99–006

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

2

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

3

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:

4

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.

5

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 cochaired 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

6

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

7

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.

8

• 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 miVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR263.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR263
9

nority-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 performancebased 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.

10

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.

11

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

12

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).

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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.

18

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.

19

(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;

20

(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 firsthand 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

21

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.

22

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 TechVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR263.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR263
23

nology 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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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

27

(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

28

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—

29

(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

30

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 techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR263.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR263
31

nology 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

32

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-toreal 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.

Æ