To direct the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make grants to participating States and units of local government which will administer the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2008 for carrying out a program to make backup paper ballots available in the case of the failure of a voting system or voting equipment in the election or some other emergency situation, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5803) to direct the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make grants to participating States and units of local government which will administer the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2008 for carrying out a program to make backup paper ballots available in the case of the failure of a voting system or voting equipment in the election or some other emergency situation, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter in the Record on H.R. 5803.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I introduced H.R. 5803 at the request of election advocates and elected officials as a simple solution to deal with some of the problems jurisdictions may face this election day.

The bill provides reimbursements through grants to jurisdictions that choose to provide backup paper ballots in the event of voting machine failure or some other emergency situation for this November's election. The language in the legislation has been crafted, at the request of State and local governments, to allow them to decide what constitutes an emergency situation. That could mean anything from machine failure to long lines to problems with polling place staffing. It is fully up to the jurisdiction to determine what justifies the use of backup paper ballots and how to distribute them.

As mentioned, this is 100 percent optional. If States already use paper, including electronic machines with a voter verifiable paper audit trail, it's unlikely they would apply for a grant.

Of the 14 States that use electronic voting machines without paper trails, only 5 have no paper requirements at all and 9 States and the District of Columbia only use these machines in some jurisdictions. All this legislation provides is an additional method of instilling voter confidence. The grants provided in this bill allow jurisdictions to have a contingency plan, backup paper ballots, in case there are mistakes by poll workers or another cause and to determine when and how to implement that plan. Another provision included in the legislation allows the jurisdiction to determine when and how the backup paper ballots are distributed to voters.

The bill has been drafted in full cooperation with and is supported by the National Council of State Legislators, the National Association of County Officials, and the National Association of

Secretaries of State. All those organizations have submitted letters of support, as has Ohio Secretary of State Brunner, who calls it ``meaningful and respectful of State authority in election administration matters.''

In addition to the support of State and local governments, the bill is supported by election integrity groups, including People for the American Way, the Brennan Center, the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under the Law, Common Cause, Verified Vote, Counted as Cast, and just today the NAACP Legal Defense Education Fund. Additional input was provided by disability rights groups who have told us that the bill has no adverse impact on their community and that they approve the language.

As we have seen, broad support for election-related legislation is not easy to accomplish. Backup paper ballots are a unifying factor between election officials and election advocates. It's 100 percent optional, and the responsibility and mechanisms for implementation is left to the State and local officials. The bill is a measured and proactive step towards improving the system of election administration for this November.

Voter turnout in the 2008 presidential primaries was at 28 percent of the country's estimated eligible voters. That's a record one in four eligible voters, actually slightly more. The turnout rate has not been that high since 1972, when the voting age was lowered to 18. Given this record primary turnout, providing State and local jurisdictions the option to have backup paper ballots could mitigate any challenges they may face on Election Day in November. This bill helps ensure election integrity and national electoral confidence and respects State and local jurisdictions' responsibility to administer elections.

I would also note that given the fiscal situation of most States and most counties, providing some assistance in this paper ballot measure is extremely important. I know, for example, in my own State of California there is a tremendous multibillion-dollar budget deficit that is mimicked in counties throughout the State. We have received a report from CRS that outlines various things that could concern us, including long lines in jurisdictions that have DREs. The paper ballot backup measure could help mitigate against that problem.

And, finally, I would note that the cost of this measure, this authorization, is really the price we pay every day for an afternoon in Iraq. Surely we can spend the equivalent of an afternoon in Iraq to preserve, protect, and defend our own electoral system in one of the most important elections our Nation will see this November.

With that, I would urge the passage of the bill.

Brennan Center for Justice,

New York, NY, April 30, 2008.

Re Support for H.R. 5803, the ``Back Up Paper Ballot Bill''.

Representative Zoe Lofgren,

Chair, Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House

Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Lofgren: Thank you for your leadership

and commitment to improving the security, reliability, and

accessibility of our voting systems. In an election year that

has garnered unprecedented voter interest, it is particularly

important to have good policies and procedures in place in

advance of the November elections.

For this reason, we strongly support H.R. 5803, the Back Up

Paper Ballot Bill. News reports of machine problems during

states' recent presidential primary elections provide a

preview of potentially widespread machine failure and

disenfranchisement in November. H.R. 5803 would reimburse

jurisdictions for costs associated with providing voters

emergency paper ballots in the event of machine breakdowns.

In elections past, machine failures have caused long lines

at the polls and disenfranchised untold numbers of voters.

Encouraging the use of emergency paper ballots will help

ensure that every voter may have her vote counted and make it

much less likely that voters will be forced to wait on long

lines or turned away from the polls because of machine

malfunction--these are particularly important considerations

for November's elections, when turnout is expected to be

high.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Norden,

Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note before recognizing Representative Gonzalez that this is an authorization measure but there is money that has already been appropriated and allocated to States under HAVA that if we pass this would then become available for the backup paper ballots.

