Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 6625 and commend Chairman Brady for introducing this important piece of legislation, the Veterans Voting Support Act of which I am an original cosponsor.

This legislation is significant to me because the issue of registering veterans to vote was born out of concern by one of my constituents, Steve Preminger. Steve went to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing home in Menlo Park, CA to register veterans. Almost immediately, VA officials threw him out. The VA has since explained that its decision to evict Preminger was part of a policy that bars outside groups from registering voters who live

in VA nursing homes, hospitals, and transitional housing for homeless veterans. For the past four years Mr. Preminger has litigated to ensure that all veterans living on VA property have access to voter registration

I applaud the VA for its recent change in policy allowing state and local election officials and non-partisan groups to access VA facilities to assist officials in registering veteran voters who are receiving care. But issuing a new policy is not enough and I question the agencies commitment to it. Last Friday, September 12, 2008, the San Francisco VA prohibited Veterans for Peace (``VFP''), a 501(c)(3), from registering voters, even though the ``directive'' instructs local officials to ``facilitate'' nonpartisan groups who wish to register voters.

As Paul Sullivan of Veterans for Common Sense stated in his testimony yesterday before the Senate Committee on Rules, ``The VA has changed their policy on veteran voting rights three times in the past five months. VA can easily reverse course again and issue yet another policy banning voting assistance for veterans living in VA facilities.''

I support this legislation, but am concerned that the protection for ``nonpartisan'' activities may create the inference that a government agency can regulate private ``partisan'' conversations just because they are on federal property, even though there is no apparent government sponsorship.

Over 5.3 million veterans (23.2 percent of all veterans) were not registered to vote in 2006. Veterans have dedicated their lives to protecting our country and deserve every commitment from the government to offer them the opportunity to participate in the political process. With November rapidly approaching it is imperative that we act both swiftly and vigilantly in passing H.R. 6625.

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

I would like to thank not only Congressman Daniel E. Lungren for cosponsoring this bill with me, but also note the important support of Dean Larry Kramer, the dean of the Stanford Law School, whose original idea this was, and we two California Members took it up. I think that our country will be enriched by the enactment of this measure.

It has been mentioned, and we all know, the top law graduates of the top law schools in the country are recruited to serve as clerks in the judicial branch, and as a consequence of that experience, those top legal minds then go on to fabulous careers, understanding the law from the point of view of the judiciary. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but we also want to have top legal minds that relish and appreciate the law from the point of view of the legislative branch, and that is really the grit and the intent of this measure.

As has been mentioned I'm sure, the program created by the bill will have clerks chosen from a pool of exceptional law school graduates who have demonstrated commitment to public service. No fewer than six clerks will be chosen for each Chamber. The clerks will be divided equally among the parties, and they will receive the same pay and equivalent benefits as first-year law clerks in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

As the dean of Stanford Law School, Larry Kramer, said, ``This bill will serve an important role by educating young lawyers and future leaders of the profession about the legislative process. It will be enormously beneficial for both the profession and the public if some of the Nation's brightest young lawyers begin their careers in the legislature and so develop and can convey to the public an appreciation of Congress and the legislative process equal to that lawyers have shown for courts and the judicial process.''

I would like to mention that we were not able to include the Congressional Research Service in the legislation at this time. However, if there is a bipartisan effort to achieve that in the future, I would welcome that collaboration and understand we may yet have the opportunity to do that.

So in furtherance of this bill, I would hope that our colleagues would support it. I would again like to thank my colleague, the former Attorney General from California, Dan Lungren, for his cosponsorship.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would just note that there's always room for good lawyers, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren). And indeed, this is not a measure that does harm or damage to the judiciary or to the executive branch, but it really is to elevate article I. Sometimes we see our colleagues with little buttons that say ``article I'' on them, and we want to make sure that the important role of the legislative branch is understood by these top legal graduates who will go on to careers in the judiciary, in public service, in law schools and the like.

I want to make clear not only that this has bipartisan support, but that it will be administered in a totally bipartisan way. The name, ``The Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program,'' really selects somebody who was an honored ancestor of the legislative process, not a contemporary, but someone we can look back on with esteem.

