman Ehlers. The Clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Derr. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2275----
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Technology Standards Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS.

(a) Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to
develop voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability,
accuracy, security, and integrity of United States voting
products and systems.
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of--
(A) the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, who shall serve as the chair
of the Commission;
(B) two representatives of the National Association
of State Election Directors, selected by that
association, one Republican and one Democrat;
(C) one representative of the American National
Standards Institute, selected by that institute; and
(D) nine additional members selected by the members
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) by unanimous
vote, of which at least two shall be local election
officials;
(3) Terms.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), (C),
or (D) of this paragraph, each member selected under paragraph
(2)(B), (C), or (D) shall serve a term of 6 years.
(B) Four of the members initially appointed under paragraph
(2)(D) shall be appointed for an initial term of 3 years.
(C) The members initially appointed under paragraph (2)(B)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 4 years.
(D) The member initially appointed under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 5 years.
(E) Members may serve for more than 1 term.
(F) Any member appointed under paragraph (2)(D) to fill a
vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which
the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office, but not more than 1 year. A vacancy in the Commission
shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(4) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Quorum.--The Commission shall conduct no business, other
than appointing members under paragraph (2)(D), before all
members of the Commission have been appointed. Nine members of
the Commission shall constitute a quorum.
(6) Administrative and technical support.--Upon the request
of the Commission, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall provide to the Commission the
administrative and technical support necessary for the
Commission to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(b) Development of Voluntary Technical Standards.--
(1) Procedures.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register a description of the procedures it will use to
establish voluntary technical standards under this subsection,
along with a list of the members of the Commission.
(2) Establishment of voluntary technical standards.--Not
later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall establish, and publish in the Federal
Register, such voluntary technical standards as are necessary
to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and integrity of
United States voting products and systems.
(3) Review and update.--The Commission shall review the
voluntary technical standards established under this subsection
at the conclusion of every even-numbered year, and shall
determine whether new or updated voluntary technical standards
are necessary to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and
integrity of United States voting products and systems. If the
Commission determines that such new or updated voluntary
technical standards are necessary, the Commission shall publish
in the Federal Register the findings of its review, an
explanation for its decision, and the new or updated voluntary
technical standards.

SEC. 4. LABORATORY ACCREDITATION.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, after
consultation with the Commission, shall--
(1) disseminate voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b), other relevant technical information,
guidelines for usage of the voluntary technical standards, and
any other information appropriate to assist in the
implementation of the voluntary technical standards;
(2) maintain and make available a list of laboratories
accredited under section 4; and
(3) maintain and make available a list of United States
voting products and systems that have been certified by a
laboratory accredited under section 4 to conform with the
voluntary technical standards established by the Commission.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall establish a program for research and development in areas to
support the development of voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b) for voting products and systems, including research
and development on--
(1) the security of computers, computer networks, and
computer data storage used in voting products and systems,
including methods to detect and prevent fraud;
(2) protection of voter privacy;
(3) human factors in the design and application of voting
products and systems, including assistive technologies for
persons with disabilities; and
(4) remote access voting, including Internet voting.

SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Commission shall transmit to the Congress a report that--
(1) assesses the areas of human factors research, including
usability engineering and human-computer and human-machine
interaction, that feasibly could be applied to voting products
and systems design to ensure the usability and accuracy of
United States voting products and systems, including to improve
access by the disabled and to reduce voter error and the number
of spoiled ballots in elections;
(2) assesses the potential demand by State and local
governments for technical assistance in implementing voluntary
technical standards established under section 3(b), and makes
recommendations on how best to address that demand;
(3) makes recommendations for methods of promoting the
implementation of voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b); and
(4) assesses the need for a grant program or other mechanism
to ensure the accreditation and operation of a sufficient
number of laboratories to test and certify voting products and
systems.

Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent to dispense of the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself
for 5 minutes to explain this bipartisan amendment.
[Statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Explanation

The amendment offered by Mr. Barcia and me is a complete
substitute for the original text of the bill. Its intent is to
ensure the development of robust technical standards for
accuracy, integrity, and usability of voting products and
systems used in the United States.
We need standards for accuracy, because voting machines
must first and foremost tally the vote accurately. We need
standards for integrity, because voting equipment must perform
its job well and perform it reliably, year after year. We need
standards for security, because voting technologies
increasingly rely on computers to tally and transmit elections
results over computer networks. And we need standards for
usability because if we are to reduce voter error, if we are to
ensure that citizens are not confused by new voting
technologies, if we are to provide access to voting for persons
with disabilities--we must ensure that voting equipment is
user-friendly.
First, the amendment establishes a 13 member commission
that will develop voluntary technical standards for voting
products and systems. The Commission will consist of the
Director of the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology, who will serve as its chair, a member of the
American National Standards Institute, and representatives from
state and local governments. NIST is the nation's premier
federal laboratory and will provide the technical advice for
developing these new standards, while state and local election
officials will be able to provide valuable first-hand
experience necessary for developing the standards.
The Commission will have an on-going duty to review the
standards after every federal general election and ensure they
are up-to-date.
Second, the amendment directs NIST to accredit laboratories
around the country to test voting equipment. NIST will also
publish information on which products and systems have been
certified by accredited labs as meeting the new standards.
Under this system, when states decide to upgrade their voting
machines, they will be able to quickly and easily check to see
if the voting equipment they are buying meets the highest
standards.
Third, the amendment establishes a research program at NIST
to help improve voting system technology. NIST will conduct
research on ways to improve computer security, detect and
prevent fraud, protect voter privacy, and ensure the security
and integrity of Internet voting. The Institute will also
conduct research in an area where I think it is sorely needed--
human factors. This research will help improve voting machines
by making them more easy-to-use for the elderly, for persons
with disabilities, and for all Americans.
I want to commend Mr. Barcia and his staff for their
support, cooperation and dedication in working with me to craft
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
amendment today and to work with us to pass it through the Full
Committee and bring it up before the House as expeditiously as
possible.

Chairman Ehlers. The amendment offered by Mr. Barcia and me
is a complete substitute for the original text of the bill. Its
intent is to ensure the development of robust technical
standards for accuracy, integrity, security, and usability of
voting products and systems used in the United States.
We need these standards for accuracy because voting
machines must first and foremost tally the vote accurately. We
need standards for integrity because voting equipment must
perform its job well and perform it reliably, year after year.
We need standards for security because voting technologies
increasingly rely on computers to tally and transmit election
results over computer networks. And we need standards for
usability because if we are to reduce voter error, if we are to
ensure that citizens are not confused by new voting
technologies, if we are to provide access to voting for persons
with disabilities, we must ensure that voting equipment is user
friendly.
First, the amendment establishes a 13 member commission
that will develop voluntary technical standards for voting
products and systems. The commission will consist of the
Director of the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology, who will serve as it's Chair, a member of the NARCA
National Standards Institute, and representatives from State
and local governments. NIST is the Nation's premiere Federal
Laboratory and will provide the technical advice for developing
these new standards, while State and local officials will be
able to provide valuable first-hand experience necessary for
developing the standards.
The commission will have an ongoing duty to review the
standards after every Federal general election and ensure they
are up to date.
Second, the amendment directs NIST to accredit laboratories
around the country to test voting equipment. NIST will also
publish information on which products and systems have been
certified by accredited labs. Under this system, when States
decide to upgrade their voting machines, they will be able to
quickly and easily check to see if the voting equipment they
are buying meets the highest standards.
Third, the amendment establishes a research program at NIST
to help improve voting system technology. NIST will conduct
research on ways to improve computer security, detect and
prevent fraud, protect voter privacy, and ensure the security
and integrity of internet voting. The institute will also
conduct research in an area where I think it is sorely needed--
human factors. This research will help improve voting machines
by making them more easy to use for the elderly, for persons
with disabilities, and for all Americans.
I wanted to commend Mr. Barcia and the staff for their
support, cooperation, and dedication in working with me. I urge
my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment today and to
work with us to pass it to the Full Committee and bring it up
before the House as expeditiously as possible.
Now, I would like to yield to Mr. Barcia for any comments
he may have on the amendment.
Mr. Barcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Ehlers has
explained, in detail, the provisions of the Ehlers/Barcia
amendment. I have already talked about how this amendment is a
result of strong bipartisan effort and agreement. So I will
close by urging my colleagues to support this amendment in the
nature of a substitute. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Barcia. Is there any
further discussion? Hearing none, the vote occurs on the
amendment. All in favor of this amendment, say aye. ``Aye''.
Those opposed, Say no. The amendment is adopted. Are there any
further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill,
H.R. 2275, as amended. All those in favor will say aye.
``Aye''. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the
Chair, the ayes have it.
I now recognize Mr. Barcia for a motion.
Mr. Barcia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee
favorably report the bill H.R. 2275, as amended, to the Full
Committee with the recommendation that it be in order for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the
Subcommittee be considered as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five minute rule at Full Committee.
Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed
to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the
bill, as amended, in accordance with recommendations of the
Subcommittee.
Chairman Ehlers. The Committee has heard the motion. Those
in favor will say aye. ``Aye''. Those opposed will say no. The
ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. This concludes
our Subcommittee markup. I wish to thank the members for their
attendance and I look forward to your support as we proceed
further to Full Committee and thence, to the House floor. Thank
you, once again, to all members attending and to the staff for
their diligent work. With that, the markup is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup

H.R. 2275, VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS ACT OF 2001

----------

JULY 18, 2001

Committee on Science,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 5:30 p.m., in room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
Boehlert, chairman, presiding.
Chairman Boehlert. Good afternoon. The Science Committee
will come to order. Our first order of business today is to
recognize the newest member of the committee, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. I am certain that you all join me in
welcoming Mr. Forbes to the committee. By order of the
Republican Conference of the House Committee on Science, Mr.
Forbes has been selected to serve on the Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics and the Subcommittee on the Environment,
Technology, and Standards. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, for
the purposes of appointing the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Matheson, to the Subcommittee on the Environment, Technology,
and Standards.
Mr. Hall. I would like to appoint Mr. Matheson to the
Subcommittee on the Environment, Technology, and Standards.
Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting
today to consider the following measures: H.R. 2275, the Voting
Technology Standards Act of 2001 and H.R. 2460, Comprehensive
Energy Research and Technology Act of 2001.
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the
Committee at any point, and without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Committee will now consider H.R. 2275. Last November,
as the world placed Florida under a microscope to scrutinize
its elections, American saw for the first time the extent to
which the most sacred tenet of our democracy--the right to
vote--could be foiled by faulty technology.
As the problems with Florida's now-infamous system of punch
card ballots unfolded in the weeks after the election,
Americans watched in amazement. It was only later that we
learned that other states had many times experienced similar
problems, but that such problems seldom come to light without
the scrutiny that a close election invites.
Many of the reported problems have been blamed on the ways
in which elections have been administered. Still, many other
problems have been directly attributed to substandard voting
technology. A report released Monday by Caltech and MIT showed
just how heavily voting technology affects the number of
spoiled and lost ballots.
Another recent report, this one by the House Government
Reform Committee Minority, showed that improved technology
could dramatically reduce the disparity between the number of
spoiled ballots cast in affluent and low-cost districts.
The mounting evidence clearly shows that improved voting
technology is an important part of the solution.
This bill attempts to improve voting technology by
establishing higher standards for accuracy, usability,
integrity and security. I would like to congratulate
Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Barcia for
their hard work in developing this legislation. Theirs is a
good bill, a bipartisan bill. It deserves support, and should
be signed into law.
[Statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

Statement of Hon. Sherwood Boehlert

Last November, as the world placed Florida under a
microscope to scrutinize its elections, America saw for the
first time the extent to which the most sacred tenet of our
democracy--the right to vote could be foiled by faulty
technology.
As the problems with Florida's now-infamous system of punch
card ballots unfolded in the weeks after the election, America
watched in amazement. It was only later that we learned that
other states had many times experienced similar problems, but
that such problems seldom come to light without the scrutiny
that a close election invites.
Many of the reported problems of the last elections have
been blamed on the ways in which they have been administered.
Still, many other problems have been directly attributed to
substandard voting technology. A report released Monday by
Caltech and MIT showed just how heavily voting technology
affects the number of spoiled and lost ballots.
Another recent report, this one by the House Government
Reform Committee Minority, showed that improved technology
could dramatically reduce the disparity between the number of
spoiled ballots cast in affluent and low-income districts.
The mounting evidence clearly shows that improved voting
technology is an important part of the solution.
This bill attempts to make those improvements by
establishing higher standards for accuracy, usability,
integrity, and security for voting technology. I would like to
congratulate Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member
Barcia for their hard work in developing this legislation.
Theirs is a good bill. It deserves support and should be signed
into law.
I now yield my remaining time to Subcommittee Chairman
Ehlers.

