[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2466-S2477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to send three amendments to the 
desk: A managers' amendment offered by myself and Senator McConnell, an 
amendment offered by Senator Wyden, which I will be offering on his 
behalf, and an amendment I will be offering on behalf of Mr. 
Rockefeller. I ask unanimous consent that those three amendments, along 
with an amendment that my colleague and friend from Kentucky will offer 
on behalf of Senator Hatch, be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendments Nos. 3104, 3105, and 3106 En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3104, 3105, and 3106 en bloc.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3104

 (Purpose: To modify the requirements for voters who register by mail, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (b) Voters Who Vote After the Polls Close.--Any individual 
     who votes in an election for Federal office for any reason, 
     including a Federal or State court order, after the time set 
     for closing the polls by a State law in effect 10 days before 
     the date of that election may only vote in that election by 
     casting a provisional ballot under subsection (a).
       On page 18, strike lines 17 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (B)(i) the individual has not previously voted in an 
     election for Federal office in the State; or
       (ii) the individual has not previously voted in such an 
     election in the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is located 
     in a State that does not have a computerized list that 
     complies with the requirements of section 103(a).
       On page 21, strike lines 19 through 23, and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Requirement for voters who register by mail.--
       (A) In general.--Each State and locality shall be required 
     to comply with the requirements of subsection (b) on and 
     after January 1, 2004, and shall be prepared to receive 
     registration materials submitted by individuals described in 
     subparagraph (B) on and after the date described in such 
     subparagraph.
       (B) Applicability with respect to individuals.--The 
     provisions of section (b) shall apply to any individual who 
     registers to vote on or after January 1, 2003.
       On page 22, strike line 17, and insert the following:

     brought under this Act against such State or locality on the 
     basis
       On page 22, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. MINIMUM STANDARDS.

       The requirements established by this title are minimum 
     requirements and nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     prevent a State from establishing election technology and 
     administration requirements, that are more strict than the 
     requirements established under this title, so long as such 
     State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal 
     requirements under this title or any law described in section 
     402.
       On page 25, strike line 20, and insert the following:

     existing Federal laws, as such laws relate to the provisions 
     of this Act, including the following:
       On page 27, strike line 11, and insert the following:
       (c) Safe Harbor.--No action may be brought under this Act

[[Page S2467]]

       On page 33, strike line 12, and insert the following:

     the following laws, as such laws relate to the provisions of 
     this Act:
       On page 34, strike line 23, and insert the following:
       (d) Safe Harbor.--No action may be brought under this Act
       On page 44, strike line 1, and insert the following:
       (d) Safe Harbor.--No action may be brought under this Act
       On page 53, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (1) Study of first time voters who register by mail.--
       (A) Study.--
       (i) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study of 
     the impact of section 103(b) on voters who register by mail.
       (ii) Specific issues studied.--The study conducted under 
     clause (i) shall include--

       (I) an examination of the impact of section 103(b) on first 
     time mail registrant voters who vote in person, including the 
     impact of such section on voter registration;
       (II) an examination of the impact of such section on the 
     accuracy of voter rolls, including preventing ineligible 
     names from being placed on voter rolls and ensuring that all 
     eligible names are placed on voter rolls; and
       (III) an analysis of the impact of such section on existing 
     State practices, such as the use of signature verification or 
     attestation procedures to verify the identity of voters in 
     elections for Federal office, and an analysis of other 
     changes that may be made to improve the voter registration 
     process, such as verification or additional information on 
     the registration card.

       (B) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
     which section 103(b)(2)(A) takes effect, the Commission shall 
     submit a report to the President and Congress on the study 
     conducted under subparagraph (A)(i) together with such 
     recommendations for administrative and legislative action as 
     the Commission determines is appropriate.
       On page 68, strike lines 19 and 20, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Except as specifically provided in section 
     103(b) of this Act with regard to the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), nothing 
     in this Act may be construed to authorize
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3105

 (Purpose: To modify the requirements for individuals who register to 
                             vote by mail)

       On page 19, strike lines 20 through 24, and insert the 
     following:
       (B) Fail-safe voting.--
       (i) In person.--An individual who desires to vote in 
     person, but who does not meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under 
     section 102(a).
       (ii) By mail.--An individual who desires to vote by mail 
     but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) may cast such a ballot by mail and the ballot shall 
     be counted as a provisional ballot in accordance with section 
     102(a).
       On page 20, between lines 12 through 13, insert the 
     following:
       (B)(i) who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of the 
     National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) 
     and submits with such registration either--
       (I) a driver's license number; or
       (II) at least the last 4 digits of the individual's social 
     security number; and
       (ii) with respect to whom a State or local election 
     official certifies that the information submitted under 
     clause (i) matches an existing State identification record 
     bearing the same number, name and date of birth as provided 
     in such registration; or
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3106

  (Purpose: To meet the needs of both military and civilian overseas 
  voters by providing treatment more nearly equal to that of at-home 
                                voters)

       On page 68, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. STUDY AND REPORT ON PERMANENT REGISTRATION OF 
                   OVERSEAS VOTERS; DISTRIBUTION OF OVERSEAS 
                   VOTING INFORMATION BY A SINGLE STATE OFFICE; 
                   STUDY AND REPORT ON EXPANSION OF SINGLE STATE 
                   OFFICE DUTIES.

       (a) Study and Report on Permanent Registration of Overseas 
     Voters.--
       (1) Study.--The Election Administration Commission 
     established under section 301 (in this subsection referred to 
     as the ``Commission''), shall conduct a study on the 
     feasibility and advisability of providing for permanent 
     registration of overseas voters under section 104 of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1973ff-3), as amended by section 1606(b) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
     (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1279) and this title.
       (2) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the study conducted under paragraph (1) together 
     with such recommendations for legislative and administrative 
     action as the Commission determines appropriate.
       (b) Distribution of Overseas Voting Information by a Single 
     State Office.--Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as amended 
     by section 1606(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1278) 
     and the preceding provisions of this title, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Designation of Single State Office To Provide 
     Information on Registration and Absentee Ballot Procedures 
     for All Voters in the State.--Each State shall designate a 
     single office which shall be responsible for providing 
     information regarding voter registration procedures and 
     absentee ballot procedures to be used by absent uniformed 
     services voters and overseas voters with respect to elections 
     for Federal office (including procedures relating to the use 
     of the Federal write-in absentee ballot) to all absent 
     uniformed services voters and overseas voters who wish to 
     register to vote or vote in any jurisdiction in the State.''.
       (c) Study and Report on Expansion of Single State Office 
     Duties.--
       (1) Study.--The Election Administration Commission 
     established under section 301 (in this subsection referred to 
     as the ``Commission''), shall conduct a study on the 
     feasibility and advisability of making the State office 
     designated under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (as added by subsection (b)) 
     responsible for the acceptance of valid voter registration 
     applications, absentee ballot applications, and absentee 
     ballots (including Federal write-in absentee ballots) from 
     each absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter who 
     wishes to register to vote or vote in any jurisdiction in the 
     State.
       (2) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the study conducted under paragraph (1) together 
     with such recommendations for legislative and administrative 
     action as the Commission determines appropriate.

     SEC. ____. REPORT ON ABSENTEE BALLOTS TRANSMITTED AND 
                   RECEIVED AFTER GENERAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as amended 
     by the preceding provisions of this title, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Report on Number of Absentee Ballots Transmitted and 
     Received.--Not later than 120 days after the date of each 
     regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each 
     State and unit of local government that administered the 
     election shall (through the State, in the case of a unit of 
     local government) submit a report to the Election 
     Administration Commission (established under the Martin 
     Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 
     2002) on the number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent 
     uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the 
     election and the number of such ballots that were returned by 
     such voters and cast in the election, and shall make such 
     report available to the general public.''.
       (b) Development of Standardized Format for Reports.--The 
     Election Administration Commission shall develop a 
     standardized format for the reports submitted by States and 
     units of local government under section 102(d) of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (as added 
     by subsection (a)), and shall make the format available to 
     the States and units of local government submitting such 
     reports.

     SEC. ____. OTHER REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE PARTICIPATION OF 
                   OVERSEAS AND ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS.

       Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 
     Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as amended by the preceding 
     provisions of this title, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Registration Notification.--With respect to each 
     absent uniformed services voter and each overseas voter who 
     submits a voter registration application or an absentee 
     ballot request, if the State rejects the application or 
     request, the State shall provide the voter with the reasons 
     for the rejection.''.

     SEC. ____. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARD 
                   OATH FOR USE WITH OVERSEAS VOTING MATERIALS.

       (a) Study.--The Election Administration Commission 
     established under section 301 (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Commission''), shall conduct a study on the feasibility 
     and advisability of--
       (1) prescribing a standard oath for use with any document 
     under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq) affirming that a material 
     misstatement of fact in the completion of such a document may 
     constitute grounds for a conviction for perjury; and
       (2) if the State requires an oath or affirmation to 
     accompany any document under such Act, to require the State 
     to use the standard oath described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the study conducted under subsection (a) together 
     with such recommendations for legislative and administrative 
     action as the Commission determines appropriate.

     SEC. ____. STUDY AND REPORT ON PROHIBITING NOTARIZATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Study.--The Election Administration Commission 
     established under section 301 (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Commission''), shall conduct a study on the feasibility 
     and advisability of prohibiting a State from refusing to 
     accept any voter registration application, absentee ballot 
     request, or absentee ballot submitted by an absent uniformed 
     services voter or overseas voter on the grounds that the 
     document involved is not notarized.
       (b) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the study conducted

[[Page S2468]]

     under subsection (a) together with such recommendations for 
     legislative and administrative action as the Commission 
     determines appropriate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments?
  The amendments (Nos. 3104, 3105, and 3106) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3107

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an amendment 
numbered 3107.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted''.)
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment to the 
bipartisan Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act of 2002. First let me 
thank my colleagues Senators Dodd, McConnell, Schumer, McCain, 
Torricelli, and Bond for all the hard work that they have put into this 
bill. I also want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Cantwell for 
cosponsoring this amendment, which will lay the groundwork for 
integrating new technology into the political process. Their expertise 
on technological issues made their input invaluable.
  Why is voter turnout so low? According to a recently released Census 
Bureau report, of the 19 million people who registered but did not vote 
in the 200 election, more than one in five reported that they did not 
vote because they were too busy. Despite the close nature of the 2000 
election, the 55 percent voter turnout rate was just barely better than 
the 1996 record low. Registration rates also dropped significantly 
between the 1996 and 200 Presidential elections. Can technological 
advances, like the Internet, increase participation in the electoral 
process by making voter registration easier or by simplifying the 
method of voting itself? As the elected representatives of the people, 
we should consider every option available that might help involve more 
of our country's citizens in America's democratic process. Federal, 
State, and local governments are duty bound to encourage all eligible 
Americans to exercise their right to vote.
  As many of us have seen in the recent past, more and more State are 
looking at ways to utilize the Internet in the political process. 
Proposals include online voter registration, online access to voter 
information, and online voting. State and local officials around the 
country are anxious to use the Internet to foster civic action. I think 
that this is a positive step. Real questions remain, however, as to the 
feasibility of securely using the Internet for these functions. How can 
we be sure that the person who registers to vote online is whom he or 
she claims to be? How can we ensure that an Internet voting process is 
free from fraud? How much will this technology cost? There are also 
important sociological and political questions to consider. For 
example, will options like online registration and voting increase 
political participation, or could the Internet be equitably used in the 
political process? These and other questions deserve our attention.

  The Hatch-Leahy amendment neutrally addresses these issues in two 
ways: one, it establishes a bipartisan advisory committee that will 
provide a necessary framework for discussing the possible uses and 
abuses of the Internet in the voting process; and two, it directs the 
Attorney General to review existing criminal statutes and penalties and 
report to the Senate and the advisory committee whether additional 
penalties for interfering with online registration and voting are 
needed.
  No American who has exercised his or her right to vote should ever 
have to wonder if their properly cast vote will be counted. We must 
preserve the integrity of the voting process and I commend the efforts 
of those who have drafted this bill. The Hatch-Leahy amendment 
complements the bill and will help ensure the legitimacy of the voting 
process. As we continue to address the current problems with our voting 
process, we can and should take this opportunity to examine the impact 
of new technologies on our elections.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been approved on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3107) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas is here and 
prepared to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
completion of the remarks by the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from 
New York, Mrs. Clinton, be recognized to debate her amendment, if that 
would be appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2907

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have at the desk an amendment numbered 
2907, and I ask for its consideration at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes anamendment 
     numbered 2907.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To eliminate the administrative procedures of requiring 
   election officials to notify voters by mail whether or not their 
                      individual vote was counted)

       On page 12, beginning with line 20, strike through page 14, 
     line 2, and insert the following:
       (5) At the time that an individual casts a provisional 
     ballot, the appropriate State or local election official 
     shall give the individual written information that states 
     that any individual who casts a provisional ballot will be 
     able to ascertain through a free access system (such as a 
     toll-free telephone number or an Internet website) whether 
     the vote was counted, and, if the vote was not counted, the 
     reason that the vote was not counted.
       (6) The appropriate State or local election official shall 
     establish a free access system (such as a toll-free telephone 
     number or an Internet website) that any individual who casts 
     a provisional ballot may access to discover whether the vote 
     of that individual was counted, and, if the vote was not 
     counted, the reason that the vote was not counted.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and 
the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend from 
California to offer an amendment to the provisional voting section 
under the election reform bill.
  This amendment improves on the voting requirement found on Section 
102 (page 13.) Specifically, current language requires--emphasize the 
word ``requires''--election officials to notify voters in writing by 
mail, within 30 days after the election as to whether their provisional 
vote was counted.
  Our amendment eliminates the 30 day mail notification requirement. 
Instead, it requires states to implement a free-access system so the 
voter can find out quickly and efficiently whether his or her vote was 
counted. This can be done through an Internet web site, a toll-free 
number, or by any means available, so long as voters have access to 
this information.
  We think the current language on provisional voting is restrictive. 
By communicating through mail, we run the risk of voters never knowing 
whether a vote was counted. Incorrect

[[Page S2469]]

addresses and lost mail are all factors to consider.
  Let us also remember that the Senate's own mail system was in turmoil 
3 months after the anthrax attacks. So you really don't know what to 
expect. As we painfully discovered, the mail is very vulnerable. It is 
not unlikely that a similar scenario could take place during an 
election year.
  Secondly, the whole purpose of this debate is to improve the election 
process. Now, I have been told, with some very good advice by my good 
friend, Secretary Ron Thornburg, the secretary of state in Kansas and 
the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, 
representing all secretaries of state all throughout the country, that 
sending out mass mailings within 30 days of an election or primary is 
very burdensome and costly. He writes:

       I do not believe it is reasonable or expedient to require 
     the election officer to formally notify the voter by mail as 
     to the disposition of the ballot. If written into law, this 
     provision will cause unnecessary burden and expense to 
     election officers who are very busy after the election 
     finalizing vote tabulations and preparing for official 
     certification of election results.

  What am I talking about?
  Let's just examine the duties that are performed by election officers 
during the 30-day period after an election all across the country. They 
must--and I am going to itemize some things right now--conduct campaign 
finance report deadlines. They must prepare a national/State election 
abstract for submission to the secretary of state. They must prepare 
ballots, and the tabulation of results, and other election materials. 
They must research the provisional ballots to determine whether or not 
they are valid. They must conduct recounts of primaries if requested. 
They must begin to prepare for the general election, including the 
finalizing of the candidate lists and ballot forms and precinct 
election board worker appointments. They also have to update the voter 
registration rolls.
  Now, that is a lot of work to do immediately after an election. And 
those are just a few duties in a laundry list of obligations that all 
election officers must complete after an election. Further, in the 2000 
general election, over 22,000 provisional votes were cast in the State 
of Kansas alone. Sending out a 30-day mass mailing is another burden 
added for these election officials--22,000.
  We do not advocate--we do not advocate--a prohibition on anyone from 
obtaining information as to whether a vote was counted or not--that is 
absolutely essential--but let's not ignore what I call common sense. 
Having a free access system is not burdensome on voters.
  If this is a problem in small States, it is magnified a thousand 
times in the larger States. Take California. This is why the 
distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is a cosponsor 
of the bill. Bradley J. Clark, president of the California Association 
of Clerks and Election Officials, wrote a letter expressing concern 
with these requirements. He wrote:
  We specifically oppose the section that would establish rigid 
requirements and time lines for notifying hundreds of thousands of 
provisional voters whether or not their provisional ballots were 
counted. The provisional voter notification provisions currently 
written in the bill would do nothing more than antagonize those voters 
who were determined ineligible.