The Clerks will be selected by a selection committee that will consist of the committee of Rules and Administration of the Senate, and the Committee on House Administration of the House. And as was mentioned by my colleague and myself, six clerks will be evenly divided between the two parties.

Just by way of example, and without mentioning names, sometimes the courts do not necessarily understand how we do business here. And I'll give three examples recently mentioned to me by judicial officers.

Colloquies on the floor of the House. We know when we stand up to do a colloquy it is to set something in the Record for a purpose. It is by agreement, but it has a meaning that is meant to stand as the legislation moves forward. Courts don't always understand the meaning of a colloquy. And I think if we had some of these excellent law students here who helped to write a colloquy and were on the floor as it was being delivered, they would understand and be able to impart to the judicial branch the importance of a colloquy.

Example number two, committee reports. There are things that committees agree on completely but are not actually part of a bill. And they don't need to be part of a bill because they can be implied by the legislation. A committee report doesn't have the force of law, but it should be enormously persuasive to a court looking for the meaning of legislation if the parties--sometimes fractious parties--can agree to language in a committee report, that means something. And I think if we had some of these excellent law students here helping in the committee process to understand how that comes about and the import that it has, it will help them to tell a judge--or if they are a judge later--what that means and how to interpret the law.

And legislative findings, the role of legislative findings; you know, obviously they're precursors to the language itself.

These are just three small examples of how the Congress and its will is not always upheld by the courts, not through any chicanery, not through any deviousness, but just a lack of full appreciation for how the legislative process works.

And so I think this bipartisan measure is a step forward in seeing that that trend in American law interpretation does change, both in the courts, and also in the teaching of law in the Nation's top law schools.

So while this may seem not an earth-shattering measure in some ways, it will have import long after the Members here are retired and reading about the Congress in the paper. What we do here with this clerkship bill will improve the law in America. And therefore, I hope, as Mr. Lungren does, that we will have a unanimous vote.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, I have substantial disagreements with Justice Scalia and his interpretation of the Constitution.

You thought that might be the case. But the point I was making on colloquies and committee reports is this: Justice Scalia says--and I think properly--that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not to make it up themselves. And so to the extent that there is unintended ambiguity in a law that is written by the Congress where the committee report or colloquy can give the court some insight into what the intentions were on the part of the legislative body, then that is a helpful thing. And understanding how that develops would be enormously useful.

There are times, as the gentleman knows, where ambiguity is the oil that makes the legislative process work. I remember Wilbur Mills suggesting there could not be an agreement on what Medicare would cover, that it would cover a ``spell or illness.'' And maybe that was necessary in 1965, but it was not the kind of ambiguity that could have been resolved through a colloquy.

And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I was expecting one person here to be a speaker, that person has not shown up. So maybe I will just make a few additional comments in the hopes that their elevator can get to the second floor. And that would be that, in addition to the Dean of the Stanford law school we were advised that the progress of this bill is being watched by law professors and deans throughout the United States who have really resolved that this is going to be a very positive thing for the development of American law.

I would just note also, as Mr. Lungren has pointed out, we do these things sometimes very quickly. I think the addition of six top law students in each body--as the ranking member of the full committee has suggested, as time goes on maybe we will find that it works so well it should be expanded--I certainly do think, however, it is appropriate to start at this level, do an assessment. And I think our committee, the Administration Committee, will be in an ideal position to do an assessment.

But no doubt, if we have some of the smartest young lawyers in the United States here in this institution, they will not only bring the knowledge of this institution out to the world after they become top lawyers, but they will also help us become even more excellent legislators. So I think that this is a benefit that really there is no down side to it. So it has really been a pleasure to work with the bipartisan cosponsors of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said really all I have to say on the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program of 2008. As mentioned, this will be a tremendous improvement to the development of American law, and I have given the support that has been expressed for the measure here today on the floor. I am hopeful that we will have a unanimous vote for this important measure.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Brady, for his tremendous support on this and in every way, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Lungren. And I don't know if Mr. Brady has anything further to add.

