[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 39 (Thursday, April 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2516-S2527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 565, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 565) to establish the Commission on Voting 
     Rights and Procedures to study and make recommendations 
     regarding election technology, voting, and election 
     administration, to establish a grant program under which the 
     Office of Justice Programs and the Civil Rights Division of 
     the Department of Justice shall provide assistance to States 
     and localities in improving election technology and the 
     administration of Federal elections, to require States to 
     meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and 
     administration requirements for the 2004 Federal Elections, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Roberts/McConnell amendment No. 2907, to eliminate the 
     administrative procedures of requiring election officials to 
     notify voters by mail whether or not their individual vote 
     was counted.
       Clinton amendment No. 3108, to establish a residual ballot 
     performance benchmark.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut, 
Mr. Dodd, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, or their 
designees.


                   Modification To Amendment No. 3107

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
3107, previously agreed to, be modified with the technical correction 
that I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The modification to the amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert page 13, line 
     12 through page 14, line 7 of the amendment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is a big day for the Senate. After 
a year and a half of discussions, negotiations, introduction, and 
reintroduction of legislation, we are finally prepared to pass a 
comprehensive, truly bipartisan election reform bill.
  I say ``finally,'' but the truth is, a year and a half is lightning 
fast in the Senate. Senator Torricelli and I proposed a comprehensive 
election reform bill before the dust had settled in Florida. Shortly 
after, Senator Torricelli and I joined with Senator Schumer to put 
together yet another bill which garnered the support of 71 Senators--
fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Dodd, 
meanwhile, introduced legislation that was supported by all Democratic 
Senators.
  Four months ago, Senators Dodd, Bond, Schumer, Torricelli, and I 
reached a bipartisan compromise. That was brought before this body in 
February. Through the passage of thoughtful amendments offered by my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have substantially improved 
the underlying bill. The final product is legislation which ensures 
that all Americans who are eligible to vote, and who have the right to 
vote, are able to do so, and to do so only once. This bill strengthens 
the integrity of the process so that voters know that their right to 
vote is not diluted through fraud committed by others. This legislation 
will make American election systems more accurate, more accessible, and 
more honest while respecting the primacy of States and localities in 
the administration of elections.

  I look forward to a House-Senate conference so that soon we may move 
even closer toward enactment of a law that will improve America's 
election systems.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his steadfast and persistent leadership on 
this issue. He truly has been the champion of promoting accessibility 
in elections. My thanks to Senator Bond who gave us our rallying cry 
behind this bill, ``making it easier to vote, and harder to cheat.'' 
This bill does just that and Senator Bond deserves the lion's share of 
the credit for that accomplishment. I also thank Senator Schumer, who 
joined with me nearly 1 year ago to advance a new approach to this 
issue. Any my thanks to Senator Torricelli, who has been there from the 
beginning with me in this exercise. I thank you all for your hard work 
and perseverance which has brought us to this triumphant moment.
  Before I yield the floor, I would like to reiterate my strong 
opposition to the Clinton amendment which we will vote on shortly. The 
amendment creates a federally mandated acceptable error rate that is a 
one size fits all number. This approach is completely contrary to every 
other provision of this legislation.
  If adopted, this amendment would do three things:
  No. 1, Deliver the Department of Justice into our home States to 
prosecute our State and local election officials for choices made by or 
errors committed by voters;
  No. 2, Undermine the sanctity of the secret ballot and
  No. 3, Force the elimination of many voting systems used across this 
country.
  On that last point, I urge my colleagues who hail from States which 
use paper ballots, mail-in voting or absentee voting to take a close 
look at this amendment. Your States will have a choice: change their 
systems or recruit top notch legal talent to defend themselves in 
court.
  This choice will also be faced by States using lever machines, punch 
cared systems, optical scans, and DRE machines.
  If this amendment is agreed to, perhaps we should move to increase 
the Justice Department appropriation so that it can ready a team of 
lawyers for each State.
  Finally, I thank my staff on the Rules Committee: Brian Lewis, Leon 
Sequeira, Chris Moore, Hugh Farrish, and our staff director, Tam 
Somerville--all of whom have been deeply involved in this issue from 
the beginning--and, from Senator Dodd's staff, Shawn Maher, Kenny Gill, 
Ronnie Gillespie, we have enjoyed working with them.
  Also, on Senator Bond's staff, Julile Dammann and Jack Bartling have 
been truly outstanding. It has been a pleasure to work with them.
  On Senator Schumer's staff, Sharon Levin; and, on Senator 
Torricelli's staff, Sarah Wills--we appreciate the opportunity to work 
with all of these folks in developing this legislation.
  I see my colleague from Missouri is here. I yield the floor.

[[Page S2517]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is available on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I will not require that much time, but 
please advise me if I go over 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I come back again to congratulate and thank the 
chairman and ranking member of this committee, Senator Dodd and Senator 
McConnell, for their great work.
  It has been 10 long, arduous months to do something that is vitally 
important to the health and the vitality of our system of legislative 
government. The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to the 
flaws and failures of our election machinery, our voting systems, and 
even how we determine what a vote is. We learned of hanging chads, 
inactive lists, and we discovered our military votes were mishandled 
and lost. We learned that legal voters were turned away while dead 
voters cast ballots. We discovered that many people voted twice while 
too many were not even counted once.
  That is why we are here today. The final compromise bill--and it is a 
compromise in the true essence of the word--tries to address each of 
these fundamental problems we have discovered and to meet the basic 
test. That test, I trust all of my colleagues now understand, is that 
we must make it easier to vote but tough to cheat.
  In the 2000 elections, fraud was prevalent. Fraud was too frequently 
found. Among the most bizarre and fraudulent efforts that occurred in 
St. Louis was the filing of a lawsuit by a dead man to keep the polls 
open beyond closing time because he feared the long lines would prevent 
him from voting. That probably wasn't the only problem he had. His 
identification was later switched to that of a partisan political 
operative for a congressional candidate even though evidence showed 
that man had already voted that day. Unfortunately, the practice of the 
deceased voting was not limited to the lawsuit to keep the polls open. 
We have had a number of ballot registrations made in the name of people 
who have departed this earthly veil.

  Albert ``Red'' Villa registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of 
his death--truly a significant theological effort. The deceased mother 
of a prosecuting attorney in St. Louis City was also registered to 
vote.
  This was the mayoral primary of 2001 which got people excited in St. 
Louis because it wasn't a minor election where we just voted for the 
President, the Governor, the Senators, and Congress. We were talking 
about relevant votes there. We were talking about the race for the 
mayor's office which controls votes and which controls jobs in the City 
of St. Louis.
  We also had our own outrageous system of provisional voting underway 
in St. Louis City. People went to judges and said they didn't show up 
on the registration list so they asked for court orders to be permitted 
to vote. Some of the reasons given, which were accepted by our 
judiciary, were that they should be allowed to vote because they were 
legally registered. One of them said: I am him a Democrat. The other 
said: I wanted to vote for Gore. The other said: I was suffering from a 
mental illness. My favorite was: I am a convicted felon and didn't 
realize I had to reregister. That person, and 1,300 others, were 
allowed to vote even though it is against the law for a felon to vote 
in Missouri.
  Subsequent investigation by the secretary of state in Missouri found 
that 97 percent of those who were ordered to vote by judges voted 
illegally. They were not entitled to vote.
  That is why the whole structure of this bill is so important. 
Provisional voting will be permitted, but actually putting the ballot 
in the ballot box will be delayed until there has been an opportunity 
to ascertain that the person is a registered voter.
  We have seen fraud. I think perhaps it was best described by the 
Missouri Court of Appeals in shutting down the fraudulent effort to 
keep the polls open. The argument in St. Louis City was that the 
Democratically controlled City Election Board in the Democratic City of 
St. Louis was conspiring to keep the Democratic voters in St. Louis 
City from voting for Democratic candidates. That was the suit filed by 
the dead man who said that the long lines kept him from voting. The 
Missouri Court of Appeals said it best in its order shutting down the 
polls when it said:

       Commendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered 
     by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the 
     voting process. Equal vigilance is required to ensure that 
     only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. 
     Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are 
     inevitably diluted.

  We have seen not only people who have rightfully been denied the 
opportunity to vote. Unfortunately, the votes of those who have the 
right to vote have been diluted and have been canceled because fraud 
has been prevalent in St. Louis, and I believe in other areas of the 
country.
  This bill goes a long way towards achieving the goal of making it 
easier to vote and harder to cheat.