  Election officials can make better use of their time in improving the 
election process rather than exerting energy and resources on mass 
mailings. This amendment does not eliminate the use of mass mailings. 
Let me repeat this: We are not saying you can't use a mass mailing. 
States can do this if they want. I would advise the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut, who has a lot of concern about this, that 
States can go ahead and use the mass mailing provision if they want. It 
does not eliminate it. Nor does it eliminate the 10-day notification 
requirement. If a State wishes to contact voters by mail, they can 
retain that right. Our amendment simply gives the election officials 
that option or the State that option.
  Now, some might ask, What is wrong with requiring the 30-day mailing 
along with the free access system? Why don't we retain both? The answer 
to that is very simple. It gives provisional voters a false sense of 
reliance that they will be notified by mail. In other words, if they 
believe they will receive a mailing, why would they then make an effort 
to check any other means of communication--either a toll-free number 
or, say, by simply using a Web site?
  Again, change of address, loss in the mail, and the ever looming 
threat of some kind of attack on our postal system make mail a less 
reliable means of communication.
  A centralized calling system does not--does not--in any form 
disenfranchise voters. We need to have faith in a voter's ability to 
make a simple phone call or visit their local library to use their 
computer facilities. This does not create an undue burden. Rather, it 
is an undue burden if we give voters false reliance that they may or 
may not receive any notification through the mail.
  Here is something else I would really bring to the attention of the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut. It is important that we 
register voters. Under this amendment, a voter will know within 10 days 
whether their vote was counted or whether they need to register. Let me 
repeat that. A voter is going to be informed within 10 days. With the 
mail, they may not know for 3 or even 4 weeks the status of their vote 
cast in a primary, giving them less time to register for a general 
election.
  If we adopt this amendment, we are going to have more people 
registered, more people taking part in the election process.
  Finally, the goal of this bill is to improve the election process. 
Let's give election officials more time to improve administration, 
rather than burden them with more mass mailings that may or may not be 
received by the voter. This is a simple, commonsense approach that 
gives voters a greater chance of knowing whether their vote was 
counted. It has support from the other side of the aisle, from all 
election officials, all secretaries of state. I ask for its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, This is a very simple amendment that 
addresses a serious concern raised by State and local election 
officials.
  The underlying bill provides a mechanism for voters to ascertain the 
disposition of their ballot--through a free access system, such as a 
telephone or internet site or another means which they can create.
  The bill goes further to require State or local officials to notify 
in writing if a provisional ballot is not counted. This is the 
provision which has caused a great deal of angst among those who 
administer our elections.
  The administrative task and cost involved with implementing this 
requirement could be enormous in heavily populated States. It also will 
subject the individual who signs the letter to a great deal of 
criticism, scrutiny and potential legal action.
  This amendment makes sense and does not undermine a voter's ability 
to determine whether their provisional ballot was counted. The free 
access system will provide unfettered access to this information.
  I urge my colleagues to join with the bipartisan cosponsors in 
support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 3108

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be called up for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3108.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To establish a residual ballot performance benchmark)

       Beginning on page 8, line 19, strike through page 9, line 
     3, and insert the following:
       (5) Error rates.--
       (A) In general.--The error rate of the voting system in 
     counting ballots (determined by taking into account only 
     those errors

[[Page S2470]]

     which are attributable to the voting system and not 
     attributable to an act of the voter) shall not exceed the 
     error rate standards established under the voting systems 
     standards issued and maintained by the Director of the Office 
     of Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission 
     (as revised by the Director of such Office under subsection 
     (c)).
       (B) Residual ballot performance benchmark.--In addition to 
     the error rate standards described in subparagraph (A), the 
     Director of the Office of Election Administration of the 
     Federal Election Commission shall issue and maintain a 
     uniform benchmark for the residual ballot error rate that 
     jurisdictions may not exceed. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the residual vote error rate shall be equal to the 
     combination of overvotes, spoiled or uncountable votes, and 
     undervotes cast in the contest at the top of the ballot, but 
     excluding an estimate, based upon the best available 
     research, of intentional undervotes. The Director shall base 
     the benchmark issued and maintained under this subparagraph 
     on evidence of good practice in representative jurisdictions.
       (C) Historically high intentional undervotes.--
       (i) The Senate finds that there are certain distinct 
     communities in certain geographic areas that have 
     historically high rates of intentional undervoting in 
     elections for Federal office, relative to the rest of the 
     Nation.
       (ii) In establishing the benchmark described in 
     subparagraph (B), the Director of the Office of Election 
     Administration of the Federal Election Commission shall--

       (I) study and report to Congress on the occurrences of 
     distinct communities that have significantly higher than 
     average rates of historical intentional undervoting; and
       (II) promulgate for local jurisdictions in which that 
     distinct community has a substantial presence either a 
     separate benchmark or an exclusion from the national 
     benchmark, as appropriate.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is very 
similar to the amendment I offered a number of weeks ago at the 
beginning of this important debate. I appreciate the great support and 
good suggestions my colleagues have provided. And I particularly thank 
a colleague who suggested that this amendment should be entitled--
rather than the ``Residual Vote Error Rates'' amendment, which is a 
mouthful--the ``Leave No Vote Behind'' amendment.
  So that is how I shall refer to it. Why? Because this amendment is 
about ensuring that we do just that: Leave no vote behind, that we do 
everything we reasonably can to ensure that everyone's vote is counted.
  This amendment is neither liberal nor conservative. It is neither 
Democrat nor Republican. But it goes to the very heart of the 
reliability and accountability of our electoral system.
  Every voter who goes to the polls or votes by absentee or votes in 
any other manner that is appropriate under our laws should know that 
that effort was not in vain. It is truly American to ensure that we 
give every one of our citizens the confidence to believe our Federal 
election system is the best it can be. Therefore, this amendment is 
critical to our deliberations because year after year--not just in 2000 
but in every year--in every State, ballots were not counted because of 
so-called residual votes. There are overvotes. There are undervotes. 
There are spoiled votes. According to the Caltech/MIT Report:

       Over the past four presidential elections [going back, 
     therefore, 16 years] the rate of residual votes in 
     presidential elections was slightly over two percent. This 
     means that in a typical presidential election over 2 million 
     voters did not have a presidential vote recorded for their 
     ballots.

  The percentage of discarded ballots is even higher in a Senate 
election, which, I suppose, should get us all thinking.
  But it is imperative we recognize that some of these are legitimate 
errors. Some of these are the problems that elderly people have in 
punching the little chad through the hole. Some of it is confusion with 
respect to the appropriate place to make the mark which is made.
  For all the reasons that lie behind these uncounted votes, the 
Commission, headed by former Presidents Ford and Carter, recommended, 
unanimously, that Congress needs to focus not just on the machine or 
mechanical errors in improving our election system, but on the 
unintentional human errors as well. The Commission did so because only 
by measuring the rate of these residual vote errors will we be able to 
assess effectively whether the voting process as a whole is giving all 
of our citizens the equal opportunity to have their votes counted.

