want to find all right i also will make it clear that this particular this particular bill makes it clear that we have the authority and could not take any action on this without the approval of the committee that was not clear before this law was pas that in mind i join you in your request that the house inspector general jim cornell review this program six months to ensure those being used in the spirit in which it was intended let me also add mr chairman you mentioned chairman i appreciate the opportunity not so much about this but this would open up the members handbook and the only thing i want to do is take the opportunity because we may be doing some more work on candidates for election for budget office to designate an individual be authorized to disperse funds do what they're writing campaign committee of the candidate in the event of a death of the candidate or thirty thirty two sponsored by mr jones of north carolina will short candidates for f that made the jones family very nervous in terms of what could happen not in their particular case but in other cases so this is i believe a good bill which will make it clear one of us will be given the opportunity to all know the straightforward bill would simply give any eligible voter the option of voting by absentee ballot no longer would an antiquated patchwork of state laws prevent voters from voting because they have work family or other commitments no longer with any voter in this country have to find the money or the time for a notary to sign an absentee request form no longer wait any american voter have to compromise personal privacy by having to  catch up with the twenty nine states do as a former school board member and state legislator i certainly here believe strongly in states rights but let me be clear about this bill it does not alter state absentee processes and timelines it does not place an undue burden on election officials it does not make them do something new all it does is expand the pool of people eligible for something they already  are a federal committee and we are not doing our jobs if we accept that some are allowing some people to be more eligible to vote than others when we are all voting for the same president i wanted to just close by quoting think is a very simple step today i also want to move forward and just share with you that i would accept the amendments from some of my colleagues and have agreed to accept  requiring signature verification which is something that most states already do i think that's important and i certainly would move forward with it i visit our election of voters and watch them do this and they are professional thousand and eight which may be the highest turnout election in our nation's history moving to no excuse absentee voting actually assist their process i hope that my colleagues on the committee will join me in passing this important  it i certainly don't think that people and that are not included in no absentee absentee voting today are any less forthright than another state and we would be putting a burden  ordinarily applicable and because of that i wonder if someone could potentially challenge their absentee ballot so there was no basis whatsoever to question the validity of that ballot the failure to have the added station could become a  i was part of a meeting or part of a hearing and they were going to go out and get these absentee ballots out of the nursing home and it sounded to me that they're going to coerce people to sign these ballots and right now under the perjury that they were not coerced arguably someone making a false statement was subject themselves to a challenge ballot that controversy could be triggered if someone made an allegation that a good government in johnson county texas is trying to coerce people to vote so therefore i'm going to challenge all of these ballots because this is where i know they're working that day and it becomes one more thing that could be challenging in the context of an election you couldn't on line with other states and michigan of course people would still have to respond in terms of whether or not they can attend because of the tenets of their religion whether they're registered whether they're going to be out of the doing without pushing them forward and i think that's what we're doing we're doing it within a reasonable time frame as we accepted your amendment and i think that in c s l will come on board i think they weren't paying attention earlier they are very happy to work with this amendment provides of the states shall implement a voter signature verification system and the voter signature i need absentee ballot shall be verified by such system prior to the acceptance and processing of any voted absentee ballot cast pursuant to th at it's mainly saying and one thing that happens within california when they get in our hearing that we found the biggest form of fraud that you ever get is with absentee ballot a person can go and apply with never seeing an  individual address and apply for an absentee never ever making a verification so what happens here in this process would be much like with in california and in michigan they're going to a digital that an absentee ballot comes and you have to sign the registration and verify that against the absentee ballot outside signature before you open up and cast the ballot so it's a step of protecting the fraud which i know individuals have the fear of within here and i think this goes a long way to help in that  thank you mr chairman now this amendment takes kind of what mr davis was saying earlier when you deal with legislation like this there could be some unintended consequences based upon the language within the bill and the intent with the hearing and what i've heard from mrs davis has been you have these roadblocks for individuals to get an absentee ballot based upon the process of the go to be out  of new york makes a doctor do seven different one in in virginia you have to sign your business hours and your business address those are little roadblocks and more so we're trying to knock that down but i would never want an individual to take and if you read the language in the in the page three of the bill line five through line nine it says the state may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the edge eligibility of the individual to cast a vote in such elections what could happen here is kind of what mr davis was saying someone could say with this bill we are now waiving any right of the states to have eligibility of person to cast the ballot because i'm doing it to i want to knock down any road block a person has to apply i still want to empower the state to be able to check before the ballot is cast is this person eligible to to do that vote i don't want to take away any rules or laws that current states have as we have these other hearings we know indiana has a different law and other individuals on the the hearings and empower the state to have that ability for eligibility and what they have and we're not someone take the language here and applies it different than what we're trying to that's what the intent of already chosen to do that that what we're just trying to do is define the fact that there's no excuses for absentee voting that we want to verify of course the fact that that is the person and that's  states are doing so it's really silent on that i don't think it puts puts any more pressure on states to either increase that or to take that away if the gentle lady would yield for maybe a  and wipe away in a requirement that a state may have by basing on casting that vote such as the person would say because you live by absentee mail that you mailed in your voter read some states say the first time you do that your first time voter they just want to check an idea had a time to apply for to apply to even register to vote within that could you not take that by using the word cast the vote and take this a step further beyond the intent of what this bill was really trying to accomplish that's my only fear the language that we use any normal requirements on who's eligible to vote the bill is simply saying that there are no excuses any longer required for absentee voting so a state can't say you have to prove that you're not going to be in the jurisdiction o require you to put forward any proof as to why you should be able to vote absentee you're just allowed to do it by mail so i'm not following the developments argument is it your contention that this that the language in lines seven and nine and ten there what it is you're