  I urge the support of my colleagues for this very important 
bipartisan measure. I extend my thanks to the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  For the information of Members, at the conclusion of that, depending 
on the time left of my friend from Kentucky, we will close debate, and 
there will be a vote on the Roberts amendment, then a vote on the 
Clinton amendment, and then a vote on final passage. That is how this 
will play out over the next 45 minutes or an hour.

  So with that, let me turn to my colleague from Oregon and thank him 
and the Senator from New York for their tremendous support and tireless 
effort on behalf of this piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my thanks to Senator 
Dodd and Senator McConnell. Both of them worked tirelessly with me and 
Senator Cantwell and others.
  This legislation we will vote on will now protect an innovation, a 
pioneering step forward that I think is going to make a huge difference 
for the American people; that is, voting by mail.
  What we saw earlier, as the debate went forward, was various 
proposals that would have put new hurdles, new obstacles in front of 
this legislation that has empowered thousands and thousands of 
Americans. I am very proud that my State has led the way in this 
innovative approach, but I think it is the wave of the future.
  There is a reason why millions of older people and disabled people 
and others enjoy and prefer voting by mail. They like the convenience, 
and they understand that it meets the test that Senator Bond and others 
have talked about, which would be a winning combination for the 
American people.
  Let's make it easier to vote but not easier to cheat. Voting by mail 
has proven it is up to that challenge. We have shown in our State that 
we will come down with a every aggressive effort against those who try 
to abuse the system, try to exploit it. We have not seen any 
significant problem with it.
  It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Smith has joined with me in it. 
Senator Cantwell has made the case for the State of Washington.
  I close by saying that over many months Senator Dodd and Senator 
McConnell, knowing that we were camped out with their staffs, could 
have said, look, this is an issue that only a couple States care about, 
but they did not. I think they have showed their commitment not just to 
protecting people in Oregon or Washington who feel so passionately 
about this subject, but I think they understand this truly is a 
pioneering step forward. It is part of the wave of future. It is the 
next step before we see people voting online.
  From the beginning of this debate, I have said that this legislation 
should be about deferring voter fraud and promoting voter 
participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an 
agreement that I believe will do both.
  If first-time Oregon voter Mabel Barnes had mailed in her ballot 
under the election reform bill that was on the Senate floor 6 weeks 
ago, her vote probably would not have counted--even

[[Page S2518]]

if she were legally registered to vote. Her vote would have been tossed 
away simply because she failed to include with it a photo ID or other 
proof of identification.
  Mabel Barnes would not have been alone. Under the bill that was on 
the Senate floor then, millions of first-time voters would have been 
disenfranchised just because they failed to bring a copy of their photo 
ID to the polls.
  But Mabel Barnes and millions of other first-time voters won't have 
to worry about their votes counting now, and they won't have to worry 
about stopping by a copy center before they vote. That's because over 
the course of the last few weeks Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, 
Murray, and I have worked out an agreement that protects Oregon's vote-
by-mail system and the right to have every mail-in-vote by a legally 
registered first-time voter count.
  The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, Murray, and I 
worked out gives voters who register by mail more options to verify 
their identity. Instead of a photo ID or proof of residence, first-time 
voters in a state may put their driver's license number or the last 
four digits of their social security card on their registration card. 
This means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they 
register or before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the 
petition drives and campus registration efforts in Oregon, where 
thousands of first-time voters register by mail.
  The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by 
mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters 
who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a 
state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits 
of their social security number when they register, their vote will 
still count if state election officials determine they are eligible 
under state law. In Oregon, this means that the vote of every legally 
registered Oregonian will count if an election official verifies that 
the signature on the ballot matches the signature on file with the 
registration.
  Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering vote-by-mail system will 
continue, unchanged.
  I understand where the photo ID requirement sprang from: a concern 
that mail-in voter registration and balloting engender fraud. But in 
Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the state that pioneered 
motor voter--there is very little fraud. No one has come forward with 
proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I was elected to the 
United States Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special election. 
Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised any 
questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much tougher 
than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and or 5 years in jail.
  Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to use a vote-by-mail system, 
participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in the last 
federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot. 
Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been prosecuted; 
convictions were won in five and eight are still pending. In the last 
federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because they failed 
the signature verification test. This is a pretty good record.
  This legislation should be about deterring voter fraud and not voter 
participation. The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, 
Murray, and I have reached does this. The time to fight fraud is at the 
beginning of the process--at the time of registration. That is what our 
agreement does. At the same time, I have also said that legislation 
should not make it harder for legally registered voters to cast a 
ballot, or discourage people from voting. The agreement will do this as 
well.
  This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond, 
Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and 
I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his 
staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in 
the managers' package.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I reiterate what I said last night. 
Senator Dodd was indefatigable on this bill. It would not have happened 
without him. Senator McConnell was steadfast in terms of principle, 
sticking to what he believed but making sure we had a bill done. I 
thank them both for their leadership as well as my other colleagues who 
worked so hard on this bill.
  Mr. President, democracy works slowly--sometimes too slowly--but 
inexorably. We had the great scandal in Florida where people could not 
vote, where people's votes were not counted, where people voted for the 
wrong person despite their intention.
  Now, almost 2 years later, we are doing something very real about it. 
I wish it had come sooner, but this bill has been worth waiting for.
  And the problem is not just in Florida, as we learned. In my State of 
New York, I voted, first, in 1969. I used the same exact type of 
machine when I voted in 2001, despite all of our technological changes. 
And the lines to vote in New York are legion. Just because we are the 
world's oldest democracy does not mean we have to use the world's 
oldest technology.
  At the core of this bill is a view that that changes, that we will 
help the States update.
  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 the values for which our Founding Fathers 
fought and died.
  Voting should be accessible, accurate, and speedy in all places, all 
of the time. This is not a someplace, some-of-the-time proposition. The 
right to vote is too sacred. This bill provides both the funds and the 
standards to make sure that exactly happens.
  So I urge all my colleagues to have a rousing vote of support for 
this bill. We often have an opportunity to support legislation that 
makes our lives better. That is why we are here. But today we have an 
opportunity to make a little history. And it is something we will never 
forget.


                     provisional voting and vermont

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Dodd 
for all his hard work on this very important bill. This legislation 
will help ensure that the problems that occurred during the 2000 
elections will not happen again, and hopefully increase the number of 
Americans that participate in the most sacred right of a democracy, 
voting. I would like to take this opportunity though to discuss the 
provisional voting section of the bill and its effect on the affidavit 
voting system we have in Vermont.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for his early 
support of reform of the election system. I also appreciate his hard 
work to ensure that the good qualities of Vermont's election system are 
protected and replicated around the United States. I would be pleased 
to take the time to answer any question he may have on the provisional 
voting section of the bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. In Vermont when a person arrives at the polling place 
to vote and their name does not appear on the voter checklist, even 
though they believe they have properly registered, we have a system 
that would allow them to cast a ballot. The voter completes an 
affidavit form swearing that they had properly applied but were not 
added to the voter checklist. The form is reviewed by the Board of 
Civil Authority at the polling place and unless the information appears 
false the person is allowed to cast a ballot. If the information 
appears to be false, the Board of Civil Authority will not allow the 
person to cast a ballot and refers them to a local judge to get added 
to the voter checklist for the election that day.
  The ballots cast this way are counted exactly like the other ballots 
and included in the final totals. The information from the approved 
affidavits is immediately used to update the voter checklist. My 
question to you Senator Dodd is that while this system is not called a 
provisional balloting system it appears to me that the affidavit voting 
system conforms to all the requirements in this legislation, and 
therefore the State of Vermont would already have satisfied the 
provisional balloting requirements of the bill?
  Mr. DODD. I would agree with the Senator from Vermont. In mine and

[[Page S2519]]

my staff's review of different States' election procedures, Vermont's 
system of affidavit voting would satisfy the provisional balloting 
requirements of this legislation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate Senator Dodd's clarification of this 
issue, and look forward with working with him to ensure enactment of 
this important legislation.