If not, I would simply say please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6475.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5843.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Ms. Lee Sturtevant and wish her the very best upon her 85th birthday.

Over her years of service to the County of Santa Clara, Ms. Sturtevant has continually worked within the democratic process to help raise the standard of living for those who have the least.

Ms. Sturtevant has sought to get women involved in politics and to run for office. She successfully managed the 1974 campaign of Assemblywoman Leona Egeland, who was at that time the only woman serving in the Assembly. She continues to be a highly influential and informed leader within the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee and of DAWN, Democratic Activists for Women Now.

As a high school student, she was introduced to politics and its ability to benefit society by her mother, who took her to Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee meetings. And, as a young girl, Sturtevant once dined over lunch with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Although many vibrant and youthful people of her age are enjoying retirement and relaxation, Ms. Sturtevant continues to employ her skills and dedication as a policy advisor for the office of Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager. In 1981, Lee served as my Chief of Staff when I was first elected to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. She has also worked on the staffs of other prominent Santa Clara County area elected officials.

Her career also includes working as a teacher and librarian for the Cupertino School District in addition to serving on the San Jose Unified School District Board of Education.

I would like to thank Lee Sturtevant for her service to my office and to the community of the County of Santa Clara. Best wishes upon your 85th birthday and may you celebrate many more in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6633) to evaluate and extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation and to ensure the protection of Social Security beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 6633. This bill, negotiated by Members of both parties, will extend the basic pilot, otherwise known as the E-Verify program, for 5 years, while also ensuring that the Social Security Administration can continue to participate in the program without endangering its core mission of providing needed benefits to our seniors and the disabled. Without this bill, the authorization for the basic pilot program would expire this November.

H.R. 6633 also commissions two studies, which should help Congress evaluate the basic pilot program as it continues to work through the issues raised by the electronic employment eligibility verification systems. One of the studies seeks the causes, the remedies, and the effects of tentative non-confirmations of employment eligibility. Implicit in the concept of false negatives is the converse; false positives. We naturally contemplate that the GAO study will address the question of erroneous confirmations as well.

To understand the effectiveness of the basic pilot, we must not only know about U.S. workers falsely denied the authority to work, we must also know when it clears people who are not authorized to work.

This Congress has been very active on the issue of electronic employment verification. Several committees, including the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees, have held no less than five hearings on the subject. The Judiciary Committee alone held three hearings over the past year on electronic employment verification.

In those hearings, we have learned that because the Department of Homeland Security relies on the Social Security Administration's databases and staff to query work authorization and fix erroneous records, the basic pilot program places significant burdens on the Social Security Administration. We don't want to jeopardize SSA's ability to carry out its core mission, which is to provide benefits to America's senior citizens and disabled Americans.

We confirmed that electronic employment verification systems pose complicated issues; issues with serious consequences for American workers who could lose their jobs and even their right to work if employment verification isn't done right.

We heard testimony in April, 2007, from the Service Employees International Union, in which we learned that, and I quote, ``Unless database errors are cured, 24,000 of the 300,000 estimated workers in each congressional district would be erroneously denied eligibility to work by basic pilot.'' That is 24,000 Americans and legal workers in each of our districts who could be stripped of their right to work because the government can't design a proper verification system.

An independent evaluation of the basic pilot program commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security and conducted by Westat identified numerous issues with how the basic pilot program works. The Westat report documented abuse and misuse of basic pilot by employers. For example, 22 percent of employers who responded to Westat's survey recorded that they restricted work assignments to employees contesting tentative non-confirmations. It also noted significant privacy concerns in the program.

In short, we have learned that there is much work still to be done and there are many questions left to be answered. Based on these findings, I do not believe that we can permanently reauthorize the basic pilot program or make it mandatory at this time. But as we continue to work comprehensively to reform our immigration system, we certainly should allow the basic pilot to continue as a voluntary program.