  That is why I have offered this amendment, which would require the 
newly established Office of Election Administration to establish a 
residual vote error rate, a standard or benchmark with which voting 
systems will have to comply. It is a transfer of authority and 
expertise to the body that we are setting up to make determinations 
about our mechanical and machine errors.
  Since I offered this amendment back in February, it has been 
improved, thanks to the suggestions made by Senator Bingaman, who asked 
to be shown as an original cosponsor. He proposed and now included in 
the leave no vote behind amendment language that would give the Office 
of Election Administration even greater flexibility in setting the 
residual error rate standard.
  Senator Bingaman pointed out there are certain distinct communities 
in some parts of our country that have a historically high rate of 
intentional undervoting in elections for Federal office compared to the 
rest of the country. Therefore, the language added by Senator Bingaman 
requires the Office of Election Administration to report to Congress on 
the extent to which this is happening and permits the office either to 
set a separate benchmark or exclude whole areas. This gives us the 
requisite flexibility that the office requires, and I certainly hope 
our colleagues will support this amendment because, in the absence of 
taking some action on this issue, we are not going to be responding to 
what were the most serious questions raised in the past election.
  This is also in keeping with the other voting system standards in the 
bill. The mechanical rate standard, as important as that is, does not 
address this human error rate.
  Before I lose my voice and leave it behind, I would certainly urge my 
colleagues' support of this important amendment that would leave no 
vote behind and give greater assurance to voters no matter where they 
live that their votes truly will be counted.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York. The bill currently 
provides for benchmark error rates for voting systems used in Federal 
elections. This bill appropriately provides that, in determining the 
error rate, only those errors which are attributable to voting machines 
are included. Errors attributable to an act of the voter, such as an 
overvote, spoiled vote, or undervote, are not included in the 
benchmark. This amendment would wrongly require a second benchmark 
error rate for voter errors. In other words, ballots intentionally or 
unintentionally spoiled by a voter would be included in the error rate.
  As long as there have been elections, there has been voter error. 
State and local officials will tell you that they see voter error in 
every single election.
  As the Ford-Carter commission acknowledged, some portion of the 
residual vote number comes from intentional undervotes which can vary 
considerably from place to place, along with local cultures and 
tradition. I can say for myself, I frequently have not voted in every 
single race on the ballot, particularly for races where I felt I didn't 
know enough about the candidates to cast a vote. It is an intentional 
act on my part.
  A State can't force people to follow directions. A State can't force 
people to vote as we would like them to or as we think they should. 
This amendment will do just that.
  Let's look at what the review of uncounted Florida ballots in the 
2000 election revealed about intentionally spoiled ballots. Nearly 
1,000 people voted for all 10 Presidential candidates in 2000. More 
than 3,600 people voted for every Presidential candidate except Bush, 
and more than 700 people voted for every Presidential candidate except 
Gore.
  More recently, in Palm Beach, FL made infamous in the 2000 elections 
county election officials spent $14 million upgrading voting equipment 
to touch screen computers. In an election held last month, the 
undervote was 3 percent. No matter what you do, some people are simply 
not going to participate or are going to participate in a way that we 
might find somewhat odd.
  Primaries held in Chicago last month showed that the undervote varies 
widely. In Chicago, new ballot machines

[[Page S2471]]

give voters the chance to fix a voting mistake. The machines inform 
voters if they have undervoted or overvoted, and they are offered the 
option of correcting that ballot or casting a new one.
  The Chicago Tribune reported that even with these new machines, in 
the Democratic primary for Governor, 6.1 percent of the voters did not 
vote for the race at the top of the ticket. They just chose not to. The 
undervote in the Republican attorney general's race was a whopping 12.5 
percent. They didn't like these guys. They chose not to vote in that 
race.
  This amendment proposes to set a number of so-called residual votes 
or voter errors that would be allowed. What would happen when the so-
called benchmark is exceeded? The Department of Justice would sue 
States and localities which have residual rates above those which are 
permitted by the Federal Government. The practical effect is that 
States will calculate how many residual votes they are permitted in an 
election, divide those by precinct, and notify those poll workers how 
many residual votes they are allowed. In calculating this allowance, 
officials will have to account for errors on absentee ballots as there 
is nothing that can be done to change those ballots.
  Poll workers will monitor how many residual votes they have. And when 
they approach their limit under threat of Department of Justice 
prosecution, they will force voters to vote, or change how they voted 
in an election. This is exactly the wrong approach.
  This bill focuses our efforts on the right approach. It provides a 
benchmark for measuring the reliability of voting machines. It provides 
for increasing voter education and encouraging voter responsibility. If 
a voter has a question, they should ask it. If they are unsure about 
the voting process, they should seek assistance. We must preserve a 
system that values and respects the secrecy of the ballot.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Clinton 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3109

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is an amendment by Senator 
Nickles that has been cleared on both sides. I send that amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3109.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 18 between lines 7 and 8; insert: (4) technological 
     security of computerized list. The appropriate state or local 
     official shall provide adequate technological security 
     measures to prevent the unauthorized access to the 
     computerized list established under this section.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment Senator McConnell, Senator 
Dodd, Senator Bond, and Senator Schumer on their hard work on this 
election reform bill. I would also like to thank them for adding what I 
think is a very important provision to this bill.
  The bill mandates that States implement a computerized statewide 
voter registration list, creating a central database that will allow 
State and local election officials continuous access to ensure that new 
registered voters are added and that individuals whose names should be 
removed from the list are removed. This computerized list will prove to 
be an important tool in ensuring that only registered eligible voters 
be allowed to vote. In creating this interactive computerized list, 
though, it is important that only those officials who are authorized be 
granted access to this list. In furtherance of this goal, my amendment 
directs State and local election officials to establish and maintain 
reasonable procedures to protect the security and integrity of the 
computerized list.
  As interactive computer programs become more prevalent and more 
personal information is transmitted and stored via such programs, we 
must constantly seek to protect personal information secure from theft. 
In our effect to create a system that allows for easier maintenance of 
voter rolls, we must make sure that we don't make available information 
that will allow computer hackers to manipulate voter rolls as well as 
access our bank accounts, charge accounts or other personal 
information.
  This amendment seeks to strengthen the security and confidentiality 
of information displayed via the interactive computerized list. The 
amendment's purpose is to keep the interactive list secure. It is not 
meant to limit information to the public that is otherwise available. 
Again, I thank Senators Dodd and McConnell for their hard work on this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3109) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3110

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3110.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To permit voter information contained in a written 
 affirmation to be used to verify the eligibility of an individual to 
  vote in an election for Federal office, rather than the provisional 
ballot, for the purpose of determining whether that provisional ballot 
             should be counted as a vote in that election)

       On page 12, strike lines 9 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (3) An election official at the polling place shall 
     transmit the ballot cast by the individual or voter 
     information contained in the written affirmation executed by 
     the individual under paragraph (2) to an appropriate State or 
     local election official for prompt verification under 
     paragraph (4).
       (4) If the appropriate State or local election official to 
     whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under 
     paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible 
     under State law to vote in the jurisdiction, the individual's 
     provisional ballot shall be counted as a vote in that 
     election.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my amendment will ensure that the Michigan 
system of provisional voting, a highly progressive system, will not be 
disturbed or disrupted by the language of this bill.
  Michigan is often cited as an example of a ``best practices'' state 
in terms of elections. Provisional voting works like this in Michigan: 
on election day, if a voter's name does not appear on the precinct 
polling list; the election workers verify whether the voter is actually 
registered in the jurisdiction. This means that the election workers 
check with the computerized statewide voter file, in Michigan; this is 
called the Qualified Voter File, or QVF. The voter signs an affidavit 
asserting that a voter registration was submitted prior to the close of 
state registration and identifies himself or herself. The voter than 
completes a new voter registration application and is issued a ballot. 
The ballot is cast and counted on election day; however, the ballot is 
tagged in a manner that permits a court of law in a contested election 
case to connect the voter to the specific ballot if it is later 
determined the voter was not qualified to cast the ballots.
  This provisional voting system works well in Michigan and I would 
like to ensure that Michigan is able to maintain its system under the 
pending legislation. I have spoken with several county and statewide 
election officials in Michigan, who have raised concerns that Michigan 
might be inadvertently required under the pending bill to alter the way 
Michigan currently conducts provisional voting.
  My amendment will ensure that will not happen and I greatly 
appreciate the managers accepting this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment has also been cleared on both 
sides. I urge its adoption.