                     Maine's Same Day Registration

  Ms. COLLINS. Maine has same day registration so a voter can register 
at the polls or at a public office nearby and vote on the same day. If 
someone challenges the voter's right on that day, the ballot is marked 
as a challenged ballot. If a voter goes to the polls to vote and does 
not have identification or does not appear on the voting rolls, the 
presiding election official will challenge the voter, and his or her 
ballot will be treated as a challenged vote. The presiding election 
official keeps a list of voters challenged and the reason why they were 
challenged. After the time for voting expires, the presiding election 
official seals the list. The challenged votes are counted on election 
day. In the event of a recount, and if the challenged ballots could 
make a difference in the outcome of the election, the ballots and list 
are examined by the appropriate authority. The distinguished chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Rules has done excellent work crafting the 
important bill before us. I would ask him whether, then, Maine's system 
comply with this Election Reform Act?
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Maine for her excellent question 
and for her steadfast support for election reform efforts. Let me 
assure her that Maine's system does comply with the Election Reform 
Act.
  Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the senior Senator from 
Connecticut for his assistance and congratulate him on the impending 
passage of this bill.


               election day as national holiday colloquy

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my good friend from Connecticut and commend him 
for his hard work on this bill; I agree with him when he refers to this 
as ``landmark legislation.'' The Dodd-McConnell compromise makes many 
necessary improvements in our current elections system and moves us 
toward the ultimate goal that we all share of ensuring that our 
elections are fair, accurate and accessible to all.
  In addition to securing the fairness of elections, however, I believe 
that it is in the best interest of our Nation, as with any 
representative democracy, to see that as many people as possible 
participate in the process. Would my friend from Connecticut agree with 
me that ensuring high turnout at the voting booth is also an important 
goal in terms of improving our electoral process?
  Mr. DODD. I certainly agree with my good friend from California, and 
hope that this bill will help achieve that goal by improving 
accessibility, offering ballot materials in alternative languages and 
by addressing some of the things that can make the voting process 
intimidating or confusing.
  Mrs. BOXER. One idea that has come up time and again in conversation 
with my constituents and various organizations in my State of 
California, is the possibility of creating a Federal holiday on 
election day. I think that this would be one of the most effective ways 
to ensure that as many people as possible have an opportunity to cast 
their vote and exercise that most fundamental democratic right. Many of 
the hard-working people in this country--people for whom election day 
represents a unique opportunity to make their voices heard--find it 
difficult to get to the polls. Many work long hours, or have children 
that they have to get to school. Would the Senator from Connecticut 
agree that we should make it easier for these people to cast their vote 
as well?
  Mr. DODD. I agree with the Senator from California, and I would tell 
her that is the idea behind the entire legislation. We want to make 
sure that all eligible voters have an opportunity to cast their ballot 
and have it counted fairly and accurately.
  Mrs. BOXER. I had considered offering an amendment to this bill that 
would in fact create a federal holiday on election day to help give as 
many people as possible the opportunity to vote. I would ask my friend 
from Connecticut if such a proposal was ever considered when this bill 
was being drafted?
  Mr. DODD. I say to my friend from California that I did consider 
including a provision to that effect in the bill. We looked into the 
ramifications such a provision would have and, with time running short, 
ultimately concluded that there were too many variables and that we 
simply did not have enough information to include it as a requirement 
in the bill. We did, however, instruct the Election Administration 
Committee--the new election oversight body created by the bill--to 
conduct a study on conducting elections on different days, at different 
places, and during different hours, including the possibility of 
creating an election day holiday.
  Mrs. BOXER. I hope that such a study would be thorough in 
investigating each of those possibilities and that it would be 
conducted as soon as reasonably possible. If such a study were to 
conclude that the creation of an election day holiday was possible and 
would indeed further the goals of this bill, we would want to begin the 
process of making it happen as soon as possible. Could my friend from 
Connecticut assure me that this study will be thorough and will be 
undertaken promptly upon enactment of this legislation?
  Mr. DODD. I share the Senator from California's interest in moving 
forward with such a study as soon as is possible.
  Mrs. BOXER. I look forward to working with my good friend from 
Connecticut in pushing the Commission to complete the study. In the 
meantime, I am introducing legislation to establish election day in 
Presidential election years as a legal public holiday.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from California.


                           electronic voting

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend 
Senators Dodd, McConnell, Schumer, and Bond for their dedication and 
diligence in addressing what I believe to be an issue of critical 
importance to our country--protecting voting rights and ensuring the 
integrity of the electoral system in our Nation. Especially given the 
events in the world today, making certain that each citizen's vote is 
counted and promoting public trust and confidence in our election 
process is crucial.
  The State of Washington has a long and trusted history as a leader in 
election administration. Through great efforts and cooperation, the 
state has pioneered such programs as Motor Voter, provisional 
balloting, vote by mail, and absentee voting.
  I would like to thank Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Rules 
committee for his support for an amendment that I offered with Senator 
Murray's support that has been adopted. The amendment guarantees that 
states are able to continue using mail-in voting, while also providing 
new safeguards to make mail-in voters aware of how to properly fill out 
their ballots, and how, if needed to obtain a replacement.
  Voters in my State are proud of our system that offers voters the 
option of voting by mail or in the polling place, and they are 
extremely committed to seeing it continue. The mail-in ballot, in my 
opinion, offers voters several advantages. First, it allows voters to 
cast their ballots on their own time and at their own convenience. It 
also allows voters to make more informed choices, as they are able to 
consult literature sent by the State and by the campaigns in making 
their decisions. Because these votes are cast without the pressure of 
other voters waiting in line, or without the time crunch of being late 
to work or to pickup the kids, voters are also less likely to make 
mistakes that will disqualify their ballots.
  In addition, the mail-in system is very secure. Each ballot that is 
cast by mail requires, that the voter sign the outer envelope. This 
signature is then checked against the voters signature that is kept on 
file and only when there is agreement that the signatures match is the 
ballot counted. Washington State has consistently increased the number 
of voters choosing to vote by mail and through provisional voting 
without any allegations that these types of voting have involved fraud 
or other misconduct. In fact, the procedures in place have consistently 
ensured the integrity and security of our elections and led to public 
confidence in our system that is unparalleled anywhere in the country.

[[Page S2520]]

  It has not always been this way. In the early 1990s, we had several 
close elections that pointed out the vulnerabilities in our system. 
These close elections led Washington to become one of the first States 
to adopt statewide guidelines that ensured that each jurisdiction 
followed the same rules in determining how ballots are verified and 
counted. In addition, my State also adopted other requirements for 
testing and procedural consistency. It is my hope that this legislation 
will lead other states to follow our example and institute similar 
guidelines and procedures that will result in more people voting and 
making sure that all votes are properly cast and counted.
  Our challenge, at the Federal level, is to ensure that in passing 
legislation that reduces hurdles to civic participation across the 
country, we respect the role of the States in selecting types of voting 
that work well for their citizens and lead to maximum participation. I 
believe that this bill as amended does that, and I would like to thank 
the chairman of the Rules Committee for his commitment to this bill and 
to ensuring that states have the flexibility to keep their systems in 
place.
  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 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.
  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 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. I agree with Senator Cantwell that very serious concerns 
remain about voting by internet. As she knows, 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 in 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all your 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.


          Interactive Voter Registration and Funding Mechanism

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the sponsors of the 
election reform bill that is before the Senate today. I especially want 
to recognize Senators Dodd  and McConnell who have worked tirelessly to 
overcome many obstacles in an effort to strengthen the fundamental 
right of all citizens to participate in the democratic process. I 
wholeheartedly support their overarching goal to make it easier for 
every eligible American to vote and to have their voted counted and I 
appreciate their willingness to work with me to address some specific 
concerns about how the bill may impact my home State of Arkansas.
  I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with Chairman Dodd to clarify 
for the record his understanding of how two specific provisions in the 
legislation will work in practice. The first point I want to raise 
involves the requirement in the Senate bill that all States implement a 
statewide interactive voter registration list. Is it the Senator's 
understanding that States can meet this requirement by having an 
interactive computer containing voter registration information at each 
county clerk's office but not at each individual polling location?
  Mr. DODD. As the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, I am pleased to 
reassure the Senator from Arkansas that State and local election 
officials would not have to place an interactive computer containing 
voter registration information at each polling place to meet the 
requirements of this legislation. As my colleague from Arkansas 
indicated, States could met this particular requirement if they had an 
interactive computer containing the States' voter registration list at 
each county clerk's office. I and others who crafted this language were 
aware that polling places in Arkansas and in many other States lack 
phone service and therefore it would be impractical to set up a 
computer network or the like at each polling location during every 
Federal election.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague for his comments. Another concern 
that has been brought to my attention is the funding mechanism in the 
Senate bill. I know my colleague from Connecticut is aware that the 
method through which Federal funds are distributed to State and local 
governments to meet the requirements in this bill is very different 
than the House bill. The House bill distributes Federal funding based 
on the proportion of eligible voters in each State. This is commonly 
referred to as a formula.
  Conversely, the Senate bill establishes three separate discretionary 
grant programs to help States improve their voting systems and meet the 
requirements that are in this bill. I certainly support the goal of 
helping all States improve their voting systems. However, I also 
support helping all states get their fair share of federal funding. 
Based on my knowledge of competitive grants in other Federal programs, 
I am concerned about this program turning into a competition among 
professional grant writers. I do not think such a system helps my State 
nor do I believe it is good public policy when you are applying new 
mandates on thousands of jurisdictions in all 50 States. So I would 
appreciate knowing my colleague's view on how he and others who drafted 
this legislation envision the discretionary grant process working in 
practice. What if Congress only appropriates half of the funding that 
is authorized in this bill? Will there still be enough for all states 
to meet their needs, or is it first come first served?
   Mr. DODD. I am certainly aware of the concerns raised by my 
colleague from Arkansas. I can assure my good friend and other Senators 
who have raised similar concerns that we have not designed a funding 
distribution system where only the best applications will be funded. In 
fact, we have carefully calculated the amount of funding we feel will 
be needed for all states and local jurisdictions to meet the minimum 
standards we have included in this legislation. Therefore, I appreciate 
the opportunity today to clear up any confusion surrounding