I would like to especially thank my colleagues, Mike McNulty from New York; Lamar Smith from Texas; and Sam Johnson from Texas, for their tremendous efforts in working to negotiate this consensus bill to bring it to the floor today, as well as the author, Congresswoman Giffords, and the principal Republican cosponsor, Congressman Calvert, whose leadership is truly remarkable.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to reform our Nation's immigration laws and to improve the electronic employment verification process. We certainly hope that our efforts will be bipartisan. If all goes well to refine and improve this system going forward, it will not take the 5 years that is provided for in this act. But certainly none of us wants the current system to go away while we continue to work to improve and get an even better system.

I think that this bipartisan bill is necessary to pass. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mike McNulty has served our country well for many years. He will be retiring at the end of this Congress. One of the things he has stuck up for most was disabled workers who need their Social Security benefits. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, he has worked very hard on this issue.

I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for 2 minutes, a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, a freshman leader in this area of the bill with Mr. Johnson, Congresswoman Giffords from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to recognize Congressman Moore from the heartland of the country, Kansas, for 2 minutes.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are lies, darn lies and statistics. Isn't that the joke?

There have been a lot of figures thrown out here today. I think it is important to note that, according to the GAO, of the 7 million employers that are in the United States, less than 1 percent actually use E-Verify.

And the GAO also tells us, based on their analysis, that the SSA records contain errors about 4.1 percent of the time; 4.1 percent over 163 million workers is a lot of folks. So we have our work cut out for us.

I will note that there are 11 different bills that have been introduced by Members of this House with different ways and ideas on how to improve the employment verification system. We need to do an improvement of this system. I hope that that will be a bipartisan effort. But we are not going to get that done between now and November. And so it is important that we extend the existing program so that at least we have this in place.

I would note that Mr. Camarota and the Center for Immigration Studies is not the USCIS. That is sort of a think tank that wants to restrict immigration. It is an advocacy group.

But the real point is that you can track immigration, both legal and unauthorized, into the United States based on the exchange rate between the peso and the dollar. And as our economy weakens, you see less individuals either coming or staying. That doesn't mean that we don't need to get this system improved and that we don't need to have a comprehensive reform of our immigration laws and system, because what we have now is not working as well as it should be in the interests of our wonderful America.

I am happy to support this extension at this time. I have appreciated working with the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith, in getting this bipartisan consensus. I hope that we can get this through the Senate promptly.

And as I said in my opening statement, I have every expectation that the necessary improvements to the E-Verify system or the employment verification system will not take 5 years. Hopefully, that will be done well before the 5 years has expired, and that we will be pleased with the necessary improvement that we will craft together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill underscores the United States' position as the world leader in the fight against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

In addition to all that the bill does to fight the three diseases on a global level, the bill finally does away with an outdated and unnecessary provision in immigration law that prevents persons with HIV from visiting or immigrating to the United States.

This provision, in place for over 20 years, has kept parents from children and sisters from brothers. It has slowed research and discourse by preventing many researchers and other experts in the field from entering the country. And it has significantly undermined our leadership in the fight against HIV.

The U.S. is one of only 12 countries in the world to have such harsh HIV-based restrictions on entry. The others include Sudan, Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Even China has recently overturned its ban.

This discriminatory policy has no basis in public health, and it should have been stricken long ago.

Our immigration laws have long prevented the admission of persons who have communicable diseases that HHS believes are of ``public health significance.'' In 1993, HHS sought to remove HIV from this list. But Congress, in a time of fear and ignorance about the disease, kept it in.

HIV is now the only medical condition permanently listed in the INA as a basis for inadmissibility. For any other disease, HHS retains the discretion to determine, with the wealth of medical and public health expertise at its disposal, whether that illness should be a bar to admission.

HHS does not believe that HIV should present such a bar. Neither do the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and other public health organizations. These experts agree that there is no medical or public health rationale for this policy.

The policy also keeps world-renowned experts, doctors, and researchers from participating in U.S. hosted efforts to combat the epidemic. Indeed, since 1993, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on U.S. soil.

It is time we end this discriminatory policy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3032) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to permit candidates for election for Federal office to designate an individual who will be authorized to disburse funds of the authorized campaign committees of the candidate in the event of the death of the candidate, as amended.

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. 3032.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 3032, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

This bill will allow Federal election candidates to designate someone to disburse their campaign funds in the event of their deaths. The Federal candidate would be able to designate this person by filing the appropriate form with the FEC and could also revoke or change the designee at that time.