saying that it does i'm saying we have a couple cases before the supreme court we have states that require different just like we had a hearing the other day one state would put on their first you first you put it an application for a voter registration by mail that's one action then when you send it in and you cast a vote that's the second action i believe this bill is dealing the voter registration knocking down the road blocks to getting that application to voting by mail by using the word cast the vote i believe this bill is going that someone could take that language go beyond the intent of what we meant to do and now apply that to other other abilities for a state to use anything they believe on the eligibility to be able to be registered to cast a vote to go further that is my fear extra burden that is not available for people who vote in person and i think the idea is to make sure that it would take away all the burdens but it would also say from the intent that you keep the to a federal contest to create something close to a nationalized standard so if the goal of a state is to put extra layer in place then i think the bill does done that got that's a policy  judgment the bill seeks to make not think miss davis is exactly right the very specific example you give of your argument is that the kind of restriction you identify doesn't go to eligibility that it goes to verification frankly that's the kind of argument us district courts resolve all the time the fact that the bill is silent on that point i suppose could be litigated or debated but the clear intent of the bill is to say that if you want to vote by mail you can do it now but i think i understand your point your point is that a state may want to go beyond that and put some extra verification means some place but frankly one response to that is i doubt that very many states have those kinds of provisions so it's hardly a prevailing national standard and it doesn't appear to trouble us too much but most don't have that now and but the second to last point but i would make once again i'm certain there could be some basis if a state wanted to put some extra verification requirement in place  but once again i think the bill frankly went around the side of having a nationalized standard brought in by mail i think maybe if if we stated publicly the intent of the bill that in no way if someone votes by mail that they would get away any requirement that a state would put on all voters such as if i register to vote and they had some requirement on the registration i'm thinking more in the tenth amendment here that somehow you had to prove something to be registered voter whatever you meet their criteria i met it somehow by voting by mail i was able to wait and that was my own by using the word  to someone's going to notice i can't vote that i'm going to vote by mail i'm going to have a verification so i take away the fraud that's the intent of the bill not to change put on anybody else and mr mccarthy i appreciate that because basically that's what we're trying to do to chairman when when miss davis came to me on this bill i decided to take a serious look at it not the least of which reason is that in one nine hundred ninety when i ran for attorney general in california i actually lost on election day one with the absentee ballots subsequent to that my opponent supporters had six different lawsuits to try and invalidate six hundred thousand absentee ballots  because election officials in those counties had followed the advice given to them by the secretary of state which turned out to be somewhat erroneous i declared victory thirteen days later and my opponent conceded two and a half months later just before i was sworn in ballots indicated that once a ballot leaves the security that's provided by the traditional polling place it's much more difficult to guarantee that the intended person is voting his or her selection is made without outside or on to influence in that the vote of ballot makes it safely back to the elections official for tabulation additionally i i'm old enough to remember a t v show when i was a kid called father knows best it sounds to me like this is father or the mother of all governments the federal government knows best i was raised on the idea that our states are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy meaning that they can have different approaches to the same man and in the very first finding in this bill we make a blanket statement the voting rights exists in the united an inequity in voting rights exist in the united states because voters in some states have universal right to vote by mail while voters in other states do not that is a flat statement because some states make it far easier for absentee ballots and others  therefore there is an equity which exists i don't accept that  there is something we're losing in this country called the communal nature of this country the idea that we're all in the country together that while we have other things to do maybe it's important enough for us to take the time to vote  actually go and vote as a communal activity where you go down to the polling place and you actually exercise your right to vote the other americans voting and what we're saying is that is a quite idea that  backgrounds all sorts of ethnicities all sorts of religions all sorts of cultures we are by and large are the exception of our native american friends who are by and large sons and daughters and  descendants of people from other countries i mean we're basically a country of immigrants and we need certain things certain anchors to hold us together and i think the grand exercise  of the right to vote exemplified by people coming together at the polling places is one of those symbols that now some people just can't be able to do that but what we're saying here is don't even make an effort to do that we on the federal level have decided that no absentee ballot preferable way of doing things and i appreciate the fact that it's more convenient i appreciate the fact remains that you don't have to make the same sort of effort to try and get there but my golly if we don't think in this country it's worth making an effort to vote understood what you're trying to do and i understand we've done in california i've benefited from absentee ballots but i just find it hard for us to make the decision that as a matter of law th forward you know we're saying maybe they don't and i think they've made the determination that they do we just want to make it applicable for all states to be able to do this and we're giving them plenty of time i think we're putting the security provisions in there various parties disability groups as well as state and local governments over the measure that was reported out by the committee last year i want to commend congressman holt and his bipartisan co sponsors for their verifiable paper record that allows for reimbursement for jurisdictions to obtain backup paper ballots in the event of failure of electronic voting systems it authorizes reimbursement for jurisdictions which conduct a manual audit of a federal and state and local election in november of two thousand and two percent of the precincts this is however one hundred percent optional jurisdictions can pick and choose it is not all or nothing i would no also that the funding has been changed as such sums as necessary recognizing that this is going to be an appropriations issue more than an authorization and i will say that while the  have not come out yet in support of the bill they have been part of the discussions on the compromise from day one it is my understanding they do not oppose the bill the changes we have made some of their concerns particularly the changes to the audit section of the d r v retrofitting and the use of funding for backup paper ballots this is not a mandate it is optional and while we recognize concerns are significant compromises were made to the bill through the substitute not understand that mr ehlers is prepared to offer for a member expedite i would note that his amendment about jurisdiction involved his amendment requiring the election officials to secure the ballot and his amendment requiring election officials conducting the hand count to be split equally down party line of the two most parties the greatest number of votes is acceptable to us and we  may want to introduce them but we would assume that we would accept our agreement to those amendments and we could just discuss the one that we do have some concerns about not the intent but the technicalit