[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10488-S10516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 3295, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany (H.R. 3295), a bill to 
     establish a program to provide funds to States to replace 
     punchcard voting systems, to establish the Election 
     Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of 
     Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with 
     the administration of certain Federal election laws and 
     programs, to establish minimum election administration 
     standards for States and units of local government with 
     responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, 
     and for other purposes.

  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the conference report be considered 
as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 20 minutes of debate on 
the conference report.
  Mr. DODD. I presume that time is equally divided between Senator 
McConnell and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. We spoke at some length yesterday, and my colleague from 
Missouri was very involved. I am prepared to reserve my time until 
Senator Bond and Senator McConnell have time to talk about this report.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with a sense of relief and 
satisfaction that we have come to the end of this marathon to do 
something I believe everybody in this body and in the other body 
believe is vitally important. We need to change the system to make it 
easier to vote and tougher to cheat. I begin by offering my sincere 
thanks and congratulations to Senator Dodd, to Senator McConnell on our 
side, for their great work, to our good friends on the House side, 
Chairman Ney and Congressman Hoyer. We have gotten to know them much 
better over the last months as we have worked together. This has been 
truly an heroic effort.
  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 and inactive lists. We discovered our 
military's votes were mishandled and lost. We learned of legal voters 
turned away, while dead voters cast ballots. We discovered that many 
people voted twice, while too many weren't even counted once.
  This final compromise bill--and it is a compromise in the truest 
sense of the word--tries to address each of the fundamental problems we 
have discovered.
  For starters, this bill provides $3.9 billion in funding over the 
next 5 years to help States and localities improve and update their 
voting systems. In addition to providing this financial help, we also 
provide specific minimum requirements for the voting systems so that we 
can be assured that the machinery meets minimum error rates and that 
voters are given the opportunity to correct any errors that they have 
made prior to their vote being cast.
  This bill also provides funding to help ensure the disabled have 
access to the polling place and that the voting system is fully 
accessible to those with disabilities. A very special thanks to the 
Senator from Connecticut for this unwavering commitment to those goals.
  We also create a new Election Administration Commission to be a 
clearinghouse for the latest technologies and improvements, as well as 
the agency who will be responsible for funneling the federal funds to 
States and localities. This reflects a great deal of effort by the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
  Then the bill attempts to address one of my key concerns, and that of 
course is the issue of vote fraud.
  Now, I like dogs and I have respect for the dearly departed, but I do 
not think we should allow them to vote. Protecting the integrity of the 
ballot box is important to all Americans, but especially to Missouri 
because of our State's sad history of widespread vote fraud. This 
legislation recognizes that illegal votes dilute the value of legally 
cast votes--a kind of disenfranchisement no less serious than not being 
able to cast a ballot.
  If your vote is canceled by the vote of a dog or a dead person, it is 
as if you did not have a right to vote. Much has been said about this. 
We have even heard from some colleagues in groups that vote fraud does 
not really exist. We have been told by professors and other learned 
folks in ivory towers that vote fraud really only exists in movies. 
Well, gang, come down out of your ivory towers. We can explain it to 
you. We know better.
  In just the past month we learned of voter scams in Pennsylvania, and 
now we are learning of an ongoing FBI investigation in South Dakota 
where the media reports:

       Every vote counts--unless ballots are being cast by people 
     who don't exist, are dead, or who don't even live in South 
     Dakota. A major case involving those voter fraud issues has 
     been under investigation by the FBI for the past month.

  If vote fraud is happening in South Dakota, it could be happening 
everywhere. In fact, in a report just released, which reviewed voter 
file information across State lines, nearly 700,000 people were 
registered in more than one State and over 3,000 double-voted in the 
2000 election. That is 3,000 vote fraud penalties, felonies, waiting to 
be prosecuted. I hope local, State, and Federal officials involved will 
aggressively pursue these crimes.
  But, as I have said numerous times since I began this quest with 
Senators Dodd and McConnell many months ago, I believe that an election 
reform bill must have two goals--make it easier to vote but tougher to 
cheat.
  Lets discuss for a moment a few of our registered voters: Barnabas 
Miller of California, Parker Carroll of North Carolina, Packie Lamont 
of Washington, D.C., Cocoa Fernandez of Florida, Holly Briscoe of 
Maryland, Maria Princess Salas of Texas and Ritzy Mekler of Missouri.
  They are a new breed of American voter. Barnabas and Cocoa are 
poodles. Parker is a Labrador. Maria Princess is a Chihuahua, Holly is 
a Jack Russell Terrier, and Ritzy is a Springer-Spaniel.
  So has our voting system really gone to the dogs? And what can we do 
about it? This final bill takes this issue

[[Page S10489]]

square on, and I am very pleased that this final agreement retains and 
strengthens the anti-vote fraud provisions we spend so much time 
fighting to include:
  New voters who choose to register by mail must provide proof of 
identity at some point in the process, whether at initial registration, 
when they vote in person or by mail. Among the kinds of acceptable 
forms of identification: utility bill, government check, bank 
statement, or drivers license--no dog licenses, please. In lieu of the 
individual providing proof of identity, States may also electronically 
verify an individual's identity against existing State databases. This 
should go a long way toward solving the fraud occuring in South Dakota.
  States will be required to maintain a statewide voter registration 
list.
  Mail-in registration cards will now require applicants specifically 
to affirm their American citizenship.
  The bill makes it a Federal crime to conspire to commit voter fraud. 
Those behind illegal vote fraud activities will be subject to 
penalties, not just the poor operatives who signed the fraudulent 
applications.
  Voters who do not appear on a registration list must be allowed to 
cast a provisional ballot. Voters without proper identification are 
also allowed to vote provisionally, but no provisional ballot will be 
counted until it is properly verified as a legal vote under state law.
  If a poll is held open beyond the time provided by State law, votes 
cast after that time would be provisional and held separately.
  Finally, voters will be required to include either their driver's 
license number or the last four digits of their social security number 
on their voter registration form. Again, this reform will also help in 
uncovering the fraud that is occuring in South Dakota.
  I believe that these meaningful reforms will go a long way to helping 
states clean up voter rolls, and thus clean-up elections.
  Will Rogers once said, ``I love a dog. He does nothing for political 
reasons.'' Our election laws should keep it that way.
  Mr. President, the Help America Vote Act contains many important 
provisions that will improve the equipment voters use to cast ballots 
at the polls. It also will take major steps to prevent fraud, which 
disenfranchises voters by cancelling the votes of legal voters with 
illegal votes. This bill follows in the path of the Voting Rights Act, 
the National Voter Registration Act and other Federal voting statutes 
the enhance the voting rights of all Americans and protect the exercise 
of their franchise. These important provisions deserve further review 
so their meaning and the intent of Congress in including the provisions 
in the bill is clearly understood.
  By passage of this legislation, Congress has made a statement that 
vote fraud exists in this country. The many reported cases and 
incidents of registration and vote fraud revealed in testimony before 
Congress, in our debates and in the press make it imperative that we 
implement such standards that are clearly within the Constitutional 
power and prerogatives of Congress.
  A principle concern of Congress addressed in this bill is the abuse 
of mail registration cards, created by Congress as part of the National 
Voter Registration Act, for the purpose of committing vote fraud. The 
creation by Congress of the mail registration cards opened an new 
avenue for vote fraud in many States. NVRA requires States and 
localities to accept registration cards through the mail while limiting 
the ability of states and localities to authenticate or verify the 
registrations. Accordingly, the mail-in registration cards have become 
a means of unscrupulous individuals to register the names of deceased, 
ineligible or simply non-existent people to vote.
  In my home State of Missouri, there is abundant evidence of these 
cards being used for the purpose of getting phony names, the names of 
the deceased and even the names of pets on voter rolls. Someone even 
registered the deceased mother of the prosecuting attorney of the City 
of St. Louis. Names have been registered to drop-houses, businesses, 
union halls, Mail-box Etc. and vacant lots. From there the people 
behind the fraud can request an absentee ballot in the name of the 
voter or attempt to go to the polls and cast a vote under the assumed 
name.
  Congress agreed that while the mail-in cards have made registration 
more accessible, the policy has also created increased opportunities 
for fraud. To address this, we created an identification requirement 
for first-time voters who register by mail. The security of the 
registration and voting process is of paramount concern to Congress and 
the identification provision and the fraud provisions in this bill are 
necessary to guarantee the integrity of our public elections and to 
protect the vote of individual citizens from being devalued by fraud. 
Every false registration and every fraudulent ballot cast harms the 
system by cancelling votes cast by legitimate voters. It undermines the 
confidence of the public that their vote counts and therefore 
undermines public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
  Under this new Federal requirement, those who choose to register by 
mail will have to show identification before the first time they vote 
in that jurisdiction. If the voter is registering to vote in a State 
that has a statewide voter registration system complying with the 
requirements of this bill, the voter will have to show identification 
before the first time they vote in that state. The voter has to show 
identification at some point between the time they register and the 
time they vote. To comply with the identification requirement, the 
voter can include a copy of the identification with their registration 
card, a copy of the identification can be included with an absentee 
ballot or it can be shown when the voter goes to the polling place. The 
option of the voter to vote absentee or to vote at the polls is not 
limited but the objective of Congress is fulfilled by voters who 
register by mail verifying the identify of the voter at some point 
before they cast their first vote.
  It must be noted, that in drafting the bill, the authors of the 
Senate bill conducted extensive research. It was the conclusion of the 
authors based on the research that it is in the capacity of the chief 
state election official and the overwhelming majority of election 
jurisdictions to track the names of those who register by mail. With 
that information, the election jurisdictions will have accurate and 
ample information to determine which voters will be required under the 
terms of this statute to present identification at the polls. It has 
been argued that there is likely to be confusion at the polls because 
states will not have the information as to first time voters. This 
concern was carefully weighed by the bill's authors and the conferees 
and it was agreed that the evidence does not support the assertion.
  Regarding the numerous criticisms of this section: this provision 
will not result in voters being denied the right to vote. Voters who do 
not have the identification required will be given the opportunity to 
cast a fail safe ballot. Voters who are at the polls will cast a 
provisional ballot and those who vote by mail will have their ballots 
subject to additional review to determine validity of the registration.
  This provision does not single out those who register by mail in an 
improper manner, rather it builds on the existing structure Congress 
created in the National Voter Registration Act. When creating mail 
registration, Congress recognized the potential for fraud and 
authorized states to require mail registrants to vote in person the 
first time they vote. The approach proved to be inadequate so in this 
bill we took additional steps. The approach we took, however, was 
already paved in the passage of the National Voter Registration Act.
  This provision is not discriminatory; the documents required for 
identification are widely available. The Department of Transportation 
statistics report that more than 90 percent of Americans of voting age 
have a drivers license. But to be certain no one will be negatively 
impacted, the conferees included carefully crafted and balanced 
identification requirements. The required pieces of identification 
include items widely available to all citizens, including the disabled, 
the poor, new citizens, students and minorities.
  For example, positive identification is required to apply and receive 
food stamps. When applying for food stamps, the required identification 
is

[[Page S10490]]

very similar to that required in this bill, including a driver's 
license or some other identification that allows the state to verify 
the identify of the applicant for the purpose of preventing fraud. 
Provision and verification of an existing social security number is 
required before a person can qualify for Federal temporary assistance. 
The steps taken in this bill are in line with the steps taken by the 
Federal Government to prevent fraud in welfare assistance. Surely clean 
elections, accurate results and faith in the election process is as an 
important of an objective as preventing welfare fraud. The conferees 
also agree that the provision is something that can be readily complied 
with by the disabled. As we know, many of the disabled are in the work 
environment, therefore will be in possession of a paycheck or tax 
return or other government document bearing the name and address of the 
voter. As stated, Federal benefits require an identification. For those 
who use state or federal services, they again will have identification 
or another government document related to the provision of the service. 
Again, great steps have been taken to ensure that all Americans can 
comply with this provision.