[[Page S2521]]

this issue by saying that I and others who crafted this bill fully 
intend for the Justice Department to distribute funding to all states 
and local governments based on the need for improvement they identify 
in their application.
  Our intent certainly is not to enact a jobs program for professional 
grant writers no do we expect states or local governments to hire grant 
writers in order to receive Federal funding under this bill. As 
chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I certainly intend to closely 
monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure it is applied 
in practice as Congress intended. You have my word that I will be the 
first to object if I think the federal agency charged with distributing 
funding is not distributing resources to eligible recipients in a fair 
and equitable manner.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my friend from Connecticut for his 
clarification on these two issues. Based on his assurance I look 
forward to supporting this bill.


                 full-time recreational vehicle owners

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Dodd, in a colloquy 
concerning the voting rights of thousands of American citizens, many of 
whom are members of the Good Sam Club, which is based in California.
  The citizens to whom I am referring own recreation vehicles, RVs, and 
live in them year round. The number of full-time ``RVers'' grows larger 
each year. These individuals, most of whom are retirees, have sold 
their conventional homes and travel around the country year round in 
their RVs and mobile homes. Ostensibly, they do not have a permanent 
address.
  While nobody can question these individuals' right to travel, the 
fact is that this lifestyle does create a series of logistical 
problems, particularly as it relates to their ability to establish a 
domicile. While they may not remain at any one location, full-time 
RVers must still register their vehicles, maintain a current driver's 
license, obtain insurance, have some kind of legal address, and pay 
taxes. They also have, or should have, the right to register to vote if 
they so choose.
  Two years ago, the voting rights of over 9,000 full-time RVers who 
were registered to vote in Polk County, TX, was challenged in court. 
The plaintiffs in this case argued that since these individuals did not 
reside in Polk County on a permanent basis, they constituted a 
significant voting block of ``nonresidents'' that was likely to have an 
effect on the outcome of the election, and that their votes should be 
disallowed. Ultimately, the full-time RVers' constitutional right to 
vote was upheld in court, but future challenges are likely.
  The legislation that we are considering today would establish an 
Election Administration Commission, EAC. Among other responsibilities, 
this Commission is mandated to conduct a number of studies on various 
election issues, and report its findings to the President and Congress. 
Does the Senator from Connecticut agree that, at the very least, the 
issue of full-time RVers voting rights would be a suitable topic for 
the Commission to study?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, I certainly agree with the Senator from California. We 
do not want to disenfranchise anyone, accidentally or otherwise, who is 
eligible to vote, and we need to address the unique set of 
circumstances surrounding our fellow citizens who have chosen not to 
live in one particular location, but rather to travel year round across 
our great nation. The right to vote of all full-time RVers needs to be 
safeguarded. Certainly this is an issue the Commission could study.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his remarks and for his 
leadership on this bill. I am pleased that he shares my strongly-held 
view that we need to ensure that the voting rights of all American 
citizens, regardless of where they reside, needs to be safeguarded.


                             path of travel

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, on the intent of the grants to be awarded to 
states for the purpose of constructing ``polling places, including the 
path of travel.'' Is ``path of travel'' intended to cover the 
construction of paved, asphalted, or similarly surfaced disabled or 
handicapped parking spaces, as well as sidewalks, ramps, and similar 
disabled access ways to the buildings which house the voting system?
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his question. The 
grants to be awarded to states under this act would include 
construction of these types of infrastructure improvements, and are 
intended to include things like disabled parking spaces, sidewalks, 
ramps, and similar access ways.
  Mr. ENZI. As the chairman is aware, these grants are very important 
to small, rural states like Wyoming, which have polling places in some 
very remote or rural locations. In Wyoming, we actually have some 
polling places in trailers on gravel roads. Because the Act requires a 
special voting system for the disabled to be installed in each polling 
place, Wyoming needs to be sure it can accommodate the disabled by 
making certain the state can pay for these special systems and ensure 
the disabled can get into the building to vote. These types of grants 
will ensure that the buildings which house the special voting equipment 
for the disabled are ADA accessible.
  I am also aware the chairman has included the Collins amendment in 
the manager's amendment to the act. I understand this amendment is 
intended to assure a minimum amount of grant money is available to each 
state to improve their voting systems and infrastructure. This is 
important to the State of Wyoming so it can afford to install these 
special systems and construct the infrastructure necessary to give the 
disabled the same opportunity to enter a voting booth and exercise 
their right to vote.
  Mr. DODD. As the Senator has indicated, the managers' amendment 
includes a provision to ensure that each state will be guaranteed a 
minimum of one half of one percent of the grant money available under 
the act, which is approximately $17.5 million dollars over five years. 
I am glad this act will help address the concerns of small, rural 
States like Wyoming, and I look forward to working with the Senator 
form Wyoming to address any further concerns or questions he may have 
on to how this act will impact rural states.


        Deterring Voter Fraud and Promoting Voter Participation

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague Senator 
Bond for his hard work in making sure that the identification 
requirements for first time voters in this bill did not have the 
unintended consequences for people who vote by mail. I think that we 
all agree that any election reform passed by the U.S. Senate should be 
about two things: deterring voter fraud and promoting voter 
participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an 
agreement that I believe will do both. Thanks to hard work by Senator 
Wyden and Senator Bond, together with the managers of the bill, Senator 
Dodd and Senator McConnell, and Senator Murray and Senator Smith, we 
have come up with a solution. The compromise addresses Senator Bond's 
concerns about making certain first time voters are who they say they 
are, but that doesn't have an unfair and burdensome impact on 
progressive states like Washington and Oregon where many--and in the 
case of Oregon all--voters vote by mail. This compromise will not 
simply benefit voters who vote by mail in Washington in Oregon, but 
will benefit all States that allow voters to vote by mail.
  This compromise does two things. First, it creates a mechanism for 
election officials to verify the identity of first time voters who 
register by mail before they get to the polls. And second, it makes 
clear that voters who vote by mail, just like voters who go to the 
polls, can still cast a provisional or replacement ballot even if they 
fail to provide identification in their ballot when they cast their 
vote by mail. The provisional or replacement ballot will be counted as 
long as elections officials determine the voter's eligibility under the 
laws of their State.
  With regard to the first part of the compromise, election officials 
in States like Oregon and Washington will be able to satisfy themselves 
about the identity of a first time voter before they arrive at the 
pools or cast their ballot by mail for the first time. If the election 
official is able to compare the information that the voter provides on 
his or her voter registration card with