Mr. Speaker, I would now recognize a member of the committee, a former judge and valued colleague, Congressman Charles Gonzalez, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Ellison, I would like to include in the Record a letter from the Secretary of State of Ohio urging support of the bill.

Columbus, Ohio,

April 29, 2008.

Re Letter of support for H.R. 5803.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Lofgren: I write to extend my support

for H.R. 5803, which would create a grant program for states

to print and utilize backup paper ballots for the November

2008 federal elections. In Ohio, we thoroughly tested the

reliability and security of direct recording electronic (DRE)

voting machines and found them susceptible to performance

problems and security lapses. Until we can obtain funding to

replace DRE voting systems in the 53 counties in Ohio that

utilize DREs as their primary voting system., we have found

that backup paper ballots: Ensure that voters have the option

to vote a paper ballot, Alleviate congestion due to long

lines, and Serve as emergency ballots in the case of machine

or power failure.

Ohio utilized backup paper ballots during the March 4, 2008

primary election. In at least two specific instances, they

proved to be vital when machines could not be used because

they were programmed incorrectly and when sustained power

outages exhausted the life of batteries in DRE voting

machines. We plan to utilize backup paper ballots again in

November with even greater specifics in their implementation

and use. In short, we believe that in Ohio, backup paper

ballots offer a transitional solution to a wholesale change

of voting systems and provide a means to better ensure

election integrity this November.

Recently, I worked with Congressman Rush Holt on H.R. 5036,

which included backup paper ballot provisions similar to

those found in H.R. 5803. I supported his efforts concerning

reimbursements to the states for backup paper ballots.

Likewise, I support your advancement of H.R. 5803's grant

program for backup paper ballots and offer any assistance I

can provide toward passage of this worthwhile measure.

In December 2007, my office released what is known as the

``EVEREST Report,'' a massive voting machine study of the

three voting systems used in Ohio: Premiere (formerly

Diebold), ES&S, and Hart Intercivic. The EVEREST Report

contained scientific and industrial findings that Ohio's

voting systems (also used throughout the country),

specifically DRE voting systems, lack basic security

safeguards required and provided in other applications

throughout the computer industry, are prone to deterioration

in performance and software operation, and need reengineering

and improved procedures for operation. In response, I issued

a directive (Directive 2008-01) to all boards of elections on

January 2, 2008, requiring all counties utilizing DRE voting

machines as their primary system of voting to print backup

paper ballots in the amount of at least 10% of the number of

voters who voted in a similar, previous election.

The directive permitted any voter who preferred a paper

ballot to vote by paper ballot and for such paper ballots to

be counted on election night as part of the unofficial count.

Until Ohio has secured funding to move its counties utilizing

DRE voting technology to optical scan paper ballot

technology, backup paper ballots provide needed security and

reliability to ensure that disenfranchisement does not occur

and to provide for greater integrity in post-election audit

procedures.

My office has ordered our 53 county boards of elections

that utilize DREs as their primary voting system to provide

the Ohio Secretary of State's office with the costs of

impLementing the backup paper ballot directive, and once we

have obtained these numbers, I will be happy to share them

with you. I can tell you, initially, the costs for even the

largest counties were in the low 5 figures, and for. most,

they were in the low 4 figures. From initial figures

provided, it appears that your proposal would be a cost

effective means to ensure election confidence, especially

since the November 2008 election will be the first

presidential election where DRE use will be widespread.

I appreciate the opportunity to communicate my support for

H.R 5803. Restoring and ensuring confidence in Ohio elections

is an essential goal of my administration. Our state has made

great strides in this respect, and we will continue to work

toward this end, especially for November's election, when

Ohio again is likely to be a pivotal state in the

presidential contest. H.R 5803 would provide Ohio, along with

many other states, a simple but important tool to ensure

election integrity and increase national electoral

confidence. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide

you with additional information or support.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Brunner,

Ohio Secretary of State.

I now would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) whose Secretary of State has been a witness in our committee and who has been a leader in election law reforms, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing Mr. Langevin, I would note that the Secretary of State Associations helped us draft this bill, but they were not going to have a meeting to actually take a vote on support in time for today. But they did assist in the drafting.

I would now recognize our colleague from Rhode Island, Congressman Langevin, who is a former Secretary of State himself, for 2 minutes on the bill.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Several.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on either side.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to recognize a valued member of our committee, Congresswoman Susan Davis, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who has worked so diligently on election matters in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

The last speaker that we were expecting has not shown, so if the gentleman is prepared to close and yield back, I will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we approve this very modest measure. As has been noted by the White House in their statement today, there is $1 billion that has been appropriated and remains unspent by States to prepare and conduct the 2008 elections. Most of those funds are allocated to the purchase of DREs that have been so troublesome, and this authorization would allow for a very modest portion of a maximum of $75 million of that appropriated funds to be used for backup paper ballots.

