Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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).

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on either side.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Several.

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

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.