  The aged, disabled, the poor and members of minority groups are most 
often the target of fraudulent registration and absentee ballot fraud 
schemes that take advantage of the lack of security in the system, 
their ability to register to vote and cast a ballot will be enhanced 
most by this legislation.
  The identification requirements do not run afoul of the Voting Rights 
Act. In fact, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph Boyd in 
a letter to the Senate stated that the identification provision does 
not violate the Voting Rights Act. The identification requirement gives 
the voter choices as to where and at what point in the process to 
produce identification. The ability of the states to apply this 
provision in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner is limited by giving 
the choice to the voter. Furthermore, Congress explicitly provided that 
the identification requirements are to be administered in a uniform and 
nondiscriminatory manner. Election officials must ask all people for 
identification when the legislation calls for it.
  The first time voter ID requirements for those who register by mail 
are obviously not discriminatory since they apply to all voters 
regardless of race, color or ethnic origin and must be applied in a 
uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.
  It must be noted that one form of identification required is a 
current valid photo identification. It is the intent of the conferees 
that this identification be issued by a government entity or a 
legitimate recognized employer. The conferees agree that the 
identification should not be that of a party organization, a political 
organization, a club or a retail establishment. The conferees intend 
that the photo identification be something that is extremely difficult 
to falsify or procure under false pretenses.
  Congress intends the Help America Vote Act to work along side the 
National Voter Registration Act. However, the identification provision, 
section 303(b) Requirements for Voters Who Register By Mail, may be 
read by some courts or other parties to require action or conduct 
prohibited by NVRA.
  It is the intent of Congress that voters who register by mail show 
identification. If a court reads this obligation to conflict with any 
other statute, it is the intent of Congress that section 303(b) of the 
Help America Vote Act control in such a situation. Congressional intent 
is reflected by the presence of section 906, which clearly states that 
this section will be controlling.
  The conferees recognize that many States have taken steps to address 
fraud. A number of those steps may go beyond that set in this bill. It 
is the agreement of the conferees that this bill in no way limits the 
ability of the states from taking steps beyond those required in this 
bill. For instance, several States require those who register by mail 
to vote in person the first time they vote. This bill does not limit a 
State from taking this additional step to address fraud. Each of the 
steps taken in this bill to address fraud shall be considered to be a 
minimum standard.
  This legislation sets an additional Federal mandate. All people 
registering to vote for a Federal election will be required to provide 
a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social 
security number on the registration card when they register to vote. If 
an applicant has neither, the registrant should indicate so and the 
State will provide a number at the time the application is processed. 
No registration can be processed unless this information is included.
  The authors of this bill found that voter rolls across the country 
are inaccurate or in very poor order, the condition in many 
jurisdictions, particularly the large jurisdictions, are in a state of 
crisis. Voter lists are swollen with the names of people who are no 
longer eligible to vote in that jurisdiction, are deceased or are 
disqualified from voting for another reason. It has been found that 
650,000 in this country are registered in more than one State. As of 
October of 2002, 60,000 people were registered in Florida and at least 
one other state. In St. Louis County, some 30,000 people were 
registered to vote in the county and at least one other county in the 
State.
  The conferees agree that a unique identification number attributed to 
each registered voter will be an extremely useful tool for State and 
local election officials in managing and maintaining clean and accurate 
voter lists. It is the agreement of the conferees that election 
officials must have such a tool. The conferees want the number to be 
truly unique and something election officials can use to determine on a 
periodic basis if a voter is still eligible to vote in that 
jurisdiction. The social security number and driver's license number 
are issued by government entities and are truly unique to the voter. 
They are the most unique numbers available, that is why the conferees 
require the voter to give the number.
  Again, it is the intent of the conferees to impose a new Federal 
mandate for voter registration.
  Under this bill, the use of the full social security number is not 
required, a partial social security number is required. That 
requirement does not conflict with the terms of the Federal privacy 
act. The privacy act states that people cannot be required to give 
their social security number except for limited purposes. Registering 
to vote is not one of the exceptions. But the privacy act protection is 
limited to the full social security number, there.

  The conferees do not want this requirement to conflict with the 
privacy act, therefore, language was included in the bill to clarify 
the privacy act with regard to the partial social security number. The 
bill clarifies that the partial social security number is not covered 
by the privacy act, so asking for four digits will not conflict in any 
way.
  Finally, It is important to note that states that utilize full social 
security numbers for voter registration applicants can continue to do 
so after passage of this legislation. This new registration requirement 
is a minimum standard. If a state requires applicants to provide more 
information--such as their entire nine-digit social security number--
this legislation will not override that state requirement.
  Section three of the legislation is known as the minimum standards 
section. It includes minimum standards for federal election to be 
adopted by the states. The first of the mandates concerns the voting 
system, which includes the type of voting machine or method used by a 
jurisdiction. This section will require the voting system to meet 
minimum standards. However, the legislation does not seek to ban the 
use of a particular type of system and it does not instruct a 
jurisdiction as to what type of system to use. The intent of the bill 
is to improve the system used; it is not the intent of the legislation 
to prohibit a jurisdiction from using any type of system or to ban a 
voting system.
  Under this minimum standard, the voting system in every jurisdiction 
will have three requirements. First, the voter has to be permitted to 
verify the votes they cast. This requirement gives the voter the 
opportunity to review the ballot after it is filled out and before it 
is cast so that the voter himself can determine if he made a mistake in 
filling out the ballot. The second requirement

[[Page S10491]]

gives the voter the right to a replacement ballot. The intent of this 
provision follows on the verification provisions; if a voter finds that 
he has made a mistake he can ask a poll worker for a replacement ballot 
for the voter to fill out and cast. The first ballot, of course, will 
be invalidated by the poll workers. This provision also applies to 
mail-in voting and absentee voting. It does not require a state or 
jurisdiction to do anything other than provide a voter the opportunity 
to get a replacement ballot. It is incumbent upon the voter to do so 
before any deadline for submitting the absentee or mail ballot.
  The next voting machine related requirement has to do with over 
votes, voters who cast more than one vote in a single race and spoil 
their ballot. Certain voting technologies, such as the DRE, precinct-
based opti-scan and lever machines, notify the voter that they have 
voted more than once in a single race. If the technology can notify the 
voter, this section requires that it is employed and voters be 
notified. There are certain technologies that do not notify the voters 
of overvoters, such as paper ballots, central count systems, punch-card 
systems and absentee ballots. To satisfy the requirement, jurisdictions 
that use this system will be required to have in place a voter 
education system to inform the voter of the consequences of overvoting 
and the remedies that are available should they overvote. This is a 
compromise and it is consistent with the clear intent of the authors of 
this bill not to eliminate any type of voting system and allow 
jurisdictions to choose the system that is best for that jurisdiction.
  The legislation also requires every jurisdiction in every State to 
offer voters who claim to be registered in a jurisdiction but do not 
appear on the voter rolls for that jurisdiction the right to cast a 
provisional ballot. If the voter provides the required information and 
attests to their belief of being properly registered, the voter will be 
given a provisional ballot. No voter will be turned away from the polls 
because of a mistake or oversight at the administrative level.
  There are several points I want to make as to how the provisional 
vote is to operate. I also want to clarify the intent of the authors as 
to the extent and limit of the right conferred on the voter by this 
section.
  The provisional ballot will be extended to those who arrive at the 
polls to find that their name does not appear on the register of 
voters. The statute states that the poll worker shall inform the voter 
of the right to vote by provisional ballot. That right, however, is 
extended to those who believe that they are registered to vote and are 
registered to vote in that particular jurisdiction.
  It is not the intent of the authors of this bill to extend the right 
to vote by provisional ballot to everyone who shows up at the polls and 
is not registered or for those who are not eligible to vote in the 
election. The intent is to provide protection to those who in fact 
registered but do not appear on the register because of an 
administrative mistake or oversight.
  Before one can get a provisional ballot, the voter must sign an 
affidavit attesting to the fact that he believes he registered to vote 
in that jurisdiction and that he is eligible to vote in that election. 
So in addition to the registration question, the voter must also state 
that he is not disqualified from voting in the election, such a reason 
may include felony status or the voter has already cast an absentee 
vote in the race.
  Once the voter turns over his ballot, it will not be tabulated until 
the information provided by the voter as to his registration status is 
verified. In verifying the information about the voter, the language of 
the statute states that the information provided shall be transmitted 
to a state or local election official for verification of the 
information. This language reflects the intent of the authors of the 
bill that the registration and eligibility of the voter be verified by 
an election official before the ballot is counted. It is also the 
intent of the authors that the verification be done by someone other 
than the poll workers and that the ballot be segregated from other 
ballots until that information is verified. The authors went to lengths 
to ensure that the ballot is not simply counted once cast, rather a 
review of the information is to be conducted on the status of the 
voter.
  Furthermore, ballots will be counted according to state law. If it is 
determined that the voter is registered in a neighboring jurisdiction 
and state law requires the voter to vote in the jurisdiction in which 
he is registered, meaning the vote was not cast in accordance with 
State law, the vote will not count. It was contemplated by the authors 
of the statute that under such circumstances, the vote will not count. 
It is not the intent of the authors to overturn State laws regarding 
registration or state laws regarding the jurisdiction in which a ballot 
must be cast to be counted.