[[Page S2472]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3110) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2907

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may take a minute or so--I know Senator 
Bond is here; we are waiting for a couple of other Senators who may 
come over--for just a brief comment on Senator Roberts' amendment.
  I don't know if there is anyone in this Chamber for whom the body has 
more affection than Pat Roberts of Kansas, let me say very loudly and 
clearly, having described him as the Senator from Nebraska. I apologize 
to him and his State for that--not that Nebraska is not a fine State, I 
quickly add.
  Let me say to my colleague and to others on the Roberts amendment--
there are a couple of other people who have joined with him on the 
amendment--my concern about it. We worked on this bill with provisional 
balloting which is a very important and significant part of this bill.
  People who go in to vote are going to cast a ballot even when there 
is a debate about whether or not they have a right to be there. Setting 
aside that provisional ballot, if in fact there is that debate, if the 
voter is correct, that ballot will be counted; if not, it will not be 
counted. We will never again be faced with a system, once this 
provision becomes part of the law in 2004, where a person will be 
thrown out of line without casting a provisional ballot. In a sense, 
all eligible voters will be able to exercise your franchise.
  The issue is this. I understand my colleague's point. The question 
is, once that ballot has been cast, the State or the locality can then 
inform the voter whether or not the provisional ballot actually was 
counted or not, and if it was not counted, why not, so the voter can 
then correct that mistake. The point Senator Bond made--and we have 
constantly quoted him on this--that ``this bill is designed to make it 
easier to vote and harder to cheat.''
  The particular point I am trying to make goes to the first part of 
that sentence--``easier to vote.'' When a person goes to the poll, 
casts a ballot, and believe they are registered when it turns out, in 
fact the State or local election official has not registered the voter, 
then there is a 1-800 number, or something else they might call in on. 
I think such access is essential. It may help alleviate the need for a 
piece of mail going out. It may help eliminate the responsibility to 
notify the voter that there is a problem, that his or her vote did not 
count because proper action was not taken and this is what needs to be 
done. These kinds of mechanisms can help break the chain of continuous 
disenfranchisement.
  I think this goes to the heart of the purpose of provisional 
balloting. This means that the voter does not show up again at the next 
election and say: I voted the last time. And they would say: That is 
true, but your vote didn't count. They might say: You could have called 
me. You could argue which side has the responsibility. However, I don't 
think it is asking too much to let the voter know the circumstances. As 
a result, the voter can correct his or her mistake and become a fully 
franchised participant in the elections process. That is the heart of 
this matter.
  For those reasons, I will be urging our colleagues to vote against 
the Roberts amendment when it comes up for consideration tomorrow. 
Again, I have great respect for my colleague from Kansas. He makes a 
point that is not without merit. I will not suggest this is totally 
without merit since because there is an attempt to try to at least stay 
on track with ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote to 
each eligible voter and to make it easier to cast a provisional ballot. 
However, the amendment would not serve the goal of helping such 
eligible voters overcome circumstances that preserve their status as a 
provisional voters and would not permit such voters to easily correct 
mistakes. That is the reason I will, with some degree of reluctance, 
urge defeat of the amendment. Others want to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to address, very briefly, the 
amendment of the Senator from New York. We put too much time and effort 
into this without taking just a moment to express my thanks to the 
Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Kentucky, and their staffs 
for a lot of work that has gone into this effort. It is with great 
pride and much relief to be back on the floor today, we hope, 
completing work on election reform.
  The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to the flaws and 
failures of the election machinery, our voting systems, and how we 
determine what a vote is. We learned of hanging chads and inactive 
lists. We discovered our military's votes were mishandled and lost and 
not counted. We learned of legal voters who were turned away, while 
dead voters cast ballots. We discovered that many people voted twice, 
while too many people were not counted even once. Finally, that is why 
we are here today.
  This final compromise bill--and it is a compromise in the truest 
sense of the word. I have never seen any more effort to reach a 
compromise, to try to accommodate the legitimate concerns on all sides, 
than I have seen in this effort. I believe that, while nothing we do is 
perfect, we have gone a long way toward meeting those concerns.
  The $3.5 billion in this bill provided in funding over the next 5 
years should make a significant improvement for States and localities 
to improve and update their voting systems. We also provide specific 
minimum requirements for the voting systems so that we can be assured 
that the machinery meets minimum error rates and the voters are given 
the opportunity to correct any errors they have made prior to their 
votes being cast.
  The bill also provides funding to help ensure that the disabled have 
access to the polling place and the voting system is fully accessible 
to those with disabilities. Nobody has been a greater champion for 
assuring the ability of those with disabilities to vote than the 
Senator from Connecticut; his passion for this is unmatched. I believe 
and trust that we will see a significant improvement that will be a 
great benefit to all of our citizens with disabilities.
  A new election administration commission is created to be a 
clearinghouse for the latest technologies and improvements. The Senator 
from Kentucky worked long and hard on that. We incorporate several 
recommendations by the Carter-Ford commission, and particularly the 
requirement that States set up a statewide voter registration system. 
That is going to help solve a lot of problems, from confused 
registration lists that lose voters' registrations to ineligible 
voters. It should keep the registration lists more up to date, and it 
will eliminate the duplicates and assist voters who move within a 
State.
  Then the bill also goes on to address one of my key concerns, and 
that is the issue of fraud. Much has been said about the issue. Much 
more will be said, but as the Senator from Connecticut noted when we 
began this long journey 10 months ago, we agreed on the basic 
principle--we must make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. That 
ought to be everybody's goal in election reform. I think this bill 
meets the test and the conference report will need to meet this simple 
test, too.
  I have heard some critics--and unfortunately, it has been out there 
so long we have generated a backlash. Some of the critics say it is 
going to require every voter in America to show a photo identification 
before they are allowed to vote each time.

  Well, I have been involved in politics for a number of years, so I 
know the art of the big deception, as in the belief that the bigger the 
deception, the greater the chance you will get away with it. So to give 
the public, or anybody who may be watching or listening, a fighting 
chance to get the facts--and I hope that somebody in the media is 
listening today as well--let me just go through the compromise.
  First, as most of you know, in my home State of Missouri, in St. 
Louis, we have seen a number of interesting figures registering to vote 
recently. There was Albert ``Red'' Villa, Joline Joyce, the mother of 
the prosecuting attorney, or circuit attorney in St. Louis, and, of 
course, the famous Ritzy Meckler. Each of these people, and dogs, 
pulled off their remarkable feat because they were able to register by 
mail. Even in St. Louis it would have been hard to believe they would 
have gotten on the voter rolls if they registered in person. Red Villa 
died 10

[[Page S2473]]

years ago, and Ms. Joyce died slightly more recently than that. Ritzy 
Meckler, of course, is a lovable spaniel, a dog, that is registered to 
vote. All three of them signed ``their names'' on the registration 
rolls.
  So to some who say that all we need is a signature, I say that has 
been the source of a lot of fraud in St. Louis and, I believe, 
elsewhere.
  All we say is, if you choose to register by mail, you will need to 
provide some proof of identity to an election official at some point in 
the process before you vote the first time. Dead people and dogs need 
not apply. The proof of identity requirement only applies one time--the 
first time--to those who choose to register by mail. What does the 
individual need to provide? A photo identification. This will obviously 
be the simplest and easiest for many. Student identification, driver's 
licenses, and government identification all qualify.
  As we know, requiring an identification has become a norm for Amtrak, 
airline passengers, buying beer or cigarettes, or to write a check at 
the grocery store, or to cash a check.
  We recognize that everybody does not have photo identification. So we 
created an expansive list of alternatives: A bank statement, a 
paycheck, a government check, a transfer payment, a utility bill, or 
any other government document that is current and shows the name and 
address of the voter.
  We have made significant dollars available to States and localities 
to use their best efforts to find out, if there are some people who do 
not have any of those documents, how they can get them registered. They 
can go out and help people who need help who do not have the required 
photo identification or an official document with their name and 
address on it.
  Money is also available to expunge from the list those who are dead, 
who have moved, or who do not have any business voting in that State.
  We simply do not want the names to be registered by mail and then 
voted in an election with no one checking to see if they are a live 
human being qualified to vote in that State.
  It has always been a simple proposition. We must recognize that vote 
fraud cheats all other voters. It is a denial of a basic civil right to 
lose your vote because somebody not qualified to vote has cast a vote 
that wipes yours out. Those who took time to follow the rules, stand in 
line, wait their turn, and then cast their votes should not have to 
fear their vote will be diluted or canceled by an illegal vote.
  There are those who do not believe vote fraud exists. There was a 
political science professor in New York who told us in that great 
wisdom that only academics have that vote fraud is a myth:

       Stuffing the ballot box happens only in cartoons and old 
     movies.