Chairman Boehlert. I now yield my remaining time that I
have to Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Americans, we
believe that every vote should count, but since last fall's
elections, study after study has emerged to expose the flaws in
voting technology that have thwarted the wills of millions of
Americans who have gone to the polls to exercise that most
fundamental democratic right.
In the latest study, released this week by a joint project
between Caltech and MIT, a team of researchers found that 1.5
to 2 million votes were not counted because of substandard
equipment. Furthermore, the study found that the number of
votes lost was directly related to the type of voting equipment
used.
We cannot and should not tolerate this any longer. This
Committee, with its jurisdiction over technical standards and
its expertise in technology, can help.
The bill before us today would help set higher standards
for accuracy, integrity, security, and usability of voting
equipment used in the United States.
We need standards for accuracy, because voting machines
must first and foremost tally the vote accurately.
We need standards for integrity, because year in and year
out voting equipment must perform its job well, and perform it
reliably.
We need much more robust standards for security, because
increasingly voting technologies rely on computers to tally and
transmit elections results over computer networks, exposing our
elections in entirely new ways to computer hackers, hackers who
may have either mischievous or criminal intent.
And, if we are to reduce voter error, ensure that students
are not confused by new voting technologies, and provide access
to the voters for persons with disabilities, we must ensure
that voting equipment is user-friendly.
The bill establishes a Commission to be chaired by the
director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and to include state and local election officials. This
Committee will, Commission will develop those technical
standards. And, after ever election, the Standards commission
will review them and update them as necessary.
Finally, the bill establishes a research program at NIST to
improve computer security, detect and prevent fraud, protect
voter privacy, ensure the security and integrity of internet
voting, and improve designs to provide access for persons with
disabilities.
I want to thank Congressman Barcia, with who I have worked
closely to develop this legislation, and Chairman Boehlert, for
bringing this bill before the full Committee for its
consideration.
[Statement of Congressman Vernon Ehlers follows:]

Statement of Hon. Vernon Ehlers

As Americans we believe that every vote should count. But,
since last fall's elections, study after study has emerged to
expose the flaws in voting technology that have thwarted the
will of millions of Americans who have gone to the polls to
exercise that most fundamental democratic right.
In the latest study, released this week by a joint project
between Caltech and MIT, a team of researchers found that 1.5
to 2 million votes were not counted because of substandard
equipment. Furthermore the study found that the number of votes
lost was directly related to the type of voting equipment used.
We cannot and should not tolerate this any longer. This
Committee, with its jurisdiction over technical standards and
its expertise in technology, can help. The bill before us today
would help set higher standards for accuracy, integrity,
security, and usability of voting equipment used in the United
States.
We need standards for accuracy, because voting machines
must first and foremost tally the vote accurately.
We need standards for integrity, because, year in and year
out, voting equipment must perform its job well and perform it
reliably.
We need much more robust standards for security, because
increasingly voting technologies rely on computers to tally and
transmit elections results over computer networks, exposing our
elections in entirely new ways to computer hackers--hackers who
may have either mischievous or criminal intent.
And, if we are to reduce vote error, ensure that citizens
are not confused by new voting technologies, and provide access
to the vote for persons with disabilities, we must ensure that
voting equipment is user-friendly.
The bill establishes a Commission be chaired by the
director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
and to include state and local election officials, that will
develop those technical standards. And after every election,
the Standards commission will review them and update them as
necessary.
Finally, the bill establishes a research program at NIST to
improve computer security, detect and prevent fraud, protect
voter privacy, ensure the security and integrity of Internet
voting, and improve designs to provide access for persons with
disabilities.
I want to thank Congressman Barcia, with whom I've worked
closely to develop this legislation, and Chairman Boehlert, for
bringing the bill before the full Committee for its
consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and
help us restore the belief that every vote counts.