[[Page S2522]]

information contained in an existing state database such as the 
Department of Motor Vehicles, and the information matches, the voter 
will not be asked to produce independent identification when they vote. 
In fact, even if a voter fails to provide the identification 
information at the time they vote, the vote may still be cast as a 
provisional or replacement ballot and will be counted as long as State 
elections officials verify the voter's eligibility under the laws of 
the voter's State. Is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is correct. Under the agreement you and I have 
worked out with Senators Bond, McConnell, Dodd, and Murray, voters who 
register by mail are given more options to verify their identity. Our 
agreement protects Oregon's vote-by-mail system, as well as the 
majority of voters who vote by mail in Washington, and provides 
protections to make sure that every mail-in vote by a legally 
registered first-time voter can be counted.
  Instead of a identification or proof to resident, first-time voters 
in a state may put their driver's license number or the last four 
digits of their Social Security card on their registration card.
  If that number, along with the name and date of birth of the voter 
matches another State record, like the Department of Motor Vehicle's, 
the voter won't be required to provide any further identification. This 
means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they register or 
before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the petition 
drives, the campus registrations and every get-out-the-vote effort in 
Oregon, where thousands of first-time voters register by mail. Without 
this compromise, every one of these initiatives to get more citizens 
voting would have been stymied.
  The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by 
mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters 
who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a 
state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits 
of their Social Security number when they register, their vote can 
still be counted even if their ballot is received without a photocopy 
of identification, if the state election officials determines that the 
voter is in fact legally registered under state law. These provisions 
will also not take effect until January of 2003 ensuring that this 
year's election will not be disrupted by new requirements.
  Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering and successful vote-by-mail 
system will continue, unchanged.
  I understand the concerns that sparked the identification 
requirement: a concern that mail-in voter registration and balloting 
engender fraud. But in Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the 
state that pioneered Motor Voter--there is very little fraud. No one 
has come forward with proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I 
was elected to the Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special 
election. Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised 
any questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much 
tougher than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and/or 5 years in 
jail.
  Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly in 1998 to use a vote-by-mail 
system, participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in 
the last Federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a 
ballot. Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been 
prosecuted; convictions were won in five and eight are still pending. 
In the last federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because 
they failed the signature verification test. This is a pretty good 
record. Has the Senator had similar results in her State?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I agree completely with my colleague from Oregon. The 
mail in voting system in my State has allowed voters to have 
flexibility in deciding whether to go to the polls or vote from home. 
In our last election, over 65 percent opted to vote by mail.
  Our system has increased participation, and has resulted in no 
serious allegation of fraud. Like the mail in system in Oregon, I was 
elected in a very close election where the majority of ballots were 
cast by mail, but no allegations of fraud were raised.
  In addition, voting by mail allows voters to be significantly more 
informed. By sitting at home with their ballot and their sample voting 
materials, voters are able to make more informed choices without the 
pressures of a busy schedule or a line at the booth.
  I am very pleased that this agreement provides protections that will 
make sure that all legally registered first time voters who vote by 
mail, will still have their votes counted. Their votes will be counted 
if State election officials determine the voter is properly registered 
according to Washington State law. In Washington, if a first-time voter 
forgets to include a photocopy in their ballot, the election official 
will verify whether or not the voter is in fact legally registered by 
following the Washington state law, and performing a careful 
verification of the signature on the ballot.
  This compromise makes sense because it allows each state to best 
determine how to count provisional ballots, and because it provides the 
same protection to mail in voters that are already provided to voters 
who vote at the polls in the original election reform bill.
  I ask the Senator if he agrees that this is how the compromise will 
work?
  Mr. BOND. I agree with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator 
Cantwell, as to how the compromise works, and I would like to thank 
them for working diligently on this compromise. I am pleased we were 
able to make a change to the identification provision that all states 
can comply with.
  I have said repeatedly that requiring first time voters to verify 
their identity is a reasonable means of preventing fraud, and in fact 
many States already have this requirement.
  But I agree completely with the Senators from Washington and Oregon 
that voters who vote by mail, but fail to include a copy of their photo 
identification, should be able to cast a provisional ballot, just like 
voters who go to the polls without their identification.
  By ensuring that it is a state or local election official that is 
making the determination about whether a provisional vote is valid, I 
believe we have built in significant safeguards that will prevent 
fraud.
  I also agree that allowing election officials to verify the identity 
of a first time voter by matching specific information about the voter 
on the registration card to an existing state record with information 
on the voter, is a reasonable means to prevent fraud.
  I am happy to support this compromise and look forward to passing the 
final legislation later today.
  Mr. WYDEN. This agreement follows the right priorities by fighting 
fraud at the beginning of the process--at the time of registration. 
That is what our agreement does. At the same time, I have also said 
that legislation should not make it harder for legally registered 
voters to cast a ballot, or discourage people from voting. The 
agreement will do this as well.
  This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond, 
Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and 
I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his 
staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in 
the managers' package.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2926 will ensure that the 
Election Administration Commission studies State recount and contest 
procedures, so that we lessen the chance that what happened in Florida 
during the November 2000 election will occur elsewhere.
  That election revealed many problems in our Nation's voting 
procedures, the bulk of which are being addressed in this historic 
legislation. When states fully implement the provisions of S. 565, I am 
confident that Americans will have good reason to have greater 
confidence that their Federal elections are fair, efficient, and 
accurate down to the last vote.
  But, we also have to be concerned about what occurs after those 
ballots have been cast, especially in cases when an election is 
excruciatingly close. In November 2000, we all found out what can 
happen in our electoral democracy when recounts are required or when 
elections are contested to determine who won and who lost. In broad 
terms, the system that was designed by our Founders and has evolved

[[Page S2523]]

over the years is a brilliant one. But given the sheer size of this 
country, the complexity of many State regulations, and the various ways 
and means of voting, we must ensure that the system we cherish is 
brought fully up to speed with the times in which we live.
  Even after we say good riddance to chads and butterflies, we will 
certainly continue to have close Federal elections, and elections in 
which the first count has to be verified for one reason or another. 
Therefore I believe we will not have completed the job of election 
reform until we make sure that we--governments at all levels, as well 
as the public--better understand how States determine when votes should 
be recounted, how votes should be recounted, and who should do the 
recounting. We must not allow this window of reform to close without 
first enduring that we know whether or not State recount and contest 
procedures are adequate, so that in the future it is voters, without 
the intervention of the courts, who determine the winners of our 
elections.

  In 2000, of course, it was Florida--surrounded on three sides by 
water and on all sides by media scrutiny--that became the poster state 
for recount procedures gone awry. But in frames, we must acknowledge 
that if other States had been placed under the same microscope as 
Florida, the same problems would have been revealed. Florida was not 
the only state that was totally unprepared to deal with a neck-and-neck 
election.
  The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired so ably 
by Presidents Carter and Ford, made several observations about this 
issue that were evident to the whole world watching events in Florida, 
but which could apply to many other States as well. The commission 
found that recount and contest laws are not designed for statewide 
challenges. They noted that state deadlines did not mesh well with the 
federal schedule. Each county in Florida made its own decisions about 
what, when, or whether to recount. And, perhaps most surprising to all 
of us involved, in performing recounts, the definition of a vote varied 
from county to county, and from official to official within the 
counties.
  I do not want to recount, relieve, or rehash all of the painful 
debates from that election. There is no point to be served now re-
enacting the legal battle that transfixed our country and the world.
  But in our ongoing quest to form a more perfect union, we have to ask 
ourselves whether we can improve the procedures for future recounts, 
and how we can put in place procedures that are clear to voters, and I 
might add candidates, well before the election. If on the first Monday 
in November we are all on the same page as to what constitutes a vote 
on each type of voting equipment and for every kind of voting method, 
what recount and contest procedures are, and other critical questions, 
things will be much less confusion and frustrating to all Americans 
come the first Tuesday in November. In perfect hindsight, I think we 
would all agree that it is not one's benefit for us to rely on the 
courts or others to tell us the rules as we go along.
  The amendment would simply require the new Election Administration 
Commission being created by this legislation to systematically examine 
the State laws and procedures governing recounts and contests in 
Federal elections, determine the best practices, and, report to the 
President and Congress whether or not state procedures are adequate. 
The commission would also study whether or not states have adopted 
uniform definitions for what constitutes a vote on each kind of voting 
machinery they use, and whether or not there is a need for more 
consistency in State recount and contest procedures.
  This amendment recognizes that, as is appropriate under our system of 
government, administration of Federal elections will still remain 
primarily the purview of the States. However, be directing the Election 
Administration Commission to study State recount and contest laws and 
procedures and promote best practices, I hope we can help to ensure 
that the events in Florida following the November 2000 election are 
never repeated.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us 
and accepting this amendment, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, stand on the threshold of passing 
perhaps the most important bill of the 107th Congress. S. 565 makes a 
long-overdue Federal investment in the most vital infrastructure our 
nation has: the infrastructure of democracy.
  We have neglected this infrastructure for too long, and at our peril. 
Problems in Florida and elsewhere during the November 2000 Presidential 
election underscored the effects of our years of neglect.
  I was pleased to see that President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget 
request included $400 million for a revolving fund for States for 
election improvements, and additional funds projected through fiscal 
year 2005, for a total of $1.2 billion over 3 years. This is 
commendable, but I think it falls short of what we need.
  S. 565 authorizes $3.5 billion through fiscal year 2006 to help 
States and localities:
  Meet new Federal standards for voting systems;
  Replace or upgrade voting technology;
  Educate and train voters, election officials, and poll workers; and
  Make polling places and equipment physically accessible to the 
disabled.
  As Senator Bond and others have said, the new standards contained in 
S. 565 are meant to ``make it easier to vote, and harder to vote 
fraudulently.'' What a laudable goal.
  Under the bill, voting systems must notify voters if they ``over 
vote''--that is, if they vote for too many candidates for a particular 
office or position. Voters must be given the opportunity to change 
their ballot, and verify that it comports with their wishes before 
casting it.
  Voting systems must provide nonvisual accessibility for the blind and 
visually impaired. They must provide ballots in other languages for 
voters with limited proficiency in English.
  The bill requires that voters be informed of their right--and be 
allowed--to cast provisional ballots if their eligibility is challenged 
at the polling place, and to find out if their votes are counted.
  The bill also requires the States to develop statewide computerized 
and interactive voter registration lists both to make it easier to vote 
and to deter fraud.
  To meet these requirements, S. 565 provides a 100 percent Federal 
match. There is no unfunded mandate here foisted on State and local 
governments. We give them the money they need to do what we ask them to 
do.