  Perhaps you would like to talk to three recently indicted individuals 
in St. Louis, indicted as a result of fraud prior to the mayoral 
primary in St. Louis city. Three people were charged with a combined 17 
counts. They cheated by registering dead people and nonexistent people 
by mail. I will be happy to show it to my colleagues. I ask unanimous 
consent that a news release from the Office of Attorney General 
Jennifer M. Joyce be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   [From the Office of the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Mar. 4, 2002]

    Circuit Attorney Announces Charges Against Vote Fraud Offenders

       St. Louis, Mar. 4.--St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer M. 
     Joyce announced that her office has charged three individuals 
     with committing class one election offenses by completing 
     and, in most instances, signing Missouri Voter Registration 
     Application cards in the names of others. All of these 
     charges are related to false voter registration cards 
     submitted for the March 2001 mayoral primary.
       Joyce said that the United States Attorney's Office for the 
     Eastern District of Missouri, the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the United States Postal Inspector's Office, 
     the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the Circuit 
     Attorney's Office all collaborated on this investigation that 
     has culminated in charging three different individuals with a 
     combined 17 counts.
       ``As Circuit Attorney and a life-long resident of this 
     City, I am committed to upholding the integrity of the 
     election process. The people of this community deserve fair 
     and clean elections. We will do whatever we can to protect 
     the voting rights of all citizens of the City of St. Louis,'' 
     Joyce said.
       The Circuit Attorney's Office has charged Eliza Julion, 29, 
     with seven felony counts of voter fraud. More specifically, 
     the complaint asserts that Eliza Julion completed and signed 
     voter registration cards in the names of two individuals who 
     she made-up or manufactured. Further, she also filled out a 
     voter registration card in the name of another fictitious 
     person and completed and signed a voter registration card 
     in the name of another individual, who was in prison at 
     the time, the complaint asserts. Also, the Circuit 
     Attorney charges that Eliza Julion completed and signed 
     two different voter application cards for the same 
     individual and signed the card belonging to another 
     individual.
       The Circuit Attorney has also charged Michelle Robinson, 
     32, with nine felony counts of vote fraud. More specifically, 
     the complaint asserts that she completed and signed nine 
     voter registration cards in the names of mostly former 
     elected officials, including some of whom are deceased.
       The Circuit Attorney has also charged Paul Julion, 26, with 
     one count of felony vote fraud. The complaint asserts that 
     Paul Julion completed and signed a voter registration card in 
     the name of a fictitious person, a name that he manufactured.
       All 17 counts are class one election offenses, which are 
     felonies. The range of punishment for each offense is up to 
     five years in jail or a fine between $2,500 and $10,000. If 
     convicted, Eliza Julion could face a maximum punishment of up 
     to 35 years in jail or up to $70,000 in fines. If convicted, 
     Michelle Robinson could face up to 45 years in jail or up to 
     $90,000 in fines. If convicted, Paul Julion could face up to 
     5 years in jail or up to $10,000 in fines.
       The charges as set forth in the complaints are merely 
     accusations and each defendant is presumed innocent until, 
     and unless, proven guilty.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this news release will give a small idea of 
some of the work that has been done by law enforcement officials.
  I also point out the Missouri secretary of state reviewed 1,300 
judge-ordered registrations on election day in Missouri. Of those 
1,300, 97 percent of them were illegal.
  We have set up a provisional voting system that allows the election 
authorities, if somebody is not registered and believes they are 
registered, to cast a provisional vote. This provisional voting system 
should help those who are legitimate voters who registered where the 
election authority messed up. It will help make sure their votes are 
counted.
  Those who try to vote without being properly registered will be 
discovered and their vote will not be counted; it will not be placed in 
the ballot box.
  For those who say vote fraud does not occur, the April 4, 2002, 
Houston Chronicle headline reads: ``2,000 Voted Illegally in City 
Polling'':

       More than 2,000 people voted illegally in the local 
     November elections in the Houston mayoral runoff in December, 
     including 712 who cast ballots in city races and don't live 
     in the city. . . . There could be a major impact in close 
     elections.

  That is my point. We want to make sure the system works for those who 
have difficulty getting registered and those who have voted in the past 
have an opportunity to vote and those who have voted once do not try to 
vote twice.
  With the amendment presented by the Senator from New York, I am 
afraid it oversimplifies the issue and offers a remedy which will 
create far more problems than it solves. She has indicated that 2 
million people in each of the last four Presidential elections did not 
have their votes counted because of unintentional voter error. From 
that, we are to conclude with this fix all those votes might be 
counted. The problem is that this 2 million number cited is the 
residual vote rate for those elections, meaning those ballots which are 
unmarked, spoiled, or where the intent of the voter could not be 
determined.
  There are people, as I believe the Senator has mentioned, who choose 
not to vote in races. The Carter-Ford commission estimates that is 
about .77, or almost eight-tenths of 1 percent, who chose not to cast a 
vote in a Presidential race. An MIT study says it is about half a 
percent. Clearly, it fluctuates from election to election.
  This underlying bill takes significant steps to address the problems 
coming from machinery, the equipment, in voter errors, and sets a 
national standard for error rates. The Commission will assist the 
States in identifying the best equipment available.
  Standards for notification and voter education, which is very 
important, are established, and there is $3.5 billion authorized to 
purchase machines that

[[Page S2474]]

will comply with the standards and provide voter education.
  The problem we have is that some people just plain make mistakes. If 
it is not a voting machine problem or a voting system problem, we know 
there are people who just choose not to vote. They may not vote for a 
President or they may not vote for other races down the line. If we 
establish some kind of standard that says if you do not meet this 
standard, then the Justice Department is going to come in and sue you, 
you have, unfortunately, created an incentive for election poll workers 
to look at every ballot. Ballot secrecy goes out the window because if 
you know you are going to get sued and your election is going to be 
called off because there were too many errors, the pressure is going to 
be on to make sure everybody voted right.

  The voting officials may not be so bold as to walk into the polls and 
look over the voters' shoulders as they are punching the punchcard or 
filling out the ballot, but there is certainly a strong temptation for 
them to look at the ballots when they come out and to say: Excuse me, 
you made a mistake; you didn't vote here or you voted in too many 
places.
  Once we do that, once we try to account for a voter error, a human 
error, I am afraid we are going down the road of destroying the secrecy 
of the ballot and saying that people who are election judges and 
election officials are going to have to look at the ballots of each 
voter. We will have poll workers reviewing ballots.
  Under no circumstances do we want poll workers reviewing ballots 
before they are cast, destroying the secrecy and the privacy of the 
ballot. To make sure you do not violate the voter error standard, you 
would be forced into that position.
  We have dealt with bringing down the error rate the best way possible 
in this bill--new machines, voter education, which is extremely 
important. We are already seeing an increase in mail voting which does 
offer a compromise of a secret ballot. But with this amendment, we 
could see the end of the secret ballot.
  I am afraid it goes the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to agree to a 
study to determine how we can improve voter efficiency and 
effectiveness, but let us not set a standard that might force poll 
workers to reach out and touch somebody's ballot before they put it in 
the ballot box.
  I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my colleagues who worked 
on this so long and so diligently. I urge all of our colleagues to 
support this measure, move it to conference, and get a bill back from 
conference that we can send to the President so that in the shortest 
possible time, we will have a measure in law that will make it easier 
to vote and tougher to cheat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, before the Senator from Missouri 
leaves, I wish to thank him for his absolutely indispensable 
contribution to this whole process from beginning to end. The Senator 
from Missouri is not on the Rules Committee, but he developed an 
interest in this issue. His interest and passion is a direct result of 
the voter fraud issues in his home State, which he has skillfully 
sought to make much more difficult to happen in the future.
  The parts of this bill related to fraud are entirely the result of 
the tireless efforts of the Senator from Missouri, and I wanted to 
express my gratitude to him for his intelligence, tenacity, and 
effectiveness in turning this into a bill I can enthusiastically and 
wholeheartedly support. I wish to assure him that we are going to try 
very hard at the conference to make sure this bill still has the 
important features he has worked to have included.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in support of this bill. The 
bill we consider today on election reform, I believe, is the most 
important legislation we will consider all year. Congress has a 
responsibility to ensure every registered American who goes to vote 
gets to vote and that every vote cast counts.
  There are few concepts more fundamentally American than choosing our 
leaders, which means that even in our Nation's Capitol, in this very 
seat of democracy, this may truly be the great American bill.
  Despite the strength of our democracy, if we do not do a good job 
maintaining the actual mechanism that drives it, our voting systems, we 
fail the voters and undermine our values, the values our Founding 
Fathers fought and died for, as did so many subsequent generations of 
Americans. That is why it is so important we pass this legislation.
  I thank our chairman, Senator Dodd, for his indefatigable leadership 
and his continuing fight for this bill. It can truly be said about 
certain legislation that without a single person, it would not have 
happened. In this case, Senator Dodd's leadership clearly puts him in 
that category.
  I also thank Senator McConnell from Kentucky who worked hard on this 
bill. Since he and I originally put in a proposal to deal with the core 
of the bill, which is funding these new voting systems, he has always 
been a pleasure to work with and he has been steadfast. I thank Senator 
Bond for his contribution and Senator Wyden for his commitment to 
improving the Nation's election system as well.
  This bill will make voting easier and more accurate. It allows many 
more people to participate in our democratic processes and that is what 
this country is all about. As with most bipartisan legislation, which 
is the only way we really get anything passed, this bill is a 
compromise. There are some things in this bill that, if it were up to 
me entirely, I would change, but that is not what the people in our 
States sent us to do, to say it is my way or no way.