Mr. Ehlers. I urge my colleagues to support his bill and
help us restore the belief that every vote counts, and must be
counted.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hall for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers have
already explained the provisions of the bill, and I would just
limit my comments to the process to develop this piece of
legislation.
Everyone can agree that this country should have the best
voting system in the world, and the last election showed that
we could probably do a little better with the technology we
have in hand. Although I was totally satisfied with the outcome
of the count down there, they counted, insofar as I am
concerned, exactly right, and we have a Texan in the White
House today, as a result of that count.
This is an issue where this Committee seriously has
specific expertise, and can make a very important contribution.
The Republican and Democratic staff work closely together, and
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Resource requirements for voting equipment, specifically,
you have developed a hearing that focused on this issue, and
focused on the issue of technical standards. This piece of
legislation is going to include accuracy, and I again thank the
Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for their strong spirit
of cooperation and leadership. I also want to thank Mr. Barcia
for his early leadership in this. He came on the stage early,
and brought his ideas, and brought this issue to the
Committee's attention. And I think much of the reason we are
here today is because of his vision, his timely vision of the
role this Committee can play in addressing these technical
problems.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support
it, and I would like to yield the balance of my time to
Representative Barcia.
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Barcia.
Mr. Barcia. Thank you very much. I will try to speak up.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives
Hall, and Chairman Ehlers, and just say that I will be brief,
as the other presenters have, as well. I want to highlight the
findings of the final report of the voting technology project
by the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Caltech and MIT have carefully
researched a technical report on the mechanics, not the
politics, of the election process.
Upon the recommendations of the report, there is a need to
create a new agency to develop election technology standards
and to conduct research for improving voting systems. Implicit
in these recommendations is the notion that the current system
for both standards, and development, and research are
inadequate.
H.R. 2275 specifically addresses these major concerns.
Chairman Ehlers and I have focused on the technical
problems within our election system, and the best way to
develop solutions based on technology and research. It has been
a pleasure to work with Chairman Ehlers on this legislation.
I also want to especially thank Chairman Boehlert and
Ranking Member Hall for their leadership on this legislation
and also bringing this bill so quickly before the full
committee. And I would urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Statement of Hon. Jim Barcia

I will be very brief as well. I just want to highlight the
findings of the final report of the Voting Technology Project
by the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Caltech and MIT produced a carefully
researched technical report on the mechanics, not the politics,
of our election process.
Among the recommendations of the report is the need to
create a new agency to develop election technology standards
and to conduct research for improving voting systems. Implicit
in these recommendations is the notion that the current system
for both standards development and research are inadequate.
H.R. 2275 specifically addresses these two major concerns.
Chairman Ehlers and I have focused on the technical
problems within our election system and the best way to develop
solutions based on technology and research. It has been a
pleasure to work with Chairman Ehlers on this legislation. I
also want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall
for bringing this bill so quickly before the Full Committee.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Barcia, and
thank you Mr. Barcia and Ehlers for the outstanding work of the
staff on both sides of the aisle in bringing this support.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read
and open to amendment at any point. I ask the Members to
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster.
I move that the first reading of the bill be dispensed
with.
With no objection, so ordered.
The bill is now open for amendments.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Technology Standards Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. VOTING TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS.

(a) Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to
develop voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability,
accuracy, security, and integrity of United States voting
products and systems.
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of--
(A) the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, who shall serve as the chair
of the Commission;
(B) two representatives of the National Association
of State Election Directors, selected by that
association, one Republican and one Democrat;
(C) one representative of the American National
Standards Institute, selected by that institute; and
(D) nine additional members selected by the members
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) by unanimous
vote, of which at least two shall be local election
officials;
(3) Terms.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), (C),
or (D) of this paragraph, each member selected under paragraph
(2)(B), (C), or (D) shall serve a term of 6 years.
(B) Four of the members initially appointed under paragraph
(2)(D) shall be appointed for an initial term of 3 years.
(C) The members initially appointed under paragraph (2)(B)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 4 years.
(D) The member initially appointed under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be appointed for an initial term of 5 years.
(E) Members may serve for more than 1 term.
(F) Any member appointed under paragraph (2)(D) to fill a
vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which
the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office, but not more than 1 year. A vacancy in the Commission
shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(4) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Quorum.--The Commission shall conduct no business, other
than appointing members under paragraph (2)(D), before all
members of the Commission have been appointed. Nine members of
the Commission shall constitute a quorum.
(6) Administrative and technical support.--Upon the request
of the Commission, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall provide to the Commission the
administrative and technical support necessary for the
Commission to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(b) Development of Voluntary Technical Standards.--
(1) Procedures.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register a description of the procedures it will use to
establish voluntary technical standards under this subsection,
along with a list of the members of the Commission.
(2) Establishment of voluntary technical standards.--Not
later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall establish, and publish in the Federal
Register, such voluntary technical standards as are necessary
to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and integrity of
United States voting products and systems.
(3) Review and update.--The Commission shall review the
voluntary technical standards established under this subsection
at the conclusion of every even-numbered year, and shall
determine whether new or updated voluntary technical standards
are necessary to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, and
integrity of United States voting products and systems. If the
Commission determines that such new or updated voluntary
technical standards are necessary, the Commission shall publish
in the Federal Register the findings of its review, an
explanation for its decision, and the new or updated voluntary
technical standards.