  Additionally, it is inevitable that voters will mistakenly arrive at 
the wrong polling place. If it is determined by the poll workers that 
the voter is registered but has been assigned to a different polling 
place, it is the intent of the authors of this bill that the poll 
worker can direct the voter to the correct polling place. In most 
States, the law is specific on the polling place where the voter is to 
cast his ballot. Again, this bill upholds state law on that subject.
  The legislation also speaks to efforts, through litigation or 
otherwise, to extend polling hours beyond those set by law. Under this 
bill, those who vote in an election as a result of an order extending 
polling hours, they will be required to cast a provisional ballot. This 
section only covers those who vote as a result of the order, it does 
not cover those who are in line before the polls close but cast their 
ballot after the closing time.
  Those who vote as a result of the order will cast a provisional 
ballot and the ballots are to be held separately from other provisional 
ballots cast in that race.
  As we have seen before in elections, lower courts have issued orders 
to extend polling hours only to have their order overturned later in 
the day. But prior to passage of this bill, once ballots are cast, we 
have no way of retrieving those ballots and candidates will be credited 
with votes that should never have been cast. With the method required 
by this legislation, the ballots of those voting based on the order 
will be segregated and identifiable. If the order is overturned, the 
parties involved in the election and perhaps the courts can then 
determine how to reconcile those ballots. It only seems fair that if 
the order is overturned and a higher court decides that the polling 
hours should not have been extended, then the ballots cast as a result 
of that order should not count for or against any of the candidates.
  The legislation also requires states to set up a computerized, 
statewide voter registration system to maintain the names of all 
registered, eligible voters. It has been discovered that in states 
across the country, registration lists contains the names of people who 
have left the jurisdiction, who are not eligible to vote because of 
their status as a felon, who are deceased or who are not eligible to 
vote in that jurisdiction for any number of reasons.
  As I prepared to draft this legislation, I reviewed the voting lists 
in two jurisdictions in my State, St. Louis City and St. Louis County. 
In the city, I found that one in ten voters were also registered 
somewhere else in the State and at the time of the November 2000 
election, there were more registered voters than there were city 
residents of voting age. In St. Louis County, I found nearly 35,000 
people who were registered somewhere else in the State. It was not 
unusual to find people who were registered four times in the state.
  It is well documented that registration lists around the country as 
in disarray; they are bloated and contain the names of thousands of 
people that no longer belong on the list. In part, this is because we 
live in an increasingly mobile society. It is also because congress 
made it more difficult for localities to maintain clean lists when 
Motor Voter was passed.
  Under this law, States will be required to maintain a State system 
and therefore the central database of information containing the names 
of all registered voters in the state.
  In most States, registration will be maintained for the first time on 
a statewide basis rather than jurisdiction by jurisdiction. This will 
not affect the obligation on the States to

[[Page S10492]]

conduct list maintenance according to the provisions of the National 
Voter Registration Act. First, for those States who are exempt from 
motor voter, this will not affect that exemption and it will not affect 
the way they maintain their voter lists. All other States must comply 
with NVRA maintenance provisions. This legislation does not limit the 
circumstances under which States can remove names from voter lists. The 
notice provisions must still be complied with, although they have been 
altered by the terms of this legislation.
  The requirement for a state-wide registration system will enhance the 
integrity of our election process, making it easier for citizens to 
vote and have their ballots counted, while clearing ineligible and 
false registrations from the voter rolls.
  The Help America Vote Act also includes two new crimes directed at 
those who commit vote fraud. This should be taken as further evidence 
of the extent of the concern of the conferees and Congress at large 
about voter fraud and the lengths that should be gone to stop voter 
fraud. One section in particular section, 905(a), requires additional 
clarification.
  This section is as well intended to work with NVRA. Under NVRA, 
people who use the mail registration card for the purpose of committing 
vote fraud are subject to a criminal penalty. The reading of NVRA 
appears to limit that to the person who actually commits the act, 
whether it be sign the false card, mail the false card or turn it in to 
the election officials. Section 905(a) of the Help America Vote Act, is 
intended to extend that reach of the statute to cover those who 
organize the fraudulent use of mail registration cards or who conspire 
with others to use the mail registration cards to commit vote fraud. 
Therefore, it is clear it is the intent of Congress to extend the reach 
of the law to get the conspirators and the ring leaders in committing 
vote fraud.
  Mr. President, I close expressing my sincere appreciation to the 
staff. On Senator Dodd's staff: Shawn Maher, Kennie Gill, and Ronnie 
Gillespie. On Senator McConnell's staff: Brian Lewis, Leon Sequeira, 
and Chris Moore. On the staff of Congressman Ney: Paul Vinovich, Chet 
Kalis, Roman Buhler, Matt Peterson, Pat Leahy. On Congressman Hoyer's 
staff: Keith Abouchar, Lennie Shambon, and Bill Cable.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for that statement 
which clearly reflects the intent of the authors of the bill on these 
important sections. If the Senator would yield, I would like to ask him 
some questions regarding various sections of this bill.
  This conference report has a section on alternative language 
accessibility of voting systems, but the bill does not expand the 
language accessibility beyond what is already required under the Voting 
Rights Act. Is that the understanding of the conferees on alternate 
language accessibility?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct. The Voting Rights Act requires certain 
voting materials to be available to the language groups delineated in 
the Voting Rights Act statute. The language in the bill simply States 
that the statute should be enforced. It is the intent of the authors to 
display our belief that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is 
important but it is not the intent of the authors to expand that right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator would yield, I have a few more 
questions.
  This bill makes significant changes in the voter registration process 
for Federal elections. These changes are designed to clean up our 
Nation's voter registration lists and reduce fraudulent registrations 
and voting. Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the 
integrity of the Federal election process. This legislation will 
further that interest by helping to ensure accurate voter rolls, which 
is the first step in ensuring fair elections. The senior Senator from 
Missouri was a conferee on this bill and he has seen many instances of 
duplicate voter registrations and voter fraud in his State. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Missouri if his understanding of the 
function and purpose of these new provisions is consistent with my 
understanding and the intent of the conferees on this conference 
report.
  The conference report on H.R. 3295 requires that individuals who 
register to vote on or after January 1, 2004, for Federal elections 
must provide their driver's license number on the registration form. If 
the individual has not been issued a valid driver's license number, 
then that individual must provide the last four digits of his or her 
social security number on the registration form. In the unlikely event 
that an individual has neither been issued a driver's license number, 
nor a social security number, the State shall issue that individual a 
random registration number.
  The State will then verify the registration information provided by 
the individual with information in the State's department of motor 
vehicle database. The State's department of motor vehicle database will 
be also be cross-checked against Social Security Administration 
records. It is important to note that States that utilize full social 
security numbers for voter registration applicants can continue to do 
so after passage of this legislation. This new registration requirement 
is a minimum standard. If a State requires applicants to provide more 
information--such as their entire nine-digit social security number--
this legislation will not override that State requirement.
  Furthermore, the new computerized statewide registration systems that 
we require States to implement will also help safeguard voter 
registration lists against fraud. A State's use of a statewide voter 
registration list will not, however, override State registration 
requirements. Thus, even though a voter's registration information has 
been entered into the statewide list that does not mean a voter will 
never have to re-register if that voter moves to a different 
jurisdiction within the State. The intent of the conferees is to 
provide a centralized list of registered voters to help guard against 
fraud. The intent is not to create one-time registration for voters and 
force States to let individuals vote from locations other than the 
precinct in which the voter is registered.
  I ask the Senator from Missouri if my explanation of these provisions 
reflects the intent of the conferees on this legislation?
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky. His understanding 
of these new voter registration provisions is correct. These provisions 
were designed to create more accurate voter lists and help ensure the 
integrity of elections. Recent studies have found that there are more 
than 720,000 people registered in more than one State. Duplicate 
registrations provide the opportunity for unscrupulous people to commit 
fraud and undermine honest elections by, in effect, invalidating 
legally cast ballots.
  Voter fraud can occur in many ways: submitting registration forms in 
the name of deceased or fictitious people is one of the most common. 
But some folks even fill out registration cards in the name of their 
pet. In my home State of Missouri and in several other States and 
localities across the country, we have seen serious documented cases of 
fraudulent voter registrations. I have spoken many times of the fraud 
in St. Louis in the 2000 election and this is an ongoing and indeed, a 
nationwide, problem. Just last week, we learned that the FBI is 
investigating widespread voter fraud in South Dakota and Pennsylvania.
  Based on the extensive documentation we have seen, there can be no 
doubt that voter fraud is a serious and real problem in Federal 
elections. The use of driver's license numbers and full or partial 
social security numbers will help elections officials to verify the 
identity and eligibility of individuals and reduce fraudulent voter 
registrations from being added to our voter rolls.
  I should also note that these provisions apply to all registrants for 
Federal elections regardless of the registrant's race, color or ethnic 
origin. It is not a burdensome or discriminatory requirement in any 
way. In fact, several States already require individuals to provide 
this type of information on voter registration applications. Some 
States require even more information from applicants, such as their 
full nine-digit social security number. We have seen that States that 
require additional identifying information from registrants have 
substantially fewer

[[Page S10493]]

duplicate and fraudulent registrations on their voter rolls.

  So, again, I agree with the Senator of Kentucky and am pleased to 
report the conferees agreed that voter fraud is a serious problem and 
included these provisions to help reduce that fraud and clean up the 
Nation's voter rolls.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would also like to ask my fellow conferee, the 
Senator from Missouri, about another voter registration provision in 
this legislation. It is my understanding that some voter registration 
applications currently in use are ambiguous with regard to questions 
about an applicant's citizenship status. Because of these ambiguous 
questions and instructions for answering the questions, the conferees 
concluded that registration forms should provide additional guidance to 
registration applicants and election officials who process voter 
registrations.
  This legislation requires that voter registration applications 
contain a question asking whether the applicant is a U.S. citizen and 
boxes for the applicant to answer the question by checking ``yes'' or 
``no.'' If neither box is checked, the election official must return 
the application to the individual with instructions to complete the 
form. In effect, we have created a second-chance registration 
opportunity. The individual's registration application cannot be 
processed and the individual cannot be registered unless the 
citizenship question is answered--and answered affirmatively. The 
registration form shall also inform the applicant of this procedure I 
have just described.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky has accurately described the 
intent and effect of this provision. I would also add, as I am sure the 
Senator from Kentucky recalls, we learned that many jurisdictions in 
this country have experienced continual confusion over citizenship 
questions on registration forms. Some jurisdictions simply discard 
registration applications or do not process the application when an 
individual does not answer the citizenship question. Other 
jurisdictions register individuals even though the individual did not 
answer the citizenship question. Both of these scenarios threaten the 
integrity of Federal elections. By requiring that incomplete 
registration cards be returned to applicants, we help ensure that those 
who innocently overlooked part of the registration form will be 
provided a second opportunity to complete it.
  As previously Stated, Congress has a compelling interest in 
protecting the integrity of the Federal election process. The conferees 
on H.R. 3295 believe that through this additional instruction about the 
citizenship question, both voter registration applicants and elections 
officials will take the appropriate actions to ensure those who are 
entitled to register are actually registered. Through this 
clarification and requirement that individuals affirmatively declare 
their U.S. citizenship, we help ensure that only eligible voters vote 
in Federal elections.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would also like to ask the senior Senator from 
Missouri about language in section 301 of the conference report. 
Section 301(a)(1), regarding Voting System Standards, says a voting 
system shall permit a voter to verify in a private and independent 
manner the votes selected. Section 301(a)(1) also says a voting system 
shall provide a voter an opportunity in a private and independent 
manner to change his or her ballot before the ballot is cast and 
counted.
  Am I correct that the conferees included the language ``in a private 
and independent manner'' to ensure that individuals can verify and 
change their votes free from intimidation or coercion from poll 
workers, election officials or others?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. The language ``in a 
private and independent manner'' was added to the Voting System 
Standards requirements to underscore the conferees' belief that voters 
should not be harassed or intimidated at the polling place. Section 
301(a)(1)(C) of the conference report also emphasizes that the privacy 
of the voter and confidentiality of the ballot is paramount. If a voter 
chooses to review his ballot and or make changes to his ballot, he 
should be able to do so free from the interference of others.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a couple of more questions for the Senator from 
Missouri. The Conference Report on H.R. 3295 contains a new requirement 
that voters in Federal elections have the opportunity to cast a 
provisional ballot in cases where that person's name does not appear on 
the list of eligible voters at a polling site and the voter declares 
that he or she is properly registered to vote at that polling site. I 
would like to ask the senior Senator from Missouri about the 
provisional ballot requirement.
  Am I correct that this legislation does not require a State or 
locality to count a provisional ballot cast by an individual who is not 
properly registered in the jurisdiction where the individual attempts 
to vote? And furthermore, this legislation does not require a State or 
locality to permit a voter who is not registered in a jurisdiction to 
vote from that jurisdiction?
  And am I also correct that a provisional ballot will be provided to a 
voter if a poll worker or other individual, pursuant to State law, 
challenges a voter's eligibility to cast a ballot?
  Mr. BOND. I agree completely with the Senator's description of this 
provision. Congress has said only that voters in Federal elections 
should be given a provisional ballot if they claim to be registered in 
a particular jurisdiction and that jurisdiction does not have the 
voter's name on the list of registered voters. The voter's ballot will 
be counted only if it is subsequently determined that the voter was in 
fact properly registered and eligible to vote in that jurisdiction.
  In other words, the provisional ballot will be counted only if it is 
determined that the voter was properly registered, but the voter's name 
was erroneously absent from the list of registered voters. This 
provision is in no way intended to require any State or locality to 
allow voters to vote from any place other than the polling site where 
the voter is registered.
  Further, as the Senator from Kentucky correctly pointed out, if State 
law permits the challenge of provisional voters by someone other than 
election officials, this legislation does not prevent that particular 
State practice.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for 
his insightful answers to my questions and for his tireless work on 
this conference report. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference 
report.
  Today is a monumental day for the United States Senate. After 22 
months of hard work, we are finally ready to vote, and hopefully 
overwhelmingly approve, election reform legislation. The House-Senate 
conference committee has presented this body with an outstanding piece 
of legislation.
  This conference report will usher in tremendous improvements to the 
elections process across this country and the Federal Government will 
share the costs. Through the establishment of an independent bipartisan 
commission, States will receive the best objective information on 
improving election systems.
  The conference report will ensure that those who are legally 
registered and eligible to vote are able to do so, and do so only once. 
The new requirements for the creation of statewide voter registration 
databases, voter registration and mail-in registrants voting for the 
first times are the core of the new protections against fraudulent 
registration and fraudulent voting.
  I thank the State and local organizations that have been there with 
us from the beginning and a special thank you to Doug Lewis from the 
Election Center. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a list of those organizations whose expertise and support 
was invaluable throughout the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Once again I would like to thank and congratulate 
Senators' Dodd and Bond and Congressmen Ney and Hoyer and the rest of 
the election reform conferees.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this historic 
conference report.
  In my remarks yesterday I thanked the various staff members on both 
sides of the aisle for their outstanding work.
  Also I ask unanimous consent an editorial in today's Wall Street 
Journal