H.R. 3032 will assure candidates for Federal office that the funds raised by their campaign committees will be distributed only in accordance with their express wishes after they are deceased.

H.R. 3032 is a commonsense fix to the Federal Election Campaign Act. It would provide clear direction to campaign treasurers who may be faced with a wide range of conflicting and confusing State laws.

I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have no additional speakers, I would just urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6296) to extend through 2013 the authority of the Federal Election Commission to impose civil money penalties on the basis of a schedule of penalties established and published by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous matter in the Record on H.R. 6296.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 6296, which will extend the Federal Election Commission's administrative fines programs through 2013.

The administrative fines program permits the FEC to impose civil fines on political committees that file late or not at all. The fines program allows the FEC to quickly resolve minor violations of the act and concentrate its resources on more complex enforcement matters. The fines program also assures political and candidate committees that they can resolve minor errors by paying a fixed monetary penalty, avoiding a long and potentially complicated enforcement process.

There has been a significant decrease in the number of late and nonfiled reports since the start of this program. At the FEC the fines program also enjoys the unanimous bipartisan support of all of the commissioners. The fines program is due to expire at the end of this year without congressional intervention. The program should be extended to allow the agency to concentrate on more complex issues once it has a full slate of members.

H.R. 6296 will amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to extend the fines program until December 13, 2013. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I concur this bill is a sensible one. It's bipartisan. It focuses the commission on the things that are important and complicated, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

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 ask unanimous consent that if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.

Kucinich) offers a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House at any time on the legislative day of July 15, 2008--

(1) the previous question shall be considered as ordered thereon without intervening motion except one motion to refer and one motion to table (which shall have precedence in the order stated); and

(2) the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on such a vote on any such motion as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Judge Eugene Hyman and the California State Superior Court for Santa Clara County for receiving the 2008 United Nations Public Service Award today in New York City.

Established in 2003, the United Nations Public Service Award is regarded as the most prestigious international recognition of excellence in public service. In an annual competition, the United Nations presents their U.N. Public Service Awards, rewarding creative achievements and contributions of public service institutions that lead to more effective and responsive public administrations in countries worldwide.

This year's ceremony is particularly special, not only for the innovative achievements of Judge Hyman, but because Judge Hyman is the first American to receive the United Nations Public Service Award. The project he helped initiate--the Juvenile Delinquency Domestic Violence and Family Violence Court--is being honored in the ``Improving transparency, accountability and responsiveness in the public service'' category.

Judge Eugene Hyman's extensive involvement in the local community shows that he is truly deserving of this honor. As a former police officer and trial lawyer, Judge Hyman was appointed to the Santa Clara County Municipal Court in 1990 and the Superior Court for Santa Clara County in 1997. In 1999, Judge Hyman created the Santa Clara County Juvenile Delinquency Domestic Violence and Family Violence Court.

Judge Hyman's Juvenile Violence Court was the very first of its kind in the United States. With Judge Hyman's dedication and innovation, the Juvenile Violence Court has had a dramatic impact on reducing the number of violent young offenders being re-arrested for violent crimes. This unique system is one that can be easily implemented across the country because all that is required is knowledge of the program and a commitment to follow-through.

I am proud to have this wonderful program and person in my community. I offer my congratulations to Judge Hyman and the Santa Clara County Superior Court for this prestigious award.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I appreciate that some improvements have made been made to title I of the bill, but even these improvements are undercut by the scheme in title II that means there will be no accountability and perhaps no adherence to the provisions of title I.

I cannot support the legislation's deeply flawed provisions relating to the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies. These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp. The review provided in this bill is an empty formality that will lead to a preordained conclusion, dismissing all cases with no examination on their merits.

Under this bill, the courts are not allowed to ask whether the conduct of the corporations who assisted was in fact legal. They may only note that the administration says that it was legal. In other words, the decision on the ultimate question of legality, a decision the Constitution dedicates to the judiciary, will instead be made by the executive branch with the judiciary acting as a rubber stamp. It turns the process of judicial review into a joke and denigrates this supposedly independent and coequal branch of government.