  The bill comes at an absolutely crucial time for California. Last 
September, California Secretary of State Bill Jones ``de-certified'' 
the punch-card voting systems in nine counties, which collectively have 
8.6 million registered voters. That's more people than the total 
populations of 39 States. The counties include:
  Los Angeles (4 million registered voters);
  San Diego (1 million registered voters);
  San Bernardino (700,000 registered voters);
  Alameda (700,000 registered voters); and
  Sacramento (600,000 registered voters).
  The other affected counties are Mendocino, Santa Clara, Shasta, and 
Solano.
  Secretary of State Jones gave these jurisdictions until the November 
2006 elections to upgrade their systems, presumably to ``touch screen'' 
machines, also known as ``Direct Record Electronic''--DRE--devices.
  You can imagine what a challenge it will be to get new systems in 
place for so many voters. In Los Angeles alone, the cost is expected to 
be between $90 million and $100 million. In Sacramento, it will cost 
$20 million to $30 million.
  But there is more: civil rights groups and other plaintiffs sued to 
move the date up from 2006 to 2004. Just 2 months ago, U.S. District 
Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
  So these counties have about 2 years--less really--to get new 
systems. It is absolutely imperative that we pass this bill, work out a 
compromise with the House, and get Federal funds to these--and other--
jurisdictions as soon as possible.
  Last month, California voters approved Proposition 41, a $200 million

[[Page S2524]]

bond measure that will provide 3-to-1 matching grants to county 
governments for the purchase of new election equipment. So the State is 
doing what it can to fix this problem. But it can-not do it by itself.
  With regard to the bill before us, I want to commend Senators Dodd 
and McConnell for their hard work in negotiating the compromise we will 
be voting on shortly. Fixing our election systems--fixing the 
infrastructure of our democracy--is not a partisan issue. The chairman 
and ranking member of the Rules Committee have done an admirable job. I 
am confident that the Senate will approve the compromise amendment 
overwhelmingly.
  I am also grateful that the Senate saw fit to approve 2 of my 
amendments. I offered these amendments to address concerns my staff and 
I heard from California election officials, notably Bradley J. Clark, 
the Alameda County Registrar who serves as President of the California 
Association of Clerks and Election Officials, and Connie B. McCormack 
and Mischelle Townsend, the Los Angeles County and Riverside County 
Registrars, respectively.

  My first amendment would task the Election Administration 
Commission--EAC--created under the bill with studying the technical 
feasibility of providing ballots and other election materials in eight 
or more languages. Section 101(a)(4) of S. 565 as amended significantly 
expands the Voting Rights Act--VRA--of 1965 requirement regarding the 
availability of voter registration and election materials in foreign 
languages.
  The VRA currently requires the availability of voter registration and 
election materials in native languages for specified ``language 
minority groups'' if a certain threshold is reached: No. 1, more than 5 
percent of the voting-age citizens within the jurisdiction are members 
of a ``single language minority'' and have limited English-proficiency; 
or No. 2, there are at least 10,000 such voters.
  The VRA restricts the term ``language minority groups/single language 
minority'' to people who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan 
Natives, or of Spanish heritage.
  S. 565, as amended, goes beyond the four categories above, and the 
registrars are concerned that it could require a larger jurisdiction 
like Los Angeles, San Francisco, or San Diego to prepare ballots and 
other election materials in languages not covered by the VRA without 
first assessing the need for such ballots.
  We have school districts in these cities where 48 different languages 
are spoken.
  In the November 2000 elections, Los Angeles County spent $2.2 million 
out of a total budget of $21 million to prepare registration materials 
and ballots in six languages: Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, 
Vietnamese, and Tagalog--the native language of Filipinos.
  According to the Los Angeles County Registrar, Ms. McCormack, each 
language costs about $250,000 per election, and she anticipates adding 
Cambodian for the November 2002 election.
  She certainly does not want to disenfranchise any voter, nor would I 
countenance such an effort. But I think it is important for the EAC to 
study the technical challenges the multi-lingual ballot provision 
places on a jurisdiction like Los Angeles.
  For instance, Ms. McCormack told my staff that while the technology 
is improving, it is still very difficult to devise ballots in 
``character'' languages such as Chinese, even on the newer machines.
  Prior to the November 2000 elections, she invited companies to bid on 
a contract to provide a limited number of machines with multi-lingual 
ballot capabilities. She drew just two bids.
  Another chief concern I heard about is the requirement in Section 
102(a) of the substitute amendment that appropriate election officials 
must notify a provisional voter in writing within 30 days if his or her 
provisional ballot is rejected, and the reason for it being rejected.
  The goal--getting voters properly registered--is certainly 
worthwhile, but the requirement is administratively cumbersome for some 
jurisdictions. Los Angeles County, for instance, received over 100,000 
provisional ballots in the November 2000 elections, and rejected close 
to 40,000.
  In addition to notifying, in writing, those voters whose provisional 
ballots have not been counted, the amended bill reburies election 
officials in each jurisdiction to establish a ``free access system'' 
such as a toll-free number or an official Website that voters can 
contact to determine if their provisional ballots have been counted.
  It strikes me that establishing the free access system, informing 
voters about it, and allowing them to find this information out for 
themselves is more manageable than requiring the written notification.
  In either instance, I am concerned about protecting the privacy of 
the data that such a free access system would contain.
  S. 565, as amended--Section 102(a)(6)(BN)--is silent on that point.
  Identify theft is one of the Nation's fastest growing crimes. I felt 
compelled to offer an amendment to the bill--which has been adopted--to 
direct the appropriate State or local election officials to protect the 
security of the personal information contained in the free access 
systems that will be created.
  I am pleased that the Senate also adopted the amendment senators 
Chafee and Reed of Rhode Island offered to ensure that State and local 
governments making multi-year payments for new voting equipment 
purchased prior to January 1, 2001 are eligible to apply for grants 
under this bill.
  This amendment, as I understand it, ``grandfathers'' Riverside and 
Marin Counties so that they can tap into Section 203 grant monies to 
help them defray the cost of equipment they purchased prior to the 
November 2000 elections.
  According to Ms. Townsend, the Riverside County Registrar, prior to 
the 2000 elections, Riverside County using Pitney Bowes for financing--
purchased 4,250 touch screen machines from Sequoia, an Oakland 
manufacturer, at a cost of $14 million amortized over 15 years (for a 
total cost, including interest, of roughly $20 million).