[[Page S10494]]

called ``Dead Men Voting'' about the scandal unfolding in South Dakota 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2002]

                Voter Fraud Wanders Off the Reservation

                           (By John H. Fund)

       Today the Senate will approve and send to President Bush a 
     landmark bill that will upgrade voting machines and begin to 
     curb the voter fraud that is creeping into too many close 
     elections. It can't come soon enough. Last week, a massive 
     vote-fraud scandal broke out in a Senate race in Tom 
     Daschel's home state of South Dakota that could determine 
     control of that body.
       The FBI and state authorities are investigating hundreds of 
     possible cases of voter registration and absentee ballot 
     fraud. Attorney General Mark Barnett, a Republican, says the 
     probe centers on or near Indian reservations. ``All of those 
     counties are being flooded with new voters, ``says Adele 
     Enright, the Democratic auditor of Dewey County. ``We just 
     got a huge envelope of 350 absentee ballot applications 
     postmarked from the Sioux Falls office of the Democratic 
     Party.''
       Steve Aberle, the Dewey County state's attorney, says, many 
     of the applications are in the same handwriting. At least one 
     voter, Richard Maxon, says his signature was forged. Mr. 
     Aberle, a Democrat with relatives in the Cheyenne River 
     Tribe, says many Native Americans have wanted little to do 
     with ``the white man's government.'' But this year many 
     tribal elections have been scheduled for Nov. 5, the same day 
     as the critical election for Democrat Tim Johnson's Senate 
     seat. A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee memo last 
     month noted that the ``party has been working closely with 
     the Native population to register voters and Senator Johnson 
     has set up campaign offices on every reservation.''
       More and more counties are uncovering fraud. Rapid City 
     officials are investigating two brothers who may have forged 
     registrations. Denise Red Horse of Ziebach County died Sept. 
     3 in a car crash. But both Ziebach and Dewey counties found 
     separate absentee-ballot applications from her dated Sept. 21 
     in bundles of applications mailed from Democratic 
     headquarters. Maka Duta, who worked for the Democratic Party 
     collecting registrations in Ziebach, bought a county history 
     book that contains many local names. Some are turning up in 
     the pile of new registrations. At least nine absentee ballot 
     requests have been returned by the post office. Mable Romero 
     says she receive a registration card for her three-year-old 
     granddaughter, Ashley. Some voters claim to have been offered 
     cash to register to vote. In both Dewey and Ziebach counties, 
     the number of registered voters easily exceeds the number of 
     residents over 18 counted by the 2000 census.
       Renee Dross, an election clerk for Shannon County, says her 
     office has received some 1,100 new voter registrations in a 
     county with only 10,000 people. ``Many were clearly signed by 
     the same person,'' she says. Some registrants actually live 
     in neighboring Nebraska. As in most states, South Dakotans 
     are on an ``honor system'' and don't show photo ID to 
     register or vote. Only the unprecedented flood of 
     applications raised any suspicions.
       State Democrats told the Christian Science Monitor they 
     expect 10,000 new votes from the Indian reservations this 
     year. In 1996, Sen. Johnson won by only 8,600 votes. Russell 
     LaFountain, the director of Native Vote 2008, says his 
     organizers are encouraging ``strong absentee balloting.'' 
     Pine Ridge Reservation residents told me that 11 workers are 
     being paid $14 an hour to contact voters. The statewide 
     Indian voter project is run by Brian Drapeaux and Rich 
     Gordon, two former staffers for Sen. Daschle. Democratic 
     officials say they've fired Ms. Duta and claim they were the 
     first to bring the fraud to light. Ms. Enright, the Dewey 
     County auditor, says that claim isn't true and is ``pure 
     spin.''
       Voter fraud isn't unknown on reservations. Democrats have 
     often given out free tickets to Election Day picnics for 
     voters on the Pine Ridge Reservation, where 63% of people 
     live below the poverty level. In 1998, that prompted U.S. 
     Attorney Karen Schreier, a Democrat, and Attorney General 
     Barnett, a Republican, to write an unusual joint letter to 
     county auditors noting that ``simply offering to provide'' 
     food or gifts ``in exchange for showing up to vote is clearly 
     against the law.'' Amazingly, Kate Looby, the Democratic 
     candidate for secretary of state this year, has criticized 
     laws barring the holding of picnics for those who vote. She 
     also wants to drop restrictions on absentee voting.
       Making voting easy is desirable, but only if legitimate 
     voters don't have their civil right cancelled out by those 
     who shouldn't vote. In 1980, only about 5% of voters 
     nationwide cast absentee or early ballots. Now nearly 20% do. 
     ``Absentee voting is the preferred choice of those who commit 
     voter fraud,'' says Larry Sabato, a professor at the 
     University of Virginia. He suggests media outlets set up 
     ``campaign corruption hotlines'' and begin taking voter fraud 
     seriously. The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize in 1998 
     after its stories on how 56 absentee-ballot ``vote brokers'' 
     forged ballots in a Miami election. The sitting mayor was 
     removed from office.
       In Texas, Democrat state Rep. Debra Danburg, who chairs the 
     state House elections panel, has tried without success to 
     reform absentee-ballot laws that are so loose she says they 
     make ``elderly voters a target group for fraud.'' Eric 
     Mountain of the Dallas County district attorney's office says 
     some campaigns have paid vote brokers $10 to $15 a ballot. 
     Many seniors are visited at home and persuaded to have 
     someone mark an absentee ballot for them. Others have 
     absentee ballots stolen from their mailboxes.
       The law Congress is passing addresses some of the problems 
     the federal government created with the 1994 Motor Voter Law. 
     Let's hope the latest scandal in South Dakota--uncovered only 
     due to incredibly sloppy cheating--prompts states to examine 
     their own absentee-ballot laws so they will stop being 
     treated as an engraved invitation to fraud.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 1

       Thank you to the following organizations for their 
     significant contributions and steadfast support:
       Election Center;
       National Association of Secretaries of State;
       National Association of Counties;
       National Conference of State Legislatures;
       National Association of State Election Directors; and
       National Association of County Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Clerks.


                           challenge ballots

  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 even 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 and 
Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules have done excellent 
work crafting the important bill before us. I would ask them whether, 
then, Maine's system complies 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. Senator McConnell, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Rules 
Committee, do you agree?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I also thank 
Senator Collins for her excellent question and for her steadfast 
support for election reform efforts. Let me also assure her that I 
agree with Senator Dodd that Maine's system does comply with the 
Election Reform Act.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the Senior Senator from Connecticut and 
the Senior Senator from Kentucky for their assistance and congratulate 
them on the impending passage of this bill.


                     ELECTION REFORM REIMBURSEMENT

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have a question about the impact of 
provisions of this bill for the Ranking Member of the Rules Committee, 
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell and the Senator from Missouri, 
Mr. Bond, who has been involved in the conference committee that 
reconciled the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3295.
  I understand that this bill does allow localities that have upgraded 
voting equipment in the past two years to be reimbursed retroactively, 
and I support this decision. We ought to reward, rather than penalize, 
those States and localities that have aggressively moved ahead since 
November 2000 to improve the processes and procedures for voting and 
elections.
  In Sections 261-263, having to do with payments to States and units 
of local government to assure accessibility for individuals with 
disabilities, however, it is not clear whether the payments made may be 
made retroactively, and this concerns me. I expect that this was the 
intent. This is important, however, because in Virginia, and, I believe 
in several other States such as North Carolina and Rhode Island, the 
State Board of Elections and the localities