In my own county of Santa Clara, we ran out of ballots this election year, and people were scrambling. That was before the massive budget cuts that the county is facing. And I will just say this. Having been on the board of supervisors for longer than I have been in the United States House of Representatives, I understand how tough it is to balance those budgets. At local government, there is no deficit spending. What you have got is what you can spend. So county boards of supervisors all over the country are trying to figure out how to run an election with local funds and also keep the county hospital open and also fund the sheriff's department and also keep the parks open and keep the streets paved.

I fear that backup paper ballots in November are not going to compete with some of the more pressing needs and so this bill is enormously important. We can pass it today and have a more orderly election so that no American is denied their right to vote. I urge Members to put partisanship aside, to support this very modest measure that is supported by election officials all over the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 5803, which unfortunately creates a system of IOUs for States with no guarantee of being paid back with Federal money.

Notwithstanding my concerns about even the necessity of this bill and the majority's desire to federalize traditionally local responsibility of administering elections, as outlined in the Constitution, it's difficult to understand how we are going to pay States back this year for promises we are making in this bill when Democrat congressional leaders have indicated that they will not complete work on appropriation bills this year. A leader on the House Appropriations Committee was quoted as describing the appropriations process as ``dead'' and later clarified the chances of appropriations this year are ``slight.''

Additionally, the majority leader in the other body was recently described in an article called ``No Lame Duck Session'' as wanting ``to punt most of the 12 annual appropriation bills to the 111th Congress.'' He said, ``I would hope that before we would leave here this year, we would do a continuing resolution . . . ''

So the question I have is where are we going to get this money to pay back the States for a grant program in this bill? Are we just demonstrating once again that Washington is broken by wasting more time when we could focus on finding solutions to our Nation's pressing problems, like the energy crisis?

Prioritizing concerns continues to be a problem that plagues Congress. Today we are debating a bill asking State and local election jurisdictions to do something that many already do and to pay for something that many already pay for. According to a recent survey of elected officials, if we are trying to improve election administration for the November, 2008, election, why not focus on a problem that strikes at the heart of our democracy, making sure that the votes of our brave men and women protecting our country abroad are counted? I encourage my colleagues to focus on efforts that will provide the greatest impact, including the Military Voting Protection Act, also called the MVP Act, which has 42 cosponsors. The MVP Act helps ensure that military personnel are not left out of the election process while serving our country overseas by improving delivery methods so the votes are counted. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House Administration Committee towards addressing these and other issues internal to the strength of our Nation's elections.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the dean of the Ohio delegation, Mr. Regula.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the former Secretary of State of Michigan and my good friend, Mrs. Candice Miller.

Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire about how many more speakers are on the other side.

I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we are putting forward legislation that we will not even be able to fund. Appropriations said they will not meet, they will not pass, so we are telling States that this is an IOU.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, over $3 billion in Federal grants have been made available to States in 2008 in previous years to assist with election systems and administration which can include the purchase of authorized backup paper ballots. Of this amount, over $1 billion remains unspent, but we are asking the Federal Government to spend more.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about paper ballots. Survey after survey of Secretaries of States have shown that they have backup operations prepared for their States and their ballots. Even in our own committee, Mr. Speaker, you have pointed out time and time again that paper ballots are where mistakes are made when they are hand counted. Paper ballots are where things become manipulated. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, actually for 8 years I had the distinct honor and privilege really to serve as Michigan's Secretary of State. And in that role, a principal responsibility of mine was to serve as the State's chief elections officer. And I was blessed with an absolutely outstanding professional staff that helped to ensure that not only were our elections open, free and fair, but also that everyone in Michigan who was eligible and properly registered to vote had an opportunity to vote and that every one of those votes was counted.

After the 2000 election, naturally, the Ford-Carter Commission on National Election Reform cited Michigan's Qualified Voter File, a file that we built in Michigan, as a national model,

a attribute to Michigan's well-run elections. That report also cited the need for each State to establish a uniform voting system, a process that we had already been studying in Michigan. We were prepared with a uniform voting plan as soon as this Congress passed the HAVA Act, the Help America Vote Act.

And as a result, today Michigan has an optical scan uniform voting system, and we have experienced little or no problems with that system. And this was due to careful, long-term planning and professional work by our State elections bureau working in partnership with local election clerks.

And, Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering today will provide Federal grants for States to do contingency planning for this year's election. Well, here is our Michigan contingency plan, a plan that I believe is also in place right now by the huge overwhelming majority of the States in our Nation. We require that optical scan ballots be printed for 100 percent of all registered voters. If an optical scan precinct tabulator malfunctions on Election Day, the clerks allow voters to continue, and then they have voters deposit their ballots in the auxiliary bin of the ballot box which they can count later. Plan complete, at no cost to the Federal taxpayers. And as I understand it, this bill actually has a cost associated with it of I believe $75 million.

The proponents of this bill note that they have had some support of the National Council of State Legislatures as well as the National Association of County Officials. And they cite that as good reasons to support this legislation. Well, I would respectfully point out that these officials have no responsibility in the actual administering of elections. And I would note that the National Association of Secretaries of State, of which I was proud to be a member, and now I'm an honorary member, and also the NASS-ED, which is the association of State elections directors, neither of those two national election associations are up here on Capitol Hill advocating for this legislation.

And these are the two groups, as I say, which are totally made up of those who are responsible for the administration of elections in our Nation, and those who also do the contingency planning. If those responsible, Mr. Speaker, for planning and administering elections are not asking for this bill, I would ask why is it being offered?

I would urge my colleagues to defeat this needless bill and allow our elections officials across our Nation to continue their diligent work in preparing for this fall's election.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5803, legislation that would establish a voluntary program so election officials can offer voters a backup paper ballot in the event of an emergency. Now when I served as the Secretary of State for the State of Rhode Island, I reformed our State's voting machines and election processes to make them more accurate and accountable. From that experience, I know that ensuring confidence in our voting system is the cornerstone of our democracy.

As the 2008 election promises to bring out record numbers of voters to the polls, H.R. 5803 will boost confidence among the electorate by ensuring that voters are not turned away from the polling places, do not wait in long lines and do not incorrectly receive provisional ballots because of malfunctioning voting systems. H.R. 5803 authorizes $75 million to establish a voluntary, and I repeat voluntary, opt-in grant programs for State and local governments that wish to provide backup paper ballots in the coming November elections.

Although many States already require emergency paper ballots, the 2008 Presidential primaries revealed that many jurisdictions do not have the resources to provide backup ballots. For example, during Pennsylvania's 2008 Presidential primary, a Philadelphia precinct experienced failures with both of its electronic voting machines causing voters to wait in long lines or even leave without voting at all because of a lack of emergency paper ballots. Now we can't allow that to happen. H.R. 5803 provides the necessary resources for States to prepare for potential problems so that voters are not turned away from the polls because the voting system malfunctions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Counties support H.R. 5803 because it is meaningful and respectful of State authority in election administration matters. H.R. 5803 has been crafted to allow jurisdictions to determine when and how the backup ballots are distributed. The legislation is not a mandate, and it's purely a voluntary option for jurisdictions to consider.

In closing, I would like to thank the Elections Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today in the first place. And I would also like to thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who has raised awareness about the importance of voting machine accuracy and accountability. I have been proud to work with him on a number of efforts, and I look forward to our continued cooperation.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 5803 to ensure that we maintain public confidence in our voting procedures as we approach this coming election season.

I thank my colleague for yielding and giving me this time and commend her for her efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5803.

I think we saw the greatest participation ever seen in our primaries. I know that in Texas we had over 4 million voters in the March 4 primary.

On November 4 it's predicted that we will have record turnouts. And the people who will be coming on November 4 will be voting not only for President but in dozens of races for Senator, Representative and State positions. We should rejoice in the civic involvement, and we should ensure that things run as smoothly as possible. With H.R. 5803 the Federal Government would fulfill our role by supporting the States, the counties and the municipalities who run our elections, the hardworking men and women who volunteer to ensure that democracy not only survives but can continue to flourish in this country.

We created the Election Assistance Commission in 2002 for this very purpose. By providing grants to the election officials who require this assistance, H.R. 5803 will ensure that no citizen is turned away because his voting machine has broken down. By supporting these backup paper ballots, we are supporting the right of every citizen to vote and to have his or her vote counted. We can help to ensure that no citizen is asked to choose between voting and getting to work on time. With H.R. 5803, we can say we accomplished that goal, that no citizen should be forced to choose between voting or feeding their children.

It is right and proper, too, that H.R. 5803 empowers the State and local officials rather than impeding them. No State is required to participate, but every State can do so if they so choose. We cannot predict every problem that may arise, but we can be sure that problems there will be. By putting money into the hands of the officials on the scene, we give the State and local governments the ability to react to problems as they arise. We empower them to provide the dependable low- tech paper ballots that are needed, that we know will work and that everyone can trust. That is why H.R. 5803 has the support of State officials and voting rights groups alike throughout this country. And it is why I support it and why I hope that we will have the support of every Member of this House.