  The new DRE system was so successful that Riverside had one of the 
ten lowest voter error rates of all counties nationwide--less than one 
percent.
  Ms. Townsend told my staff that much of the error rate was 
attributable to paper absentee ballots. ``Over-voting'' is impossible 
on touch screens, and ``under-voting'' is the prerogative of individual 
voters and, consequently, may not represent an error.
  Riverside was the first county nationwide to rely exclusively on 
touch screens and is serving as a model for other jurisdictions. The 
county was commended in the report issued by the Election Reform 
Commission former Presidents Ford and Carter co-chaired.
  Clearly, we do not want to punish Riverside County--or Marin County, 
which purchased DRE touch screen machines and precinct-based optical 
scanners in time for the November 2000 elections--for acting 
responsibly.
  As I said a moment ago, I want to thank Senators Dodd and McConnell 
for accommodating my concerns. I think the amendments I offered and the 
Chafee-Reed amendment make an already outstanding bill even better.
  While much of our discussion concerning specific provisions in the 
bill may sound arcane or parochial, there is also something much larger 
at stake here.
  One hundred years ago, democracy was still very much a tenuous 
experiment around the world. Even in the United States, African-
American men were largely disenfranchised and women still had to wait 
for 2 more decades before they could vote.
  According to a 1999 report issued by Freedom House, in 1900, only 5 
percent of the world's population had the right to elect their 
leader(s). Now, 58 percent of the world has this right.
  In 1900, no nation elected its leader by universal adult suffrage; 
now, 119 nations do. That is 62 percent of all of the countries in the 
world.
  According to the report, entitled Democracy's Century:

       Like economic progress, political progress has been uneven. 
     But the general trends are hard to ignore. They reinforce the 
     conclusion that humankind, in fits and starts, is rejecting 
     oppression and opting for greater openness and freedom.

  This report was published before the terrorist attacks on September 
11. We have been reminded in a visceral way that enemies of freedom 
still exist. We have met those enemies on the battlefields of 
Afghanistan. The battle we

[[Page S2525]]

now wage is every bit as serious as the cold war. I fervently believe 
that freedom will win out. Democracy will continue its march. Respect 
for human rights will grow.
  The newly established or emerging democracies of the world look to us 
for inspiration and for guidance. That is why it is so crucial that we 
pass S. 565 and set about mending our democracy.
  I traveled abroad after the 2000 elections, and I heard an earful 
from foreigners. ``Don't lecture us,'' they said, and rightfully so.
  While we were able to settle on the results peacefully, in our 
courts, the events surrounding that election shame us, diminish us in 
the eyes of those who aspire to be like us, and embolden our enemies, 
freedom's enemies.
  On April 27, 1994, 43 million black South Africans--86 percent of the 
eligible voters--cast their first ballots. Can any of us forget the 
poignant images we saw on television back then of people waiting 8 
hours or more to vote, of lines of voters seemingly stretching to the 
horizon?
  Yes, democracy is on the march. But it is fragile. We have to protect 
and nourish it. Even here in America--especially here in America. We 
are a beacon to the rest of the world, especially to oppressed people 
everywhere.
  We Americans have been complacent and neglectful with regard to our 
democracy. We have allowed the infrastructure that sustains it to fray 
around the edges. Our democracy has lost some of its marvelous luster. 
It is time to restore that luster.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
historic election reform legislation, which of course comes before the 
Senate at a time when our Nation is responding to new challenges at 
home and abroad.
  I want to thank Senators Dodd and McConnell and other Senators for 
their hard work to create this bipartisan bill, and I thank the 
majority leader and the minority leader for working together and 
ensuring that this legislation is being considered at this time. Our 
efforts to address this issue together demonstrate to the American 
people that a matter as critical as election reform can and should be 
driven by the national interest, not by partisan, parochial or 
political interests.
  After all, the integrity of self-governed democracies starts with the 
right of citizens to vote, and when that right is not shared equally, 
the strength of our democracy is diminished.
  We must recognize and celebrate the fact that American history has 
been a story of continual progress in this regard. Generation after 
generation, voting booths have been opened and voting rights extended 
to groups of citizens once disenfranchised. That wonderful process of 
growth has, over the generations, built a broader and better America 
that has become a brighter beacon of equality and opportunity to people 
around the world.
  But we can never stop forming, in the words of our Constitution, a 
more perfect union, and to that end we must realize that haphazard or 
bureaucratic disenfranchisement still occurs in America today as a 
result of arcane or confusing voting systems. We must realize that 
millions of Americans who are eligible to vote still encounter 
unnecessary barriers to casting their vote, and to having their votes 
counted. That disenfranchisement, whenever and however it occurs, is a 
blemish on the sanctity of our system, and it is a blemish that only 
we--the democratic representatives of the people--can help to heal.
  The provisions in this legislation will help guarantee access and 
accuracy in the voting booth and ballot box by making sure that the 
fundamental right to vote of all citizens is protected, that the 
ballots of all registered voters are counted, and that only those 
persons who are eligible to vote can do so.
  We can all agree that the November 2000 election--which I seem to 
recall reading a thing or two about in the newspapers--exposed serious 
flaws in our federal election process, and I am happy to say that this 
legislation has an answer for most of the flaws exposed.
  Experts estimate that in November 2000, some 2.5 million Americans 
had their ballots for President discarded for any number of reasons. In 
some cases, the cause was faulty voting equipment, in others confusing 
ballots. This legislation will wisely require States to adopt voting 
systems which permit voters to verify their ballot choices and correct 
errors before their vote is cast. It requires states to adopt systems 
that address the needs of disabled voters, and of voters with limited 
English proficiency. And to make sure that these provisions have teeth, 
the bill sets Federal standards for voter error rates and requires 
states to meet or beat those benchmarks.

  In the 2000 election, many citizens who believed they were eligible 
to vote were simply turned away from the polls. This legislation will 
make sure that all citizens who show up to vote have the right to cast 
provisional ballots, so that their votes can be tabulated if and when 
their eligibility is verified.
  According to reports, in the 2000 election, other citizens were 
denied the right to vote because registration lists were simply not 
accurate. This legislation will require each State to create 
computerized, statewide voter registration lists and to coordinate 
those lists with other databases to ensure that the lists are as up-to-
date and as error-free as possible.
  The November 2000 election also made it painfully clear that states 
were being forced to bear the total financial burden for federal 
elections, and many states lacked the funding necessary to implement 
more efficient voting systems. This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion 
to help states and localities meet the requirements for upgrading 
voting systems, to improve accessibility for disabled and special needs 
voters, and to implement new procedures to increase voter turnout, 
educate voters, and identify, deter, and investigate voter fraud.
  Mr. President, the revolutionary idea at the core of American 
democracy is that our government's power is derived from the consent of 
the governed. In other words, small-r republican government depends 
upon the small-d democratic right to vote. Two hundred years ago. 
Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The will of the people . . . is the only 
legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect is free 
expression should be our first object.''
  Today, the best way for us to protect the free expression of the will 
of the people is to build an election system that all Americans can 
count on, by ensuring that all their votes and only their votes are 
counted. This legislation furthers our progress toward that noble goal. 
It deserves our strong support.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have before us a bill that seeks to 
take unprecedented steps to improve the methods by which Americans vote 
for our elected officials. To a large extent, Congress is charting new 
territory in an area where States have traditionally been left to their 
own devices. Congress has in the past stepped in to guarantee the right 
to vote for American military personnel and U.S. citizens who live 
abroad as well as to protect the voting rights of Americans against 
discrimination. Most recently, Congress has involved itself in the area 
of voter registration with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 
However, the Federal Government to date has had little or no role with 
respect to the administration of elections, which is traditionally a 
State and local responsibility.
  Since this is new territory for Congress, we must start by asking 
ourselves what we are trying to accomplish. The closeness of the 2000 
presidential election highlighted some of the shortcomings in the 
voting systems and processes that are used throughout the country. Many 
suggestions have been tossed around for ways we can improve elections 
in the United States ranging from radical constitutional reforms to 
minor adjustments on the local level. It is clear to me that the most 
important role Congress can play is to provide the resources, both 
financial and technical, that are necessary for states and communities 
to administer fair and accurate elections.
  The Dodd-McConnell compromise legislation being considered by the 
Senate takes steps to help State and local governments achieve high 
standards of fairness and accuracy in elections. Still, the bill is not 
perfect. Because of the nature of compromise legislation, every Senator 
can find things they like and things they do not.