[[Page S10495]]

have made a concerted effort to improve polling place accessibility 
over the past two years. And I believe that for this November's 
elections Virginia will be very close to 100 percent of all polling 
places being 100 percent accessible. I would hate to have to tell my 
State and local officials that because they have stepped up to the 
plate and already made these polling places accessible over the past 
two years that they are ineligible to receive payment for the 
improvements they have made. So, I ask the Senators from Kentucky and 
Missouri if they can assure me that States such as Virginia, which have 
made polling place accessibility improvements during the past 24 
months, are eligible for payment from the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services for their costs of making polling places accessible for 
individuals with disabilities that were incurred during that 24-month 
period?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. States are 
eligible for reimbursement from the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services for costs incurred during the 24 months prior to the enactment 
of this bill of making polling places accessible to individuals with 
disabilities.
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
conference report to the ``Help American Vote Act of 2002.''
  First of all, I'd like to thank Chairman Dodd and Senator McConnell, 
for their leadership and extraordinary efforts that have led us to 
final consideration of this legislation today. Also, I'd like to note 
that arriving at this point has not been easy for the members of the 
Conference, nor for their staffs, and I appreciate the hard work by 
everyone that led to this compromise.
  That being said, I would be remiss if I failed to mention my concern 
about the impact that enactment of this legislation could have on 
States and localities, most of whom are experiencing extreme budget 
shortfalls. I raised this issue when we first debated this legislation 
in the Senate and I am disappointed that it has not been addressed in 
the conference report.
  Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 includes a series of 
new uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements for election technology 
and administration. These requirements include voter verification of 
votes cast, a paper record for auditability and recounts, and 
accessibility for invividuals with disabilities. If enacted, these 
requirements would apply to each voting system used in an election for 
Federal office. There is no question that these provisions have far-
reaching consequences.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the intent underlying this legislation, 
which is that the system must be uniform in nature across the entire 
country, if it is to be successful in accomplishing the goal of 
election reform.
  I also appreciate the Conference Committee's stated desire that the 
program be fully funded. That being said, I must ask my colleagues the 
difficult question: What if it isn't fully funded? We must consider the 
consequences if a future Congress fails to provide adequate funding for 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I stated my objections to the unfunded mandates in 
this conference report back in February when we first considered this 
legislation. Today, I am once again stating my strong objection to even 
the mere possibility that the burden of funding these mandates might 
fall upon the States.
  Having expressed this concern, I also want to mention that this 
conference report makes several necessary and important changes to our 
current system of voting, which is burdened with problems ranging from 
claims of voter fraud to a lack of accessible voting devices for many 
disabled Americans. This conference report also includes an important 
Hatch-Leahy Internet voting study that will lay the groundwork for 
integrating new technology into the political process.
  As Americans, we have the right to participate in the greatest 
democracy in the world, and most will agree that the act of voting is 
the bedrock of our democratic society. Americans take pride in the role 
they play in shaping issues and determining their leaders, and yet, we 
see that voter participation in recent years has decreased among people 
of every age, race, and gender. I find these statistics both 
disappointing and tragic because, as Thomas Jefferson stated, ``that 
government is the strongest of which every man himself feels a part.''
  Why is voter turnout so low? Of the 21.3 million people who 
registered but did not vote in the 1996 election, more than one in five 
reported that they did not vote because they could not take time off of 
work or school or because they were too busy. Can technological 
advances, like the Internet, increase participation in the electoral 
process by making voter registration easier or by simplifying the 
method of voting itself? As the elected representatives of the people, 
we should consider every option available that might help involve more 
of our country's citizens in America's democratic process. Federal, 
State and local governments are duty bound to encourage all eligible 
Americans to exercise their right to vote.
  In the past, attempts have been made to increase voter registration 
and turnout. Unfortunately, these attempts have met with limited 
success. The Motor Voter Act of 1993, for example, attempted to 
increase voter participation by permitting the registration of voters 
in conjunction with the issuance of driver's licenses. According to 
recent U.S. Census Bureau reports, 28 percent of the 19.5 million 
people who have registered to vote since 1995 have done so at their 
local Department of Motor Vehicles. Notwithstanding this simplified 
voter registration procedure, voter participation continues to decline. 
Although registering to vote at the DMV generally is more convenient 
than other methods of registration, a substantial portion of registered 
voters nevertheless continue to fail to register to vote and fail to go 
to the polls on election day.
  Voting via the Internet has been suggested as one possible solution 
to the problem. The Internet has revolutionized the way people 
communicate and conduct business by permitting millions of people to 
access the world instantaneously, at the click of a mouse. The Internet 
has already increased voter awareness on issues of public policy as 
well as on candidates and their views. In the future, the Internet may 
very well increase voter registration and participation, and thereby 
strengthen our country's electoral process.
  Mr. President, as many of us have seen in the recent past, more and 
more States are looking at ways to utilize the Internet in the 
political process. Proposals include online voter registration, online 
access to voter information, and online voting. State and local 
officials around the country are anxious to use the Internet to foster 
civic action. I think that this is a positive step. In fact, today many 
States already allow for portions of the voter registration process to 
be completed online. For example, the Arizona State Democratic Party 
allowed online voting in the 2000 presidential primary and nearly 
36,000 Arizona Democrats took advantage of this opportunity. We can 
anticipate that this trend toward online voting will continue.

  Real questions remain, however, as to the feasibility of securely 
using the Internet for these functions. How can we be sure that the 
person who registers to vote online is whom he or she claims to be? How 
can we ensure that an Internet voting process is free from fraud? How 
much will this technology cost? There are also important sociological 
and political questions to consider. For example, will options like 
online registration and voting increase political participation? Can 
the Internet be equitably used in the political process?
  We must be carefully evalate the issues that will arise as the civic 
privilege of voting meets with technological advances. The original 
study I proposed would have created a special commission to conduct the 
study, which would have comprised of various experts ranging from First 
Amendment and election law experts to technical experts on the Internet 
and cyber-security. While this type of Commission in not part of this 
final conference report, it is my hope that the Commission will 
nonetheless call upon advisors with special expertise in these areas.
  Proponents of ``electronic voting'' (so-called e-voting'') contend 
that there are numerous advantages to the

[[Page S10496]]

emerging ``cyber'' political participation, including the immediate 
disclosure of campaign contributions, an increase in the number of 
grassroots volunteers, and the creation of a more accessible forum for 
political advertising.
  Skeptics assert, to the contrary, that e-voting would only serve to 
decrease ``real'' electoral participation, place personal privacy at 
risk, and pave the way for election fraud. The late Senator Sam Ervin 
opposed simplifying voter registration and voting, stating that he did 
not ``believe [in] making is easy for apathetic, lazy people'' to vote.
  As we seek to ensure equal access to the voting place and integrity 
of the voting process, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore the 
potential effects, both good and bad, that new technology may have on 
the political process. As I stand before you today, Mr. President, I do 
not know whether online voter registration and e-voting will halt the 
decline in voter participation. I do not know whether online voting 
registration and e-voting even is wise. I firmly believe, however, that 
these issues deserve serious examination as we seek to ensure that our 
democratic republic engages as many citizens as is possible. I am 
pleased that the Hatch-Leahy provision will enable the study of 
forward-looking measures that will ensure our ability to properly 
integrate new technology in the political process.
  In closing, Mr. President, I reiterate my concern that this 
Conference Report is an unfunded mandate on already overburdened 
states. However, I must look past that serious concern, and vote for 
this conference report because of the important changes it makes to our 
current system.
  No American who has exercised the right to vote should ever have to 
wonder if his or her properly cast vote will be counted. We must 
preserve the integrity of the voting process and I, again, commend the 
efforts of those who worked this compromise. Further, I believe that 
the Hatch-Leahy Internet voting study is an important step forward in 
ensuring the legitimacy of the voting process, and serves as a major 
enhancement to the conference report.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senate for 
passing the Help America Vote Act of 2002 today. This landmark 
legislation will help the Nation avoid another debacle like the one 
that occurred during the Presidential election in November of 2000. In 
that election, thousands of ballots in Florida and in my home State of 
Illinois went uncounted for a variety of reasons. In fact, over 120,000 
voters in Cook County and thousands more throughout the rest of the 
State did their civic duty and cast a vote during the last Federal 
election, only to have their ballots discounted because of problems 
with machinery and inaccuracies on the rolls of registered voters. This 
is unacceptable in the United States of America, where we take pride in 
our freedom to cast a vote for our leaders.
  With the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Congress has finally agreed 
on a bipartisan solution to these problems. The conference report 
contains several items to improve the administration of elections for 
Federal office. First, it requires that voting systems meet certain 
minimum requirements, including notifying voters of overvotes, allowing 
voters the opportunity to correct their ballots, and having a manual 
audit capacity. The voting system must give disabled voters the ability 
to vote ``in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and 
participation, including privacy and independence, as for other 
voters.'' In addition, voting systems must operate under a maximum 
error rate as currently established by the Federal Election Commission. 
These national requirements for voting systems should significantly 
improve the ability of all voters to cast ballots that accurately 
reflect their intentions.
  Next, the legislation provides a fail-safe mechanism for voting on 
election day. It requires that all states allow voters to cast a 
provisional ballot at their chosen polling place if the voter's name 
isn't on the list of eligible voters, or an election official, for 
whatever reason, declares a voter ineligible. Included in the right to 
vote provisionally is the right to have one's eligibility to vote 
promptly verified by the State and then to have one's ballot counted in 
that election, according to State law. Finally, provisional voters have 
the right to know whether their vote was in fact counted, and if not, 
why it wasn't. These measures seem dictated by common sense and 
fairness. Yet, many States, including Illinois, do not guarantee voters 
such rights today.
  To secure the rights afforded by this legislation, the Department of 
Justice can ask the Federal courts to act. In addition, States are 
required to establish an administrative procedure open to any person 
who believes a violation of any of the requirements has occurred, is 
occurring or will occur. States are free to add additional safeguards 
to protect these rights and are encouraged to provide the most 
effective remedy available to enforce them.
  Another key component of this legislation is the requirement that 
States implement an up-to-date, computerized, interactive, statewide 
list of all registered voters that is accessible to election officials 
in every jurisdiction. This list is intended to help keep voter rolls 
current and accurate and to reduce, if not eliminate, confusion about a 
voter's registration and identification when a voter arrives at the 
polling place. This section also provides safeguards to preserve the 
confidentiality of voter identification information and to protect 
against improper purging of names from the list. Make no mistake: In 
order to remove a voter's name from the list of registered voters, for 
any reason, election officials must comply with all of the preexisting 
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This act 
doesn't change that.
  To further the study and improvement of voting and the conduct of 
elections nationwide, the legislation creates an Election Assistance 
Commission, which will serve as a central clearinghouse on election 
administration issues. Advised by State and local officials, this 
commission will, among other things, provide for the testing and 
certification of voting systems. Ultimately, the commission should 
identify and report to Congress on continuing problems with election 
administration and potential solutions.
  To facilitate voting by Americans living abroad, particularly those 
serving their country in the Armed Forces, the Act enhances the 
provision of election information, extends the duration of an 
application for an absentee ballot, and requires states to accept early 
submissions of ballots by such voters.
  Finally, the conference report authorizes $3.9 billion in Federal 
funding over the next few years to replace antiquated voting systems, 
to educate voters on procedures and on their rights, to train election 
officials, poll workers and volunteers, to improve polling place 
accessibility for individuals with disabilities, to promote research on 
voting technology, and to otherwise comply with the requirements of the 
act. Of this amount, $650 million is to be made available on an 
expedited basis, in part for the immediate replacement of punchcard 
voting systems, the bane of the 2000 Presidential election. This should 
be particularly helpful for Illinois, where the overwhelming majority 
of voters still vote by means of this troublesome technology. In fact, 
Illinois will be eligible for up to $45 million of this early money. 
The bulk of funds - $3 billion over the next 3 years - is authorized 
specifically to help States meet the requirements set forth in this 
act. Illinois stands to receive up to $155 million under this section. 
When these sums are appropriated, states will at long last have the 
resources to provide citizens with the best means available to exercise 
their right to vote.
  Still, this legislation is not without its shortcomings. These 
include new limitations on the way first-time and newly registering 
voters are permitted to identify themselves, which could create 
obstacles for some groups; the lack of an explicit, strong federal 
remedy through which voters can individually vindicate the rights 
granted them in this legislation; and the absence of a guarantee that 
the funds authorized by this legislation will actually be appropriated 
by Congress and the President. Thus, Congress has an ongoing 
responsibility to provide the funds called for in this Act and to 
monitor the implementation of its provisions over the next several 
years.