SEC. 4. LABORATORY ACCREDITATION.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, after
consultation with the Commission, shall--
(1) disseminate voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b), other relevant technical information,
guidelines for usage of the voluntary technical standards, and
any other information appropriate to assist in the
implementation of the voluntary technical standards;
(2) maintain and make available a list of laboratories
accredited under section 4; and
(3) maintain and make available a list of United States
voting products and systems that have been certified by a
laboratory accredited under section 4 to conform with the
voluntary technical standards established by the Commission.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
shall establish a program for research and development in areas to
support the development of voluntary technical standards established
under section 3(b) for voting products and systems, including research
and development on--
(1) the security of computers, computer networks, and
computer data storage used in voting products and systems,
including methods to detect and prevent fraud;
(2) protection of voter privacy;
(3) human factors in the design and application of voting
products and systems, including assistive technologies for
persons with disabilities; and
(4) remote access voting, including Internet voting.

SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Boehlert. I see the gentle lady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee. You have the first amendment, are you ready to
proceed?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes I am.
Chairman Boehlert. You are recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.

Page 3, line 7, insert ``, but not more than 3 terms'' after ``1
term.''
Page 5, line 21, insert ``The National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall make an effort to accredit at least one minority-owned
laboratory.'' after ``by the Commission.''
Page 6, line 9, insert ``, including through the Internet,'' after
``make available''.
Page 7, line 3, insert ``and varying levels of literacy'' after
``persons with disabilities''.
Page 7, line 6, strike ``REPORT'' and insert ``REPORTS''.
Page 7, line 7, insert ``(a) One-Year Report.--'' before ``Not
later than''.
Page 8, after line 7, insert the following new subsection.
(b) Ten-Year Report.--Not later than 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the Congress a
report that--
(1) identifies the States that have voluntarily complied with
standards established pursuant to this Act; and
(2) assesses the impact of this Act on the accuracy of vote
tabulation.

Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Let me first of all thank the Chairman, let me first of all
thank the Chairman for, on behalf of the state of Texas, for it
going before the House. Then, let me thank the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for getting the Markup on this very important
initiative, and we are here to recognize the value and
importance of everyone's right to vote.
I also thank the ranking subcommittee member of this
Committee, and the Chairman, Vernon Ehlers. And I would like to
say they had one of the greatest turnouts in the state of
Michigan, and I don't feel that the politics, but it was a very
happy conclusion in that state.
But what I will say, however, Chairman, I will say this,
that it is an important initiative. I had the opportunity to
testify in the Senate, before the Science Committee, Commerce
dealing with Technology, and I would like to add a few words,
as I come a conclusion on my statement. I just felt that at the
start of the 21st Century 3% of the precincts in the United
States still use the oldest form of election technology, the
paper ballot. Lever machines, first introduced in 1892 are used
by 22%. The notorious punch card, introduced in 1964, has two
forms the VoteoMatic type found in 33% of the nation's precinct
and the DataVote type used in four percent of the nation's
precincts. I think it is high time the Committee on Science be
able to protect the right to vote.
This legislation establishes the mark of the Science
Committee and what I believe is the ultimate outcome, to be
able to say that every vote counts.
[Statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

Statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee

Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall I would like to
thank and applaud you for bringing this legislation before the
Full Committee for Markup. This is an opportunity for the House
Science Committee to be the first House Committee to address
the issue of voting reform in our Nation.
I have prepared an amendment for inclusion in H.R. 2275,
the Voting Technology Standards act. This amendment would limit
the number of terms served on the commission; make information
provided by the work of the commission available over the
Internet; ensure that development of voting technology
standards will include the literacy level of the voter; and
direct that after 10 years of the act being enacted that a
report be provided on its effect on voting in the United
States.
Voting is not just a right of passage from childhood to
adult in our society; it is the principle of democracy
expressed by everyone who exercises their free will to be heard
on the Election Day or equally their choice of not casting a
vote on Election Day.
We are here today to discuss the clear and evident failure
of voting technology. However, we cannot ignore the clear and
evident failure of the people charged with the legal and
ethical responsibility of the administration of elections to do
so in a nonpartisan unbiased manner. More than anything else
the flaws in our nation's election process stemmed from a lack
of commitment on the local level to not only the spirit, but
also the letter of law that supports our democracy. We cannot
call ourselves the leaders of the free world, because this
title is reserved for those nations who work to earn it,
through actions and not words.
At the start of the 21st Century, three percent of the
precincts in the United States still use the oldest form of
election technology, the paper ballot. Lever machines, first
introduced in 1892 are used in 22% of today's precinct level
elections across our country. The notorious punch card ballot,
introduced in 1964, has two forms--the VotoMatic type found in
33% of the nation's precincts and the DataVote type used in
four percent of the nation's precincts. The Optical Scan,
``marksense'' or ``bubble'' ballot system introduced in the
1980s is used by 25% of the precincts and is found to have the
greatest accuracy of all voting methods when joined with
verification of intent at the voting location. Finally, the
direct recording electronic (DRE) voting technology first
introduced in the 1970s is an electronic version of the lever
voting machine and is used by about seven percent of our
nation's precincts.
The most popular form of voting in the United States is the
marksense or bubble ballot system with over 1,200 counties
currently using this method.
Securing the franchise for all American--voting rights from
the beginning of the United States has been a right conveyed
under condition. Today the issue of access to the ballot box is
complicated by the fact that there are fifty states with the
underlying bureaucratic complications of hundreds of county
governments who administer the voting rolls for their
respective states.
Currently, there are seven voting methods that are
available for county governments to select from: DataVote punch
card, other punch card, lever machine, paper ballot, mixed
system, optical scan, and electronic.
A democracy is only as strong as its people, all of its
people, and therefore for America to prosper its entire people
must prosper!
I introduced the following bills to address the problems
associated with the last presidential election: H.R. 60, the
Secure Democracy for All Americans Act; H.R. 934, Presidential
General Elections Would Become National Public Holidays; and
House Concurrent Resolution 5, which expresses a sense of
Congress that the election process in this country should be
uniform.
It is my goal along with many of my colleagues to pursue
national voting policies, which are not prone to bias,
corruption or disruption. The most sacred and important process
of our democracy is the act of voting.
It is my goal along with many of my colleagues to pursue
national voting policies, which are not prone to bias,
corruption or disruption. The most sacred and important process
of our democracy is the act of voting.
Universal suffrage means that everyone should have an equal
opportunity to vote, regardless of rank, social status, race,
or social background. But over the past three decades studies
have found increasing biases in turnout. In particular, people
without college degrees have become less likely to go to the
polls partly because the types of employment they are able to
find offers little flexibility to visit the polls during
working hours. Should Election Day during Presidential Election
years become a public holiday, private employers would be
strongly encouraged to also allow their employees to have that
day as a holiday so that millions of voters would be free to
vote anytime throughout that important day.
It may be difficult to reach agreement on the specifics of
what should be done to improve our nation's system of electing
the President, but everyone can agree that something should be
done based on what we have learned from the last presidential
election.
I would offer that this attempt to refine and create
standards for the various methods of voting has merit. By
creating standards that are federally regulated the nexus
between voting rights, legislative action, and judicial review
might be strengthened.
I for one do not find it excusable that the current
technology used for choosing elected government in this country
cannot better manage a close election.
What ever is done to address the issue of fairness in
national, state, and local elections must address the need to
restore confidence that the voters' collective will is done.
The health and security of our democracy is a stake should
this congress and Administration fail to address the franchise
rights of all Americans.