It's all the more aggravating because immunity already exists in the law under 18 U.S.C., section 2511. It provides that telecommunications companies are immune from suit if the company has been provided with a court order or a certification by the Attorney General, in writing, that the order has been obtained or is unnecessary.

I cannot support this.

(Effective: November 25, 2002)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3192.

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

I will note that I have had a chance to discuss this resolution with Congressman Wolf. At the conclusion of our discussion, we will refer this resolution to the House Administration Committee where we will do the appropriate follow-up, and I personally plan to keep in touch with the author of the resolution so that the concerns that he has are fully addressed.

I will just note that when the new majority was elected to the House and I was then appointed to the House Administration Committee, one of the first things I did was to ask to be briefed on our cyber security situation in the House. And I did receive that report. Certainly some things had been done. But more, in my judgment, needed to be done, and we have followed through on that.

I will say that both the Speaker and Leader Boehner have met with the House computer security officials and were told that the sophisticated technology that we do have in place is going to prevent and detect intrusions, but it depends on Members doing what they need to do to work within our security environment.

We have security system programs in place that safeguard against unauthorized system access and disclosure of data, system controls that are in place to identify, verify trace authorized and unauthorized user activity, and to prevent unauthorized modification or destruction of House data.

Chairman Brady has ordered an immediate implementation of additional protections. He's also directed House personnel to work with the FBI and other security agencies to ensure that necessary steps are taken to safeguard House systems. These improvements will help ensure that House network and data remains protected from harm.

In addition to these efforts, the House has instituted a working- smarter series, and we have had actually briefings for staff in the congressional offices asking those staff in Member offices to come in and become aware of the cyber security steps that they need to take in each Member's office. I don't know that every Member has had full staff participation in that, and in discussing this with Mr. Wolf, it would be my intention, perhaps working with Mr. Langevin who is chairing the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cyber Security, to ask the Democratic caucus and the Republican conference to meet and to highlight this issue so Members will know.

I mean, some Members know all about it, and apparently some Members didn't know enough about it; and I'll take that admission very seriously.

What more do we need to do? Well, we have sophisticated firewalls in place today that monitor all incoming network traffic. We have an intrusion-detection system, and we have multiple anti-virus and spyware programs. That's important because you want redundancy and overlap. You don't want to rely on just one system. We also have--you may have seen in some of the hallways--teams monitoring wireless systems. It's a kind of antenna they're waving around. They're trying to detect unauthorized wireless setups that are a potential problem for our security.

What further can we do?

Well, we have tried to insist that Members use more vigorous passport protection schemes. And one of the things we're looking at is instead of asking Members, forcing Members to do that. Now we get pushback when Members are told what to do in their individual offices, but I think that's one of the things that we need to talk about.

Another thing we're looking at, and this was an issue in the intrusion mentioned a minute ago, is whether we're updating our virus software and whether the patches to this software have been uploaded. And Members don't do it. A lot of times Members just neglect to do it. If you don't put the patches in, you're just bare. So we're thinking about maybe centralizing that function. Again, some Members may not like that, but you've got it one way or the other. I mean, you can't be concerned about intrusion if we don't take the steps necessary to actually protect ourselves.

We also are looking at additional encryption efforts, enhancing our real-time monitoring by the security office, and potentially implementing a digital rights management scheme.

Now, I just want to talk a little bit about Member responsibility.

If Members are going to access Web sites in China, you're engaging in risky behavior, and it may be necessary for some Members who are monitoring human rights to do that. I accept that. But it is not a good idea to visit a Web site in China with the computer that's networked with all of your sensitive data on board because if you do, you're going to get malware, and you are

going to lose your data to whoever has put that malware on the site.

So I would strongly suggest, and this is a teachable moment, that if Members feel a need to monitor Web sites in China and other countries, that they get a laptop, get an air card, don't put any other sensitive data on it and monitor to your heart's content, but don't leave yourself vulnerable to your data being removed.

No doubt there are root kits, there are bot nets that are going to be infecting your computer and potentially even turning them into zombie computers. Additional things that we want to look at is data leakage protection and some security assessments which is actually going underway right now.