[[Page S2526]]

  Nevertheless, this bill does accomplish one of the key objectives of 
Federal election reform. Central to any attempt to help States and 
localities improve their election systems is providing funds to do so. 
It's usually not lack of will but lack of funds that hinders local 
reform efforts. I'm pleased that this bill provides a total of $3.5 
billion to States and localities to help improve the administration of 
elections. Funds will become available through a newly created Election 
Administration Commission for items like upgrading or replacing voting 
machines, improving accessibility for disabled voters, and simplifying 
voting and voter registration procedures.
  On the other hand, one problem with this bill is the degree of 
Federal control that will be exerted on elections. It's difficult to 
strike the right balance between helping States and localities improve 
the administration of elections while still allowing for local 
flexibility. This bill contains a number of well intentioned but 
specific mandates on States and localities along with potentially heavy 
handed enforcement procedures if they are deemed to be out of 
compliance with Federal mandates. Still, the bill does provide for 100 
percent funding for all Federal mandates thus lessening the impact on 
the State and local governments that must implement these mandates.
  Finally, I'm pleased that measures were included in this bill, 
largely through the work of Senator Bond, to combat the problem of 
voter fraud. The Dodd-McConnell compromise strengthens language in 
current law providing penalties for giving false information with 
respect to voting or voter registration, or for conspiring to do so. It 
also clarifies that these penalties apply for giving false information 
with respect to naturalization, citizenship, or alien registration.
  The compromise also contains carefully balanced language designed to 
protect against the kinds of fraud that can occur with mail-in voter 
registration and mail-in voting. While efforts to strip out these anti-
fraud protections threatened to unravel the compromise, I am pleased 
that this matter was resolved and a compromise was found that protects 
the ability to vote by mail without weakening the bill's anti-fraud 
protections.
  In addition, other measures have been added to the bill through 
amendments on the Senate floor to give States more tools to ensure the 
integrity of their voter lists and prevent fraud, including my 
amendment to allow for coordination of statewide voter lists with 
social security records to check for deaths and individuals registered 
under false identities. Voter fraud is a direct threat to the electoral 
process and these measures represent progress toward eliminating that 
threat.
  At the end of the day, we have a bipartisan bill that takes concrete 
steps to help state and local governments improve the administration of 
elections. While it isn't perfect, the Dodd-McConnell legislation 
represents a positive move that should give Americans greater 
confidence in their elections and our system of government.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Election 
Reform. Today is a good day for this country and the manner in which we 
hold federal elections.
  For several weeks after the last vote was cast in the 2000 elections, 
Americans were inundated with image after image of ballots being 
counted and recounted. As the election was further scrutinized, 
numerous stories of voter fraud were brought to the nation's attention.
  While the list of problems encountered during the last election is 
seemingly unending, the point is that there are improvements to the 
system that must be made. Today, we have taken a very big, very 
important step in making sure that this system works better. After all, 
we have no more important right as American citizens than the right to 
vote.
  In this bill, we set forth some very important standards and 
procedures to protect this right. We will require systems to permit a 
voter to verify his ballot choices and correct errors before the ballot 
is cast so that the voter can be certain that his vote will be for the 
candidate of his choice.
  In the case where an individual claims to be a registered voter who 
is eligible to vote but isn't on the official registration list, that 
individual will be allowed to cast a provisional vote. The appropriate 
election official must then verify the claim of eligibility. If the 
claim is verified, that vote will be counted. There will then be a free 
access system that the voter can use to check to see whether that vote 
was counted, and if not, the system will give the reason for that 
decision.
  These measures, and others in the bill, are intended to make certain 
that the people who are eligible to vote are given that right. The 
other side of the coin is to make certain that people who are not 
eligible to vote are prevented from voting. One of the things that this 
bill does is require each state to implement an interactive, 
computerized, statewide, voter registration list. This will also help 
to make certain that noone is able to vote more than once.
  One of the concerns that many states would have had with this piece 
of legislation is the cost involved in implementing these reforms. 
Recognizing these concerns, we have authorized $3.5 billion to make 
certain that the states do not bear the burden of these reforms.
  This legislation represents the hard work of many members from both 
sides of the aisle. It is truly a testament to the good that can come 
from bi-partisanship and I commend all of the Senators who worked so 
hard to make this happen.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking 
Member McConnell for working closely with me to reach agreement on an 
amendment to help ensure that the millions of Americans living overseas 
can vote in Federal elections.
  Millions of Americans live abroad. Some are business people, some are 
military personnel, others are students, and some are Peace Corp 
volunteers. Their votes should count, too.
  This amendment is simple and reasonable, but important. It directs 
the Commission created in the Election Reform package to consider the 
needs and concerns of millions of overseas voters, both civilian and 
military personnel. The amendment directs the commission to study the 
issue of long-term registration for overseas voters and make 
recommendations. It would create a single office in every state that 
overseas voters could contact for information about voter registration 
and absentee ballots. The Commission is asked to determine if this 
office could, and should do more. It states that when election 
officials reject an absentee ballot, the overseas voter should be 
notified and given an explanation on why their application was 
rejected. Finally, this amendment also ask states to report on the 
number of absentee ballots, within a reasonable time frame.
  Early in my political career, I served as the Secretary of State for 
West Virginia, so I understand the importance of voting issues and the 
need to be sensitive to the concerns of states. But we also have an 
obligation to overseas Americans who deserve the chance to vote.
  I deeply appreciate the interest and support of Chairman Dodd, 
Senator McConnell and their staffs. I know that the bipartisan House 
Election Reform legislation includes important provisions for overseas 
voters, both civilian and military, recognizing that they, too, deserve 
to vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this afternoon I would like to commend my 
colleagues for passing S. 565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal 
Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. I believe that this historic 
piece of legislation will resolve many of the problems that the country 
experienced in the Year 2000 election.
  This bill includes a number of important elements that are designed 
to improve and safeguard the voting process across the country. The 
bill establishes uniform and nondiscriminatory Federal standards, 
including voter notification procedures and a uniform error rate for 
voting systems, that will reassure voters that their votes will be 
correctly registered. The bill also includes mandatory procedures for 
provisional voting that will ensure that all legitimate voters have the 
right to vote. Additionally, the bill establishes an interactive, 
computerized, statewide voter registration system that will prevent 
future incidents of election fraud. The

[[Page S2527]]

bill also includes Federal grant programs that will help the States pay 
for these new mandatory requirements, and provide incentives for States 
to replace voting machines, educate voters, and train poll workers. The 
bill also establishes an Election Administration Commission to improve 
the administration of elections across the country by using grant 
programs, studies, and recommendations.
  Most importantly, this bill will play a role in improving the 
situation for disabled voters. The obstacles facing millions of 
disabled voters have concerned me long before the 2000 elections. I 
find it particularly distressing that many of our nation's disabled 
veterans, who sacrificed so much for our country, are confronted with 
too many obstacles, including inaccessible polling places and machines 
that cannot be used by blind and visually impaired voters. According to 
a 2001 GAO report, requested by Senator Harkin and me, 84 percent of 
all polling places in the U.S. are not accessible to disabled voters. 
Additionally, no polling place visited by the GAO had a ballot or 
voting system available for blind or visually-impaired voters to mark a 
ballot without requiring assistance from a poll worker or companion.
  I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate for supporting my 
amendment to ensure that the Federal Access Board will be consulted on 
the new voting systems standards. The Access Board has a good deal of 
insight and experience in solving the accessibility issues facing 
voters with disabilities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for 
accepting Senator Harkin's amendment, which I cosponsored, to make it 
the Sense of the Senate that ``curbside voting'' should be allowed by 
states only as a last resort. For many disabled voters, ``curbside 
voting'' strips away their sacred right to cast a private ballot. It is 
my hope that these amendments, combined with the $100 million grant 
program to improve the accessibility of polling places and the new 
voting systems standards, will ensure that the disabled community and 
our Nation's veterans will become more involved in our Nation's 
election process.
  One major issue for the Senate was how to strike a balance between 
preventing voter fraud and ensuring greater participation by legitimate 
voters. The compromise substitute amendment included provisions that 
would both include mandatory Federal standards to make the election 
process easier for legitimate voters and prevent voter fraud. I 
cosponsored this amendment, because it struck the necessary bipartisan 
compromise that was required to ensure the passage of election reform 
legislation.
  I voted against the Schumer-Wyden amendment and against two cloture 
motions regarding this amendment, because I believed that it would 
destroy this bipartisan compromise. The issue of election reform is so 
important that it requires broad bipartisan support, as was achieved in 
the House of Representatives with the Ney-Hoyer bill. While I 
understand the intentions of the proponents of the Schumer-Wyden 
amendment, I was concerned that this amendment would strip out the 
anti-fraud provisions of the compromise, and endanger passage of this 
bill. My hope was that this impasse would force the parties to work 
together to achieve meaningful election reform legislation. I am glad 
that Senators Wyden and Bond were able to work together to resolve this 
obstacle, and that we are now voting on final passage of this bill.
  Again, I would like to congratulate my colleagues on passing this 
legislation. It is my hope that the House-Senate Conference on this 
bill can be resolved soon. We owe it to the American people to ensure 
that they have fair, open, and accurate elections.

                          ____________________