[[Page S10497]]

  Nonetheless, on balance, this legislation embodies a good faith, 
bipartisan attempt to ensure that every eligible vote in an election 
for Federal office is accurately cast and counted and I support its 
worthy goals.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The ``Help America Vote Act'' is timely and important 
bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's election system and I 
urge the Senate to approve it.
  The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. As Chief 
Justice Earl Warren said in 1964: ``The right to vote freely for the 
candidate of one's choice is the essence of a democratic society, and 
any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative 
government.''
  Over the past century and a half, a number of constitutional 
amendments and major laws have been acted to expand and help protect 
this fundamental right, including the 15th Amendment in 1870 
prohibiting voting discrimination because of race; the 19th Amendment 
in 1920 prohibiting voting discrimination because of gender; the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965 outlawing racially discriminatory voting practices; 
the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18; the Voting 
Rights Act Amendments of 1982 which expanded the protections against 
racial discrimination in the Voting Rights Act; and, the National Voter 
Registration Act of 1993--the ``Motor Voter'' law--which simplified 
voter registration procedures.
  Now, the passage of the ``Help America Vote Act'' will add another 
important chapter to our continuing efforts to protect and strengthen 
the right to vote.
  The 2000 election taught the entire nation a valuable lesson. We 
learned that every vote does matter--but that every vote is not always 
counted. Too often and in too many communities across the nation, 
individuals who went to the polls on election day were denied the right 
to vote or did not have their votes counted. The reasons varied--such 
as confusing ballots, outdated or malfunctioning equipment, 
inadequately trained poll workers, and the lack of access for the 
disabled. But the outcome was the same--the voices of well over one 
million Americans were not heard. The legislation before us today will 
help to ensure that this unacceptable result does not happen again.

  The bill includes three core components. It establishes uniform 
requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, and computerized 
voter registration lists, which all States must meet in Federal 
elections. It creates a new four-member, bi-partisan, independent 
Federal agency--the Election Administration Commission--to provide 
guidance to the States, conduct studies and issue reports on Federal 
election issues, and administer a new Federal grant program. Third, it 
authorizes $3.9 billion in grants over the next three years to assist 
States and localities in meeting the new requirements, modernizing 
their voting systems, and making polling places accessible to the 
disabled.
  These are all important and needed reforms and I strongly support 
them. Their effectiveness will depend on the participation of all 
levels of government, including adequate appropriations by Congress, 
and vigorous implementation of the reforms at the State and local 
level.
  At the same time, however, I have serious concerns that some 
provisions of this legislation create new Federal requirements that 
could make it more difficult for certain groups, particularly racial 
and ethnic minorities, the poor, the elderly, and people with 
disabilities to register and to exercise their right to vote.

  The bill requires first time-voters who register by mail to provide 
specific forms of identification. It requires the invalidation of a 
registration when a voter inadvertently forgets to check off a 
duplicative ``citizenship box.'' It requires that, when registering to 
vote, voters must either provide their driver's license number, or, if 
they lack one, the last four digits of their Social Security number. We 
all have a strong interest in preventing voter fraud, but these 
requirements may not be an effective way to verify voter identity and, 
at the same time, they are very likely to create unnecessary barriers 
for voters.
  Congress, the new Election Administration Commission created by the 
bill, and the Department of Justice must be vigilant in ensuring that 
these provisions do not restrict voting by certain groups and that they 
are enforced in a ``uniform and nondiscriminatory manner,'' as the 
legislation requires. We know the potential harsh impact of these 
provisions on those groups who have historically been denied full 
participation in elections, and we must do all we can to prevent any 
such impact. To implement the bill in good faith, Congress and the Bush 
Administration should see that individuals who respect these basic 
voting rights concerns are named to the new Commission.
  With proper support and enforcement, the ``Help America Vote Act'' 
can significantly increase political participation for every American. 
We all share the great goal of protecting the most fundamental of all 
rights in our democracy--the right to vote.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since the 
presidential election left many Americans disenfranchised. In that 
time, this country has faced other tremendous crises, and perhaps the 
fervor with which people supported election reform two years ago has 
waned somewhat. But I believe that after all we have faced as a 
country, it is even more important that we preserve and improve the 
integrity of our democracy by ensuring that every eligible voter who 
wants to vote is able to vote.
  We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy 
tests, and other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from 
the polls. But if there is even an inadvertent flaw in the design or 
administration of our voting systems that prevents Americans from 
having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility to ensure 
that we remedy the situation.
  There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy Nation 
in the world to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it 
is disturbing, to say the least, that much of the oldest and least 
reliable equipment is found in the poorest counties across the country. 
Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those 
counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having to 
explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn't 
get counted, while their white suburban neighbors, using better 
equipment, could rest assured that there were no voting irregularities 
in their precincts that would have caused their votes to be discarded.
  If we can't promise all of our citizens that their votes will count 
equally, then all of the past work this Nation has done to guarantee 
the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been 
squandered.
  I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions in this 
legislation. But, because I believe we must use every tool available to 
us to uphold our citizens' right to vote, I have decided to support 
this conference report. On balance, I believe this bill will enable 
more people to exercise their fundamental right to vote by setting 
uniform, minimum standards for Federal elections, by providing voters 
with a chance to check for and correct ballot errors, and by providing 
for provisional ballots. These provisions, along with funding to 
replace outmoded voting systems, provide substantial improvements to 
the current system.
  Unfortunately, the compromise has significant shortcomings that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted upon, ostensibly to 
reduce voter fraud, but which may make registration and voting 
difficult for first-time voters. The bill's requirement that first-time 
voters who register by mail provide specified forms of identification 
at the polls may disenfranchise a large number of voters, especially 
people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, students, and 
the poor, who are far less likely to have photo identification than 
other voters.
  I am also concerned about new language that will invalidate an 
individual's registration if the person registering forgets to check 
off a box declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Because voters 
already must affirm their citizenship when they sign the registration 
form, it is unnecessary to require that this box be checked for 
registration. Many elderly voters, visually impaired voters and voters 
with low levels of literacy may inadvertently fail to check the box and 
will, as

[[Page S10498]]

a result, disproportionately be kept off the registration rolls. This 
legislation is supposed to be an effort to make voting easier for 
qualified voters, and this provision adds an unnecessary, complicating 
step.
  This bill also requires that, in order to register, voters provide a 
driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social 
Security number, and those numbers must be verified. This provision 
directly conflicts with the protections of the National Voter 
Registration Act, which prohibit the use of a driver's license or 
Social Security number to authenticate a voter's registration. Although 
I understand the desire to reduce instances of voter fraud, I believe 
these provisions are overly burdensome and unfair to many voters. This 
provision also has serious privacy implications.
  I hope that the problems with the conference report are fixed in the 
very near future, and I would strongly support efforts to rectify these 
disenfranchising provisions before the next election. However, as a 
whole, this bill solves more election-related problems than it creates. 
If it is properly implemented by state elections agencies, Congress's 
intent to improve the voting system will be satisfied. This is an 
important piece of legislation that must be enacted now if we are to 
have any improvements in place before the next national election.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report to H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote Act 
of 2002.'' I congratulate the conferees on their dedicated and 
persistent effort in reaching a compromise agreement on this issue. I 
believe that this historic legislation will play a major role in 
correcting many of the problems that the country suffered during the 
Year 2000 elections.
  In my judgment, this legislation is inextricably linked with the 
campaign finance reform bill that became law earlier this year. Both of 
these pieces of legislation are aimed at the heart of any successful 
democracy: restoring the voters' trust in their government. The new 
campaign finance reform law is intended to reduce the influences of 
special interests by eliminating the large flow of unregulated soft 
money. This election reform legislation is designed to assure voters 
that votes will be counted accurately, and that legally registered 
voters will not be disenfranchised. I am especially proud that this 
legislation will ensure for the first time in history that voters who 
are blind or visually-impaired will be able to cast a vote privately 
and confidentially.
  However, I would urge my colleagues not to treat this legislation as 
the conclusion of our work on the issue of election reform. The 
Congress must ensure that this legislation is implemented fairly and 
effectively. I know that concerns have been raised about the 
identification requirements for first-time voters who have registered 
by mail. While I applaud the goal of eliminating instances of fraud, it 
is important that these provisions be implemented equitably to prevent 
the disenfranchisement of minority or disabled voters.
  In addition, I also would like to make a few recommendations 
regarding the implementation of this legislation. As the states develop 
their plans for meeting the new federal voting requirements and 
receiving grant funding, I would urge them to solicit advice on 
solutions to address the needs of disabled voters and others who have 
historically faced impediments at polling places. I also urge the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to consult closely with the 
Election Assistance Commission on the grant program to help states 
making polling places accessible to disabled voters. The applications 
for grant funding and reports on the uses of these funds may be helpful 
to the Commission as it studies accessibility-related issues and 
develops voluntary voting system guidelines. It is also important to 
emphasize that concerns have been raised about the legislation's 
enforcement provisions. I appreciate that the Department of Justice has 
a role in bringing civil actions against states that are not in 
compliance with the mandatory requirements. We will have to be diligent 
in ensuring that these enforcement provisions are implemented.
  On this historic day, I look forward to passage of this significant 
piece of legislation. As the recent events in Florida show, our voters 
still face major challenges in getting their votes counted at the 
polling place. This legislation will present solutions to these 
problems and reassure the American public that the best system of 
government ever created continues to function in its 226th year.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the right to vote is one of the fundamental 
components of our Republic. It is the central means by which the 
American people can influence the direction of government, and thereby 
the future of the nation. But, as we saw in the 2000 Presidential 
election, just casting one's ballot is not the end of the process. 
Votes must be verified and counted, and done so quickly and accurately 
so that the American people have confidence in our elections. 
Preserving the integrity of our voting system is critical to preserving 
our representative form of government.
  Over the years, I have watched as the percentage of eligible voters 
who actually take the time to go to the polls and cast votes has 
declined. I find it beyond disappointing that American citizens would 
fail to exercise this precious right--in fact, this important 
responsibility. Yet, I well understand how the spectacle of last year's 
elections and the irregularities that were widely reported can 
exacerbate a common misconception that one's vote does not count, a 
belief that has permitted far too many minds in our nation. The federal 
government can do more to reignite a passion for citizen participation, 
and we must do so if we are to ensure that our Constitutional form of 
government will survive for future generations.
  This bill establishes grant programs that will provide states with 
the resources to replace outdated voting machines and train poll 
workers. It establishes minimum federal voting standards for states, 
but leaves responsibility for election administration at the local 
level.
  The bill includes a number of safeguards designed to improve voter 
access, including provisional ballot requirements, being able to 
correct improperly marked ballots, and funding for equipment to allow a 
disabled voter to cast a private vote without assistance. In an effort 
to avoid a repeat of the Florida debacle of 2000, this bill mandates 
that states create uniform standards for counting ballots.
  I congratulate the members of the conference committee for their 
efforts to bring this bill to conclusion. I support this reform because 
it is an important first step in restoring confidence in our election 
process.
 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to show my support for the 
election reform proposal that will shortly be approved. There are a 
litany of provisions too numerous to outline that are extremely 
positive steps toward ironing out very serious problems in our current 
voting system. My thanks go out to Senators McConnell and Dodd, their 
counterparts in the House, and all of the other conferees who fought 
long and hard during the last few months to help ensure the 
electorates' right to vote.
  Secondly, and with much more remorse, I believe that many of the 
shortcomings that our men and women in the military face as potential 
overseas voters have not been fully addressed in the underlying 
conference proposal. I have stood in this body many times since the 
2000 election and have pushed for election reforms that would show 
those who defend our way of life that their vote will not be cast-off 
for technicalities through no fault of their own. Of course, I would be 
remiss if I failed to mention that some focus was paid to military 
voters in this bill. I am pleased that early submission will no longer 
be grounds for refusal of registration or absentee ballots. The focus 
on requiring the Department of Defense to have more support for Voting 
Assistance Officers and emphasis on including postmarks on all ballots 
mailed is also favorably noted. However, the House has thrown up 
roadblocks to other important overseas voter measures, while the Senate 
as an institution has continued to show leadership in this effort. I 
hope that we will continue to do so in the future.
  That being said, it is time now to look ahead. My support for the 
election reform bill will not sway my feelings that there are still 
many egregious errors in the process of overseas military