Just a word on cyber security generally, which Mr. Wolf has mentioned. In the 108th Congress, I had one of the best experiences in my congressional career of serving with Mac Thornberry who chaired the Cyber Security Subcommittee. I was the ranking member, and we worked really hard that Congress together. I think it was the only subcommittee, the end of the Congress, we didn't have majority report and a minority report. We had one report that reflected both of our views, and the view was that the Federal Government was way behind in what we needed to do on cyber security.

I remain a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I serve under Mr. Langevin's chairmanship on the committee with cyber security jurisdiction. We have had many, many public hearings, in addition to classified briefings, on the real deficiencies in our cyber security environment in the Federal Government, and I will tell you, I am frustrated to this very moment that so little has been done to keep us safer. Frankly, the House of Representatives has much more robust cyber security than the Department of Homeland Security. That's kind of a chilling thought, but unfortunately, it is true.

So, at this point, I recognize the gentleman's concern. I certainly plan on working with you, and I also want to make sure that each and every Member of this House understands the environment, what their responsibilities are, what their staffs' responsibilities are, understand what we've done as an institution, and what the tradeoffs are going forward in terms of even more vigorous protection.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over cyber security on the House Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Langevin, 5 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, just a couple of comments.

In terms of protecting ourselves, I can't emphasize enough, it is important for all of us to take steps to secure ourselves.

I had an opportunity to take a look. We keep track of this, the intrusions. I took April by example. The origin of the intrusion in April, the country that originated the largest number of intrusions into the House, the United States of America.

And China wasn't second. So yes, there are intrusions coming from China, from Russia, from European countries, from our own country, and we'd better take precautions to protect our data.

You can't protect a BlackBerry. If you take your BlackBerry overseas--I just thought everyone knew this--and download something, you are opening yourselves up to a vulnerability. Now, we can take a snapshot of where your BlackBerry is before you go and see if it's been compromised while you're gone, but if you're not secure in your activities, you're not secure in your activities.

And so I take very seriously what you're saying, which is that not every Member understands this. We have to change that, and I'm going to be active in playing my part to change that.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, let me just note that obviously we don't want sensitive information from the government to be in the hands where it can be compromised. We're not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that if Members use a computer in their office that's networked to visit a Web site in China, you can bet--you're asking for some malware to be put on your computer, and it's going to take everything that is accessible to the other computers in your network. And so you shouldn't do that.

When I travel with my laptop, and I sometimes do, you know, I never hook that laptop into the network of the House. In fact, it's against the rules to do so. And I don't do it because that would compromise the computer network. And so I would just note that the Homeland Security Committee has been very vigorous over the past 5 or 6 years that I'm aware of, I mean, we don't need a wake-up call, we've been yelling ``fire'' for half a decade and we haven't really been heard by those who have responsibility in the administration to act. However, we are moving forward in terms of systems in the House.

What I'm hearing from you, Mr. Wolf, and others, is that Members' level of information is quite variable on this, and we will take that seriously and do an effort of outreach on that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just note, the thrust of the gentleman's resolution has to do with the House, which is why I'm addressing the House computers. On the other hand, I've been concerned for a long time about cyber security in the Federal Government, in the DOD, in the Homeland Security Department, and frankly, in the private sector. And it is very spotty.

I just wanted to make a correction. I was briefed on the National Journal story. What happened on the nuclear power plant issue, it was not an attack. It was someone who was uploading some software onto a computer that he did not realize was networked, and it was inconsistent with other software. And actually it didn't work as designed because the control system shut it down.

Having said that, I have said in public--so I don't mind saying it here again today--that we have cyber security vulnerabilities, especially SCADA systems that were installed years ago before we were thinking about security. We have not paid enough attention to that either in the private sector or the public sector.

We have had FERC before the Committee on Homeland Security on several occasions urging them to force utilities to take the steps they need to preserve their networks, and they say two things: One, they don't have enough authority; and two, they don't want any more authority. So we've said this is an emergency situation, and we're not getting an emergency response attitude from the agencies with authority.