  This bill is a good and fair compromise, and I am proud of it. The 
most important result is that, after more than 200 years, we are 
finally giving our democracy the resources it needs and the respect it 
deserves.
  I voted for the first time in 1969 and I used the same type of 
machine when I voted in 2001, some 32 years later. Instead of being 
faced with deciding between good candidates, voters are faced with a 
host of problems ranging from out of date machines and inadequately 
maintained registration lists, confusingly designed ballots, and phone 
lines that are so busy the voters cannot get through to confirm their 
registration status.
  In New York, we use these pretty clunky, old voting machines. They 
are cumbersome. They take a long time. As I have told my colleagues 
before, to see the painful look on the face of someone who is coming 
out of the factory, going to vote, waiting in line for an hour, finally 
doing their duty and finding they are not on the right list or that the 
machine does not work or that it was so confusing they missed an 
important part of the ballot, their disappointment has stayed with me 
throughout my career, and I am glad we are able to do something about 
it.
  The fact is, just because we are the oldest democracy in the world 
does not mean we have to use the oldest technology in the world. The 
problem does not end with machines. In my home State of New York, 
November 2000, as I mentioned, people waited in line for hours to vote. 
Many voters, those who could not afford to be late for work, had to get 
home to the children or go on to a second job and vote in between the 
two, ultimately left the polling place without being able to 
participate in one of the most critical and closest elections in our 
time. Others waited and waited only to be confronted with the cruel 
reality that the machine in their precinct was broken or that the 
polling place had run out of emergency ballots.
  Voting should be accessible, accurate, and speedy in all places, all 
of the time. This bill provides the funds and standards to make sure 
that is exactly what happens. There are also provisions we have agreed 
to that address some of the concerns raised by my and Senator Wyden's 
amendment. Most importantly, we have aligned the effective dates of the 
photo identification, provisional voting, and computerized statewide 
voter registration database requirements. This means that first-time 
voters who do not have photo identification will be able to vote 
provisionally, and that is really important.
  This change also allows us to define first-time voters as people 
moving

[[Page S2475]]

from State to State rather than jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which 
means that many fewer people will trigger the photo identification 
requirement, and this was possible because States with databases will 
be able to track voters across jurisdictions.
  We have agreed also to allow voters to provide their drivers license 
number, at least the last four digits of their Social Security number, 
when they register. If these numbers match an existing State record 
that confirms the voter's identity, then they are exempted from the 
photo identification provisions.

  Ultimately, these changes mean many of the people we were worried 
about would have been adversely affected by the identification 
provision, and they will be OK one way or the other. Is that 100 
percent? No, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, 
especially not when the alternative is allowing our democracy to 
sputter along, disappointed voter after disappointed voter.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. We often have the 
opportunity to support legislation that makes things better, and that 
is why we are here, but today we have an opportunity to make a little 
bit of history, and that is something we will never forget.
  I also thank my staff who worked so long and hard on this 
legislation.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. We have a couple more amendments that may be agreed to. In 
the meantime, I wish to make a point. While I did not get an 
opportunity to do so when he was in the Chamber, I would like to 
commend our colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I have said this on 
numerous occasions, and I will say it again, without Senator Bond's 
participation and contribution we would not be on the brink of passing 
this bill. He brought a very important issue to the table, one that is 
not a part of the House-passed bill, not because they opposed it, they 
did not consider it. Had it not been for Senator Bond, I am not sure it 
would be in this particular product. So we owe him a very deep sense of 
gratitude concerning a very legitimate issue that I think complements 
the bill in a very fine way. I will later add further remarks about his 
contribution, but I wanted to publicly thank him.
  I also commend my dear friend and colleague from New York. Senator 
Schumer was, again, a very long and valiant participant in extensive 
negotiations on this bill, bringing us to the point we are this 
evening. I wish to thank him publicly for his work.
  Early on, he and Senator McConnell offered one of the very first 
measures to deal with election reform. He immediately saw the need to 
do something, as the Senator from Kentucky did. His willingness to back 
up and to work with us on a slightly different version is something I 
will always be very grateful to him for. His contribution has been 
significant.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his kind words. It has been a 
pleasure to work with him. I mentioned while he was out of the room, it 
is rare to say on an important piece of legislation without a single 
person this legislation would not have passed. In the case of the 
Senator from Connecticut, that is true. Everyone tips their hat to the 
Senator for the great job he has done.
  I also mentioned the Senator from Kentucky has been steadfast and 
principled in this effort. We didn't always agree on exactly what was 
the right thing to do, but he wanted to get this bill done and he 
played a valuable part.
  I thank both the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Kentucky. They are in large part responsible for the fine improvement 
in voting we will have when this bill becomes law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I could speak briefly, one of the wonderful things 
that happen in putting together legislation: You get to know people 
better. I had not known the Senator from New York very well. He came to 
the Senate in the beginning of 1999. I enjoyed getting to know him in 
the process. I enjoyed working with him.
  This legislation is a classic example, with Senator Dodd's 
leadership, and Senator Torricelli was deeply involved; the five of us 
had a bonding experience here. We managed to come together on a very 
worthwhile piece of legislation which I anticipate will pass tomorrow 
by a very large margin, if not unanimously.
  I thank the Senator from New York for his friendship and on this 
bill.
  Mr. DODD. I will have more kind comments about my friend from 
Kentucky, but I will wait until tomorrow so we can clean up some of the 
amendments.


                           Amendment No. 3111

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment by Senator Grassley which I send 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. It is cleared on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 3111.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To permit States to coordinate the computerized statewide 
  voter registration list with Federal records relating to death and 
                               identity)

       On page 18, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       (4) Interaction with federal information.--
       (A) Access to federal information.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Commissioner of Social Security shall provide, upon 
     request from a State or locality maintaining a computerized 
     centralized list implemented under paragraph (1), only such 
     information as is necessary to determine the eligibility of 
     an individual to vote in such State or locality under the law 
     of the State. Any State or locality that receives information 
     under this clause may only share such information with 
     election officials.
       (ii) Procedure.--The information under clause (i) shall be 
     provided in such place and such manner as the Commissioner 
     determines appropriate to protect and prevent the misuse of 
     information.
       (B) Applicable information.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable information'' means 
     information regarding whether--
       (i) the name and social security number of an individual 
     provided to the Commissioner match the information contained 
     in the Commissioner's records; and
       (ii) such individual is shown on the records of the 
     Commissioner as being deceased.
       (C) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     request for a record of an individual if the Commissioner 
     determines there are exceptional circumstances warranting an 
     exception (such as safety of the individual or interference 
     with an investigation).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is a very serious issue concerning 
the proper functioning of elections--the integrity of voter lists.
  All eligible voters should be given every opportunity to vote.
  In fact, much of this bill is aimed at doing just that.
  However, without integrity in our voting lists, the door is wide open 
to many kinds of voting irregularities.
  Every ineligible vote denigrates the efforts of every eligible voter 
to cause participatory democracy to work.
  When votes are cast by individuals who are not legally entitled to 
vote, whether it be because they are using a false identity or because 
they are dead, the value of all properly cast votes is diminished.
  We have all heard reports of people who are registered to vote and 
should not be or who voted illegally.
  Senator Bond has already mentioned during the debate on this bill an 
investigation by the Missouri secretary of state which determined that, 
in the 2000 election, votes were cast in the St. Louis area by 14 dead 
people.
  Senator Bond has also told us about troubling instances in St. Louis 
where large numbers of voter registration forms were submitted to 
election officials using false identities.
  In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution conducted a study 
comparing voting records and death records from the state Department of 
Human Resources and the Social Security Administration.
  The investigation revealed that 5,412 dead people voted over the past 
20 years and that the number of registered dead voters has increased 
dramatically in recent years.

