Members of Congress should embrace a New Jersey Democratic congressman's plan that would ease many Americans' suspicions about the reliability of voting machines that do not provide a paper trail.

But if Regis Young, director of the Butler County Bureau of Elections, is correct, U.S. Rep. Russ Holt is dreaming if he thinks his plan can be implemented by the November general election — at least in Pennsylvania.

Young points out there would be too much involved in getting a new system in place, training the people who would be working with the equipment, and educating voters about the change to allow everything to be ready by Nov. 4, the date of this year's presidential election.

And, there is no indication that most members of Congress are ready to jump aboard the proposal. Young is pessimistic about quick approval, based on Congress' past inaction on a similar proposal.

Last year, Holt introduced legislation, still pending in the House, that would require routine random audits and a voter-verified paper trail for every vote cast. Holt's new legislation would offer $600 million to jurisdictions that convert to paper ballot systems or update voting machines before next fall's election, to provide paper trails. Young described that as a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount that would be needed to implement Holt's plan nationwide.

Voters in all or parts of 20 states now cast ballots electronically without paper verification. Butler's County's touch-screen voting machines are in that category.

Holt's new bill would not mandate states to change their voting systems, but it would provide a financial incentive for states to make the change.

"Give me the money and I'll do what they want," Young said, noting that the directive regarding the proposed change would have to come from the state.

Young said, in hindsight, Butler County should have opted for an optical-scan voting system, which would have required voters to fill in ovals, like on a standardized test. But the county decided against that system because of the annual cost; special paper for the system would have cost $100,000 for the county's 490 voting machines, Young said.

"Millions of Americans will be voting on unreliable electronic machines without paper ballots," Holt said, if there are no changes to what currently exists. "There will be questions that cannot be resolved, because there is no way of determining a voter's intention. All you have is an electronic memory."

VotePA, a voting rights group, enthusiastically supports Holt's proposal. "This is wonderful legislation, and it's very important for Pennsylvania," said Marybeth Kuznik, the group's executive director.

But even if this version of Holt's idea were to win quick approval, there must be enough time to make it happen without chaos — and without discouraging voters from going to the polls because of fear of the unknown.

Holt should continue building support for his idea, but any change should not come before 2009.

From the start, no states or localities should have opted for machines without the capability of providing a paper trail. But now that's the proverbial water under the bridge; the focus now should be on fixing that mistake.

In considering Holt's latest legislation, Congress should carefully weigh the issue and, this time, ensure that whatever is done is done with the long term in mind. At the same time, if Congress OKs Holt's idea, it should ensure that there is enough money allocated for the plan, not, as Young describes, a "drop in the bucket."

This nation should never again have to endure voting controversy like that that occurred in the 2000 presidential election. Holt's proposal is a path to that goal, even if there are some flaws that need to be corrected along the way.