That is certainly something that other committees may want to look at. I'm just familiar with the efforts that I've been involved in, and they've been substantial, although, regrettably, not yet successful.

I would just like to stand up a little bit for our IT guys here in the House. It was our IT guys who discovered that your computers had been infected and notified you. And it's bad that they were infected, but it's part of the price you pay when you use a network computer to visit a potentially dangerous Web site. But they cleaned it up and responded promptly, and I think they deserve credit for letting that system work.

And just a final note on hits from China. That's not the same as an attack. And we keep track of the hits we have on our Web site. I mean, I get hits on my Web site from all over the world. I don't know why people in other countries come and visit my Web site, but it's not an attack, it's that they're looking at information that I have made publicly available.

What we are concerned about is attempted intrusions, and there are many of those in an astoundingly small successful effort. This is a constant battle. As the hackers become more sophisticated, our defenses need to become more sophisticated, and it never ends. That's why the effort to improve our patches in our security needs to happen every single day. There needs to be continuous monitoring of our systems. And it has to be all of us. This has to be a team. And every Member needs to take responsibility for this, along with the government itself.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will just say that I appreciate Mr. Ehlers' comments. As he has, I have introduced many Members to the concept of the Internet. Luckily that is no longer as necessary today as it was at one time. But some of our colleagues are real white-out- on-the-screen folks, and we need to bring them forward to the modern era.

But you are right. It is not just the Members. As I have mentioned to Mr. Wolf, I have made a commitment that I intend to follow through to ask the Republican Conference and also the Democratic Caucus to appear, not just by myself, but with top-level experts, to explain to Members their responsibilities and vulnerabilities for them when they travel abroad with mobile devices as well as their desktops in their office and how to preserve their network. And it's not just for the staff. I mean how many of us have made clear to the summer interns that if they have their laptop, and they're on a peer-to-peer network for whatever reason at home, and then they plug that laptop into the House network, I might add in violation of our rules, that they have introduced a vulnerability to our system? I don't know how many of us have given that little tutorial to these wonderful young people, but all of us should.

So I think this has been a helpful resolution, Mr. Wolf, because it has opened my eyes to the need to get Members to pay more attention. And I am going to play the most positive role I can to make sure that happens. But it is also going to take the cooperation of the Members themselves, because if this is not taken seriously, it won't happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I serve on three committees. I serve on the House Administration Committee. And I am here today in that capacity. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee where I have participated in I would say dozens of hearings on cybersecurity at least over the years. And I serve on the House Judiciary Committee where we have had, we have a little bit of jurisdiction, but we have actually worked pretty hard on our spyware issues and cybersecurity issues. We have paid attention to that.

I know that the Armed Services Committee has also paid attention to the whole issue of cyber warfare and cybersecurity. The Intelligence Committee isn't allowed to tell the rest of us mere mortals who don't serve what they have done, but I certainly hope they are taking this seriously and believe that they are.

I know that the gentleman has the right to close. I would just say that I would like to provide to Mr. Wolf the material from the many, many hearings that we have had. I think that he would value seeing what we have done so far. And also it would be valuable to him to see what remains to be done.

As I said earlier, we have been yelling, actually yelling about this. We have, as a Nation, tremendous vulnerabilities. And you can't always know. You can detect, unless it is spoofed, where an intrusion is coming from. You can't always say who has initiated that intrusion. But I will tell you, these intrusions and hackers are coming from all over the world with all kinds of intentions. And we all ought to take all of this very seriously. And we have failed, I think, to do all of the things that we could have done.

We have worked with the private sector. And at this point, the private sector is so wary of the Department of Homeland Security that there is a reluctance, actually, to work with the department because the information provided to the department will be so insecure. So we have a long ways to go.

I am glad that the gentleman has a strong interest in this. I wish that every Member had a strong interest in it. And maybe after we are through having these presentations to the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus, we will have a higher level of Member interest. And maybe instead of just our few voices in the wilderness here in the House, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Langevin, myself and Mr. Thornberry, who have been working on this for so many years, will have more voices, and maybe we will have a better response. I certainly hope so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.