[[Page S10499]]

voting. I promise to continue the fight and protect the rights of those 
men and women who would give their lives for the country that they 
dearly love. The underlying election reform bill is a step in the right 
direction, and I hope that congress can continue to follow that 
path.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today Congress 
addressed the debacle that occurred to diminish democracy during our 
last Presidential election in Florida and other States. Access to the 
polls is a fundamental right; it is essential to our democracy. The 
2000 elections raised to the national stage problems that have been all 
too common and all too familiar to many voters around the country. 
Systems of administering elections are in many places flawed, 
arbitrary, and discriminatory. I believe it is appropriate, even 
necessary, for Congress to impose high voter participation standards on 
States while providing the resources to meet those standards.
  The Help America Vote Act contains a number of important reforms of 
America's elections. The conference report authorizes funds to States 
to reform their election systems. It sets uniform, minimum standards 
for Federal elections. It will ensure the accuracy of state voter 
registration databases. It requires provisional balloting so registered 
voters are not turned away from polling places. And it will help ensure 
that disabled voters may cast their ballots independently and 
privately. The legislation is an important step forward, and I support 
it.
  However, I have reservations about provisions which have the 
potential, if not monitored and implemented carefully, to make voter 
registration more onerous for some voters. In particular, provisions 
that require voters to register using a driver's license number or 
Social Security number could cause problems. While the act would 
require States to assign voters a number if they do not have either of 
these forms of identification, I worry that some States may abuse this 
provision to make it harder for certain citizens, particularly new 
citizens and low income voters, to become registered.
  One technical clarification I want to make about that provision: In 
Minnesota we have same day voter registration. It is my understanding 
that this act would require the State to issue a voter ID number to a 
nonregistered voter who seeks to register on the day of the election, 
if the voter has a Social Security number or driver's license but does 
not have either number physically with him or her at the polling place 
on election day.
  The act requires new voters to check a box on the voter registration 
form to indicate they are a citizen. Since new voters are already 
required to attest that they are citizens on voter registration forms 
under current law, this seems to be a needless, redundant requirement 
which puts a hurdle, however small, in the way of new voters especially 
new citizens. These provisions are probably unnecessary.
  Finally, this legislation will only be fully effective if Congress 
and the administration step up the plate to fund it. I will urge my 
colleagues to fully fund this program.
  On balance, this bill is a step forward. I hope reality lives up to 
its promise.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to express my views on the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002.
  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has many strong provisions that 
will improve our Federal election system. This legislation requires 
that election districts across the nation provide provisional voting 
and post sample ballots and other voter information. It allows voters 
the opportunity to verify and change their vote before casting their 
vote. The act implements a statewide voter registration system to help 
reduce fraud and ensures that individuals are not wrongly refused the 
right to vote. It authorizes $3.9 billion in Federal funding to help 
states improve voting systems, make the polls more accessible to the 
disabled, train poll workers, and educate the electorate.
  Despite these positive provisions, however, I cannot vote for this 
bill because the voting rights of New Yorkers will be negatively 
affected by this legislation.
  For many years, the State of New York has had provisional voting and 
what is called signature verification. In the 1980s, New York City put 
in place a digitized signature verification system. When a New Yorker 
registers to vote, his or her signature is scanned into a computer and 
placed in the election board's files. Then on election day, the voter 
signs the book of registered voters in that election district. If the 
signatures do not match, the poll worker has the right to prevent the 
voter from casting a ballot on the machine, but the voter is permitted 
to cast a provisional ballot. The board of elections later determines 
whether the provisional ballot is valid and should therefore be 
counted.
  Because of New York State's system, there is no need for a voter to 
present a form of identification at the poll. In fact, the poll worker 
manual in New York explicitly states that poll workers cannot ask 
prospective voters for identification. This system was implemented in 
New York City and across the State of New York more than a decade ago. 
This system has worked in New York and should be a model for the 
Nation.
  Unfortunately, the Help America Vote Act would reduce the rights of 
New Yorkers who are first-time voters in a federal election by 
requiring them to present a valid photo identification, utility bill, 
bank statement or government identification that verifies the name and 
address of the voter. If a first-time voter filled out a registration 
form and included either her driver's license number or the last four 
digits of her Social Security number, then she would not have to 
present a form of identification to a poll worker before voting. While 
this may serve as a step in the right direction for other States, this 
is a new restriction for New York.
  This provision will repress voter participation among those New 
Yorkers who are in fact eligible to vote. Moreover, it will 
disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, recently 
naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the poor, the 
homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a 
driver's license, and those individuals who otherwise would have 
exercised their right to vote without these new provisions.
  Many civil rights groups who oppose this legislation have compared 
these provisions to poll taxes and literacy tests that were used to 
repress voter participation in the past. I do not believe this is an 
unfair analog because I believe this bill may indeed reduce voter 
participation. When voter participation numbers hover at 50 percent, I 
believe that we should make every effort to increase voter 
participation, not reduce it.
  I know this bill will pass the Senate today and will shortly become 
law, no matter what I do. But despite the many provisions in the bill 
that may increase voter participation in some states across the country 
who do not currently have provisional voting, I cannot support this 
legislation because it will negatively affect the rights of voters in 
the state that I am proud to represent--the State of New York.
  New York is a state with 19 million people and 11 million voters; a 
state that is home to the world's cultural and financial capitals. It 
is the gateway for millions of people from different countries and 
ethnicities. New York represents one of the best things about our 
country--it's diversity. In America, the birthplace of modern 
democracy, we should do all we can to ensure that the right of every 
voter is not unduly hindered unnecessarily. Unfortunately, I believe 
the provisions in the Help America Vote Act will do just that.
  I applaud the work of Senator Dodd, as chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Rules and Administration, for all of his work on the bill, 
and the other members of the election reform conference committee. I 
also want to give a special thanks to the Rules Committee staff of 
Senator Dodd, especially Kennie Gill and Veronica Gillespie, who have 
worked from the first inception of the Senate's election reform bill to 
the final words in this election reform conference report. I know many 
members of the conference committee and their staffs have done their 
best to produce legislation that will try to improve our federal 
election system.
  I am also proud to have worked with Senator Dodd on a provision 
included in the conference report that calls

[[Page S10500]]

upon the new Election Assistance Commission to study and report to 
Congress on the extent of residual votes. These are over votes, under 
votes, or ``spoiled'' votes that are created when a voter, 
unintentionally, makes a mistake in casting her ballot, either because 
she doesn't understand the ballot or the voting machinery I have fought 
hard to support the voting rights of the disenfranchised voter. But I 
cannot in good conscience, representing the State of New York, support 
legislation I believe will hurt the voting rights of New Yorkers. I 
will continue, however, to do all I can to ensure that our Federal 
election system and our democracy will be as strong as possible.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Federal election reform is long 
overdue.
  Two years ago, the election system's collapse became a public shame 
in my State. A lot of high-minded debate about the need to reform the 
system immediately followed the election, but since then this 
legislation has moved at a snail's pace.
  Only now, three weeks before the next election, are we poised to send 
a reform bill to the President to upgrade voting equipment, require 
provisional balloting and improve election administration. It's a shame 
that it has taken so long to remedy such a serious failure. A failure 
which cast into doubt the winner of the most important elected office 
in the world.
  As a result of the delays, these desperately needed improvements will 
come too late for the upcoming election. That's unfortunate, because in 
spite of the positive reforms made at the state level in Florida, some 
precincts experienced problems during the August primary election that 
might have been avoided, or at least mitigated, under the federal 
reforms.
  Similar problems could occur again and the failures are not likely to 
be isolated to Florida when the general election is held in November. 
Our goal now must be to implement the changes in time for the 2004 
elections.
  Unfortunately, the administration has already chosen to slow down the 
reform process by rejecting a $600 million appropriation passed by 
Congress earlier this year in anticipation of final passage of the 
authorizing legislation.
  The administration unforgivably failed to accept the funds and the 
money must now be appropriated again. That process could take precious 
months that would otherwise be used by the States to prepare for the 
2004 elections.
  There's no excuse for the administration's failure to accept 
Congress' down payment, especially after promising to support these 
reforms.
  I hope President Bush will reaffirm his support for election reform 
by asking Congress to include the full $3.8 billion authorized by this 
bill in the next continuing resolution or, at the latest, as part of a 
supplemental appropriation early next year. We shouldn't hesitate 
another day to send this money to the States so that they have every 
minute possible to prepare for 2004.
  A strong election system requires top-notch equipment, informed and 
able poll workers, a provisional voting system and outstanding voter 
education programs. But it also requires sensible registration and 
voting procedures that prevent fraud without disenfranchising voters.
  Despite my support for this legislation, I am concerned that the 
bill's anti-fraud provisions may unfairly burden minority, elderly and 
disabled voters. Eliminating voting fraud is absolutely essential, but 
the mechanisms used to prevent fraud should not be so complicated, or 
intrusive, that they discourage or prevent voting by qualified people 
who may not, as a consequence of their lifestyle, have the specific 
documentation required by this bill.
  I support modifying these provisions to allow potential registrants 
or voters to use additional documentation to prove their identity or to 
attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are in fact who they say 
there are. I understand that the conference committee would not approve 
such a change and I do not believe the entire bill should be 
sacrificed.
  In light of this problem, I intend to follow closely this 
legislation's implementation with a specific eye on how the anti-fraud 
provisions work in practice. If the photo identification requirements 
and registration procedures set out by this legislation cause more harm 
than good I will support their repeal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky controls 1 minute 30 
seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his solid work. 
Disenfranchised by this bill are dogs such as Gidget--Salish's Potomac 
Fervour--pictured here in front of the Capitol. A solid Republican, 
Gidget will nevertheless never know the joy of participating in the 
election process. I am advised she could have been a fine voter--with a 
vigorous appetite for punchcards and aptitude for touch-screens. These 
skills will now have to be channeled into canine agility trials, 
instead of the election process. I congratulate the Senator from 
Missouri for that. That is one of the many fine results of this 
outstanding piece of legislation which, regretfully, is one of the few 
pieces of legislation the second session of the 107 Congress has 
passed.
  We will have passed only 2 of our 13 appropriations bills. We have no 
budget and no terrorism reinsurance bill. It has really been a dismal 
record. But we do have something to be thankful for today, which is 
that we are about to pass an extraordinarily important piece of 
legislation on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. This is, indeed, the 
way the Senate should work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in my remarks yesterday I commended my 
colleagues who have been involved in this. I want to do so again, 
Senator McConnell and Senator Bond.
  I also commended my new found friend from the House, Bob Ney, who did 
a remarkable job as the Chairman of the House Administration Committee. 
Steny Hoyer has been involved in these issues for a long time, and I 
have known him for a long time. I will not take the time today, as I 
did yesterday, to thank him as profusely--but it is deeply felt. We 
would not have arrived here without a lot of people working very hard 
on this. I thank all of them, the leadership here and others who 
brought us to this particular point.
  I mentioned yesterday the juxtaposition of the events that unfolded 
on November 7, 2000, and the events as they are unfolding today on 
October 16, 2002. When you consider the scenes that dominated the news 
media for days and days after the November 7 elections, with bulging 
eyeballs glaring and butterfly ballots and hanging chads and people 
bellowing at each other and outside auditors at registrars of voters 
offices in Florida, here we are today in the relative calm of this 
institution, about to adopt, I hope overwhelmingly, legislation that 
addresses many of the concerns that were raised as a result of the 
events in Florida.
  But they were not just in Florida, as I said. There were other States 
as well, and it has been going on for some time. So this is an 
important day, one that will not demand or receive the kind of 
attention, obviously, that the events that provoked it did, almost 2 
years ago shy 3 weeks in November-December of the year 2000.
  So it is an important landmark. We are breaking new ground. This is 
the first time in more than 200 years that the Federal Government is 
going to take a very protective involvement in the conduct of 
elections. The Constitution insisted that both States and the Federal 
Government be involved in the election process in this country, but we 
have only been involved marginally at best. In the 1965 Voting Rights 
Act, of course, we prohibited certain activities in the States such as 
poll taxes and literacy tests. But over 213 years have gone by since we 
have had a proactive involvement in terms of what also must be done. 
This legislation lays that out and asserts new rights.
  As I said before, this is truly the first civil rights act of the 
21st century, insisting that all people who show up to vote will have a 
chance to do so, if only provisionally. My colleagues have had fun 
talking about dogs who may have voted. There were human beings who

