[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.

  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.
          (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.

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.

  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.
          (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.

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.

    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.

                                  