Ms. Jackson Lee. As someone who has seen the results, by
visiting various cities around the country, I can say to you
that one thing Americans say, that they want our vote to count.
Mr. Chairman my amendment is a technical amendment, and I
would like to ask unanimous consent to alter the amendment en
bloc.
Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly,
they include limited terms, the other aspects would ensure
information regarding voting standards would also be made
available over the internet. The dynamic technology that is
evidenced in this room. Another part of the amendment would
make sure that voting technology standards take into
consideration literacy and language differences, so that we can
ensure that every vote counts.
The last part of my amendment was to create a report that
will provide insights on how many states are in voluntary
compliance with the standards and abide by them, as well as
determining the affect on the standards on voting after
elections. In ten years there would have to be elections
providing a basis for the study.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have legislation asking for
us to have a holiday that will allow people to be able to move
forward and to be able to vote on election day without
restrictions. I hope that in other committees we will have an
opportunities to look at many legislative issues, but in this
committee I am very proud to support this legislation and ask
that my amendment be supported and ask that the legislation as
it relates to Texas. Thank you.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Boehlert. Is there any further discussion on the
amendment en bloc? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment.
All in favor say ``aye.''
Those opposed say ``no.''
The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the
Chairman will entertain a motion to report the bill.
The question is on the bill H.R. 2275, the Voting
Technology Standards Act of 2001 as amended. All those in favor
say ``aye.'' Opposed ``no.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the
ayes have it.
Ranking Member Hall?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably
report H.R. 2275 as amended. Furthermore, I move to instruct
the staff to prepare the legislative report, to make the
necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the
House for consideration.
Chairman Boehlert. The Chair notes the presence of a
reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the
bill, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by
saying ``aye.'' Opposed ``no.''
The ayes appear to have it and the bill is favorably
reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in
which to submit Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views on
the measure. Further, I move, pursuant to clause 1 of Rule 22
of the Rules of the House, that the Committee authorize the
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House
to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 2275 or a
similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.
Additional Opening Statement of Hon. Constance Morella
Mr. Chairman, we have before us today two important pieces of
legislation, a voting technology bill and the Science Committee's
portion of the national energy policy. I want to thank you for moving
this legislation to the top of the Science Committee's agenda.
With all that happened at last year's presidential election,
electoral reform needs to be addressed. However, despite the obvious
problems, there are no obvious solutions. We have neglected our
electoral system for far too long, but we cannot simply replace our
neglect with knee-jerk regulation and one-size-fits-all policies. A
haphazard guess is not a policy vehicle.
Recent studies have highlighted the difficulties of our current
practices as well as warned us of potential future problems if we act
too rashly. This bill addresses there concerns. It calls for objective
standards and creates a mechanism for a formal review of our electoral
process and our voting equipment. Under the auspices of NIST, our
premier developer of measurements and standards, we will soon have the
prescriptions for our voting ills.
As for energy, the administration has laid out a broad plan and
this bill represents the piece we have jurisdiction over. We have
augmented the president's proposal with important research and
development efforts in environmentally friendly areas such as hydrogen,
biomass, and other renewable technologies. It has been a difficult
struggle to bring together the various competing interests, but we have
forged a bill that fairly balances the concerns of the environment with
our all-to-real energy needs. I believe that the final product deserves
our support.
In strongly urge my colleagues to pass both of these measures.
______

Additional Opening Statement of Hon. J. Randy Forbes
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for both bills
before our Committee today--the Comprehensive Energy Research and
Technology Act and the Voting Technology Standards Act.
Given the events of last November in certain areas of Florida,
there's hardly a state in the nation that is not looking for ways to
ensure that their voting technologies are up-to-date and their voters
know how to use them. The Voting Technology Standards Act would give
the states some independent and expert guidance during this exercise.
That guidance will come from a commission that draws on the experiences
of state and local election officials as well as the expertise of those
involved with the emerging voting technologies. Most important,
perhaps, is that the decision on what to do with this advice and
guidance is left to the states, so that they may fit the standards to
the needs of their voters.
The same commission would also develop technical testing
specifications for labs to use in certifying that voting systems meet
the standards. A recent study by a team of scientists from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the California
Institute of Technology (Caltech) determined that there are a variety
of technical problems that continue to plague many of our voting
systems. And, as more and more states rely upon computer-based systems
or other advanced systems for voting, it becomes increasingly important
that we stay out in front of the technologies to ensure that we can
meet problems head-on before, or a least as, they occur.
I also want to express my support for the Comprehensive Energy
Research and Technology Act. Though energy literally makes the engines
of our economy run and literally ensures our national security, we have
been for far too long without a comprehensive and long-term national
energy policy. Earlier this year, the Vice President and a panel from
the President's Cabinet released a thorough package of recommendations
to establish a national energy policy.
The plan's list of 105 recommendations includes a sensible balance
of proposals to improve conservation, to increase our domestic supply
of energy, and to strengthen our international energy sources. It is a
fair and responsible proposal, and I am pleased that this Committee
could be a part of it by passing the Comprehensive Energy Research and
Technology Act.
This bill includes provisions to improve our research efforts on a
variety of fronts, including renewables, clean coal, biomass, and
nuclear power. It also helps localities to purchase alternative fuel
vehicles and encourages conservation programs. It is a sound bill that
leaves no stone unturned in our national search for a comprehensive
energy policy.