[[Page S2476]]

  As of November 2000, 15,000 dead people remained on the active voting 
rolls in Georgia.
  Sometimes we hear these anecdotes about instances of voter fraud and 
they take on the character of a cynical joke, but I don't think it is 
very funny.
  Such cases erode public confidence in the electoral process and are 
an affront to all those who cast votes legally.
  The bill before us already takes an important step in ensuring the 
integrity of States' voter rolls by providing for interactive, 
computerized, statewide voter registration lists.
  This will enable States to check for duplicates and coordinate with 
State agencies to verify that registered voters are legally able to 
vote under State law.
  However, more can and should be done.
  My amendment would give States a much needed tool to check the 
accuracy of their voter roles against information possessed by the 
Social Security Administration.
  Specifically, my amendment allows a State to coordinate its statewide 
voter registration list with social security records to check identity, 
and to see if a voter has died.
  The commissioner of Social Security would be required to provide, 
upon request from a State, applicable information for the purpose of 
determining the eligibility of an individual to vote.
  This amendment would not require States to undertake any action nor 
would it affect State laws governing eligibility of individuals to 
vote.
  It simply gives the States a valuable tool in their efforts to 
maintain clean and accurate lists of eligible voters.
  The State decides when and whether to use this tool.
  Over the last decade, it has become increasingly easy for people to 
register and vote due in large part to the National Voter Registration 
Act of 1993, also called the motor voter law.
  This trend has increased voter registration across the board, 
including registrations by individuals who are not eligible to vote.
  Along with the relaxation of voter registration requirements comes 
the responsibility to provide for safeguards to preserve the integrity 
of the voter rolls.
  I can think of no reason why individuals who are not eligible to vote 
should be allowed to remain untouched on State voter lists.
  A State can decide to do that.
  But, today, if States want to be extra careful in preserving the 
integrity of their voter lists, they lack some very important 
information.
  Give them the tools!
  This amendment is just one more way that we can help the States 
maintain the most accurate, reliable list possible of eligible voters.
  This is a commonsense, good government reform and I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in this effort.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3111) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3112

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send an amendment, which has been 
cleared, by Senator Bob Smith to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL], for Mr. SMITH of 
     New Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 3112.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for a study into the broadcasting of false 
                         election information)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  . BROADCASTING FALSE ELECTION INFORMATION.

       In carrying out its duty under section 303(a)(1)(G), the 
     Commission, within 6 months after its establishment shall 
     provide a detailed report to the Congress on issues regarding 
     the broadcasting or transmitting by cable of federal election 
     results including broadcasting practices that may result in 
     the broadcast of false information concerning the location or 
     time of operation of a polling place.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3112) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3113

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have another amendment that has 
been cleared by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. I send it to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL], for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3113.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding changes made to 
       the electoral process and how such changes impact States)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CHANGES MADE TO THE 
                   ELECTORAL PROCESS AND HOW SUCH CHANGES IMPACT 
                   STATES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the provisions of this Act, shall not prohibit States 
     to use curbside voting as a last resort to satisfy the voter 
     accessibility requirements under section 101(a)(3);
       (2) the provisions of this Act, permit States--
       (A) to use Federal funds to purchase new voting machines; 
     and
       (B) to elect to retrofit existing voting machines in lieu 
     of purchasing new machines to meet the voting machine 
     accessibility requirements under section 101(a)(3);
       (3) nothing in this Act requires States to replace existing 
     voting machines;
       (4) nothing under section 10(a) of this Act specifically 
     requires States to install wheelchair ramps or pave parking 
     lots at each polling location if the State otherwise provides 
     for the accessibility needs of individuals with disabilities; 
     and
       (5) the Election Administration Commission, the Attorney 
     General, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
     Compliance Board should the differences that exist between 
     urban and rural areas with respect to the administration of 
     Federal elections under this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3113) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            new technologies

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of this measure and to 
thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill that will make 
voting in many States easier and more accurate. Before we pass this 
legislation, I would like to address one additional point. In drafting 
legislation, it is often very difficult to look to the future and 
anticipate the impact that legislation will have on new technologies. 
To truly reform the Federal election process, this legislation must 
remedy the infirmities of the present system. However, it also must be 
forward-looking in its approach. It should welcome the implementation 
of new election technologies. The flexibility of this legislation to 
accommodate innovation will be the ultimate strength of Federal 
election reform.
  I firmly believe that voting by computer, whether by internet or some 
other remote electronic system, is likely to happen in many states in 
the near future. In fact, Arizona has already held a party caucus in 
which voters were permitted to vote over the

[[Page S2477]]

internet. At the same time, I believe that the security concerns are 
such that most states, mine included, are not yet ready to provide this 
option to voters.
  However, in the interests of looking to the future, I would like to 
seek clarification from the chairman of the Rules Committee about how 
this legislation would affect internet or other forms of remote 
electronic voting.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, is it the Chairman's understanding that 
the bill as it is currently written would not prevent States from 
offering voters the option of voting on by the Internet, so long as the 
State could show that the internet voting system complied with the 
security protocol standards written by the new Election Administration 
Commission, and that the voting system also complied with the 
requirements of the legislation on accessibility for the disabled, 
providing an audit trail of ballots, and by providing voters a means to 
make certain they had not made a mistake?
  Mr. DODD. Senator Cantwell, I agree with you that very serious 
concerns remain about voting by internet. As you know, this legislation 
specifically requests that the new organization, the Election 
Administration Commission, study internet voting. I am looking forward 
to seeing what it learns. However, I hope very much that states will 
think very carefully before moving to internet voting, and will make 
sure that the security concerns are fully addressed.
  That said, the Senator is correct that nothing is this bill prohibits 
states from implementing voting on a remote electronic system like the 
internet, as long as the system is certified by the new Election 
Administration Commission, and complies with the other standards in the 
legislation.
  I agree with the Senator that it is important to welcome the 
development of new election technologies and it was my intent, and my 
cosponsors' intent to provide the states as much flexibility as 
possible to accommodate innovation while still implementing necessary 
minimum standards that will ensure that all our citizens' right to vote 
is protected.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I agree that it is very important that any voting 
system, particularly an electronic voting system have very good 
security. However, I believe that it is likely that in the near future 
we will in fact have the necessary security, the necessary assurances 
of secrecy, and of voter authentication, to make internet voting 
workable and I am pleased that this bill leaves the decision about 
moving forward with internet voting up to the individual States.
  I appreciate all the Chairman's efforts on this legislation, and I 
agree that this bill is drafted in a manner that will not limit the 
development and implementation of new election technologies so long as 
the new technologies satisfy security protocols and meet the 
requirements of the minimum standards. I also hope that this 
legislation will in fact spur the development of new election 
technologies that are more voter friendly and more cost efficient.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I 
thank his staff.
  As I understand it, we will frame this with the two leaders' consent. 
We will have a period of maybe 20 or 30 minutes divided equally between 
my friend from Kentucky and I to make any final comments on the bill, 
and then there would be three votes: The amendment by Senator Roberts 
of Kansas, Senator Clinton of New York, and final passage. All other 
amendments have been dealt with. We have accepted all of them here with 
the modifications that staffs have worked out this evening.
  We can report to our leaders that we are down to two amendments and 
final passage, which is what we projected and promised would be the 
case if we could get the job done.
  With that, I am unclear whether there is going to be a unanimous 
consent request on the time. In any event, we will take care of that.
  I thank my friend from Kentucky and his staff. Of course, I thank my 
staff as well for working very hard tonight and the staffs of the 
respective Senators that worked out these agreements and made it 
possible to accept these remaining amendments. I look forward to final 
passage tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I echo the remarks of the Senator 
from Connecticut. We will save our pats on each other's backs for 
tomorrow. I thank him for his great work and we will see everyone in 
the morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________