[[Page S10501]]

were not allowed to vote, between 4 million and 6 million of them in 
the last election. While it is humorous to talk about the dogs who may 
have voted, it is not very funny to talk about the people who showed up 
and didn't and were denied the opportunity to do so.
  This legislation, we hope, is going to solve at least part of that 
problem beginning in the year 2004, where every person who shows up to 
cast a ballot in every precinct in America is going to be allowed to 
cast a ballot and never again be asked to step out of line and go home. 
That ballot will be cast provisionally where there is a debate about 
whether or not they have a right to do so, but the right to cast a 
ballot is never again going to be denied to a person who shows up--the 
right to cast a ballot in America.
  That is not an insignificant achievement. We also said for those who 
are blind and disabled, some 20 million who never showed up the last 
time to vote because they have not been able to cast a ballot 
independently and privately, those days are over with. Henceforth, 
beginning in 2006 or before, if the States can get it done earlier, 
people are going to be allowed to cast a ballot privately and 
independently. The idea in this country that you could use Braille and 
have sidewalks accessible to the handicapped, but ballots in America 
were not--the only State in the country that has made a difference in 
that is the State represented by the present Presiding Officer, the 
State of Rhode Island. As a result of your former secretary of state, 
who himself suffers from a disability as a result of having been 
injured, he understood it and went out and did it. The other States are 
now going to do it in this country.
  There are new rights here: The right to look at your ballot, correct 
your ballot before it is finally cast. I know these are radical ideas, 
but these are important provisions. No longer will you have to leave a 
voting place wondering whether you might have voted twice--two people 
for the same office, as happened in butterfly ballots in Florida. You 
are going to be able to go back and check your ballot before it is 
actually cast. So those rights in here are important.
  Statewide voter registration will be facilitated for the first time. 
If you move within a State--say from Lexington to Frankfurt, or if you 
move from Hartford to Bridgeport, or if you move from some county in 
Missouri to another, you are not going to have to register again if you 
are in the same State and the State has statewide voter registration. 
Statewide voter registration will do an awful lot to relieve a lot of 
burdens on voters as they move. And many people do in this country. We 
are a mobile society today.
  We also include provisions which Senator Bond insisted on in terms of 
responsibility. We are going to make sure we do our best to see to it 
that people who register to vote are who they say they are, so we don't 
have people registering fictitious people and casting ballots for them. 
To Senator Bond's credit, we worked very hard on that.
  There will be for the first time a permanent Federal Election 
Assistance Commission, so we don't have to wait for another disaster in 
some State and then occupy the time and attention of this institution 
responding to it. On an ongoing basis, it will be a place where the 
States, counties, municipalities, and the Federal Government can work 
together when it comes to election issues.
  Of the $3.9 billion, 95 percent of the improvements will be borne by 
the Federal Government because we are requiring it to be done. I don't 
believe in unfunded mandates. I wanted 100 percent. We had to 
compromise at 95. We are now going to participate and support our 
States and localities in making the changes they need to make in order 
to make our system work that much better.
  I am thankful to all of our colleagues for their support and help 
during the debate yesterday, I inserted a number of letters into the 
Record which expressed support for this conference report. Today I ask 
unanimous consent to include in the Record letters which express 
concerns about specific provisions of this legislation, including 
letters from the National Council of La Raza, the League of Women 
Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
Record, as follows:

                                      National Council of La Raza,
                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.

 NCLR Urges Congress to Vote NO on the ``Help America Vote Act'' (H.R. 
                                 3295)

       Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza 
     (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights 
     organization, opposes the ``Help America Vote Act'' (H.R. 
     3295), because it will disproportionately affect Latino 
     voters, suppresses voter registration and turnout, and in 
     some instances will roll back civil rights laws.
       Furthermore, we note with concern the continuing 
     uncertainty of the appropriations process, which means that 
     no one, including the authors of the compromise bill, can 
     guarantee funding sufficient to implement the bill.
       NCLR is an umbrella organization with over 280 local 
     affiliated community-based organizations and a broader 
     network of 33,000 individual associate members. In addition 
     to providing capacity-building assistance to our affiliates 
     and essential information to our individual associates, NCLR 
     serves as a voice for all Hispanic subgroups in all regions 
     of the country.
       NCLR urges you to join us in opposing the ``Help America 
     Vote Act'' (H.R. 3295) because the ``compromise'' bill:
       Requires first-time voters who register by mail to provide 
     specific forms of identification at the polls. This provision 
     will have a discriminatory impact on a large number of 
     voters, especially people with disabilities, racial and 
     ethnic minorities, students, the elderly, and the poor, who 
     are substantially less likely to have photo identification 
     than other voters. Additionally, having states implement this 
     requirement prior to the 2004 presidential election, without 
     the statewide list in place, is a dangerous experiment that 
     runs the risk of creating additional chaos at the polls.
       Contains weak enforcement provisions. Voters who are denied 
     their right to vote because of this law cannot turn to the 
     federal courts for a remedy. Rather, disenfranchised voters 
     must either wait for the Department of Justice to take action 
     or ask the same state election system that disenfranchised 
     them to determine that there is a violation and provide a 
     remedy for the problem.
       Contains new language that will require any registration to 
     be invalidated if the person registering forgets to check off 
     boxes declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Because 
     voters already must affirm their citizenship when they sign 
     the registration form, it is unnecessary to require that this 
     box be checked for registration. Many elderly and low-income 
     voters, as well as voters with low levels of literacy, who 
     find filling out forms difficult, may inadvertently make the 
     mistake of failing to check the box and will, as a result, 
     disproportionately be kept off the registration rolls; and
       Contains an intrusive, error-prone requirement that voters 
     provide a driver's license Number or, in the event they do 
     not have one, the last four digits of their Social Security 
     number. Election officials must independently verify the 
     number before registering someone, and any individual who has 
     either number but fails to provide it will not be registered. 
     This provision directly conflicts with the protections of the 
     National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits the use of a 
     driver's license or Social Security Number to authenticate a 
     voter's registration.
       For almost two years NCLR worked diligently with both 
     Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate on 
     election reform legislation, to address the need for good 
     election reform legislation. Today we oppose this bill 
     because the Latino community cannot accept a bill that does 
     more harm than good, and urge you to vote against it. Please 
     be advised that NCLR will recommend that votes related to 
     this bill and final passage be included in the National 
     Hispanic Leadership Agenda Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
     Raul Yzaguirre,
       President.
                                  ____



                                   The League of Women Voters,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.

    Election Reform Legislation in U.S. Congress--League Cautions: 
              Legislation Is a Gamble, Implementation Key

       Washington, DC.--``The compromise election reform 
     legislation being considered this week by the U.S. Congress 
     makes important reforms in the voting process but erects new 
     bureaucratic hurdles for voters,'' stated Kay J. Maxwell, 
     president of the league of Women Voters of the United States. 
     ``The Help America Vote bill is a tradeoff, providing 
     stronger protections in our voting systems while taking away 
     safeguards in voter registration.''
       ``There are many good things in this bill, but it also 
     undermines existing voter protections,'' Maxwell noted. ``On 
     the positive side, lawmakers are creating new federal 
     standards and providing the states with funds to buy new 
     voting machines that work, to better train and recruit poll 
     workers, to create statewide voter registration databases, 
     and put provisional balloting systems in place,'' said 
     Maxwell.

[[Page S10502]]

       ``But the League cannot overlook the fact that this bill 
     places voter protections at risk by cutting back existing 
     federal standards for voter registration. It weakens and 
     undercuts several of the hard-fought voter protections 
     established in current law,'' Maxwell stated. ``We are also 
     concerned that the discriminatory identification provision in 
     this legislation will erect barriers to voting. The 
     identification requirements place additional burdens on poll 
     workers and may create a mess at the polls in 2004,'' 
     cautioned Maxwell.
       ``This bill is a gamble,'' said Maxwell, ``and 
     implementation will be the key in determining whether it 
     succeeds or fails. We hope that states take seriously the 
     larger role they now have in administering federal elections. 
     They must step up to their constitutional responsibility to 
     run elections effectively,'' stated Maxwell. ``The League at 
     the national, state and local levels will work closely with 
     state and local election officials and citizens across this 
     country to ensure that all the provisions of this bill are 
     carried out to enfranchise rather than disenfranchise 
     voters,'' concluded Maxwell.
                                  ____

                                   American Civil Liberties Union,


                                   Washington National Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.
     Re H.R. 3295/Help America Vote Act.

       Dear Member of Congress: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     (ACLU) urges you to oppose the conference report on HR 3295, 
     Help America Vote Act, because the agreement contains 
     provisions that would lead to discrimination and ultimately 
     result in disenfranchising many voters. This legislative cure 
     to the severe voting rights problems seen in the 2000 
     Presidential election could be even worse than the disease.
       In many respects, the conference report rolls back many of 
     the voting rights victories achieved over the past three 
     decades through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 
     National Voting Registration Act of 1993. Instead of making 
     sure that the voting process is as inclusive as possible, 
     this agreement would exclude people, negatively impacting the 
     elderly, the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, 
     students, and the poor. Not only would this bill make it more 
     difficult to vote, it would make it more difficult to 
     register to vote.
       While the conference report purports to address the voting 
     problems apparent during the 2000 Presidential election, its 
     solutions are illusory. For example, the legislation 
     establishes minimum standards for the performance of voting 
     machinery, but provides an exemption for punch card machines, 
     the most controversial and problematic technology used during 
     the 2000 presidential election, for over-vote notification. 
     Although this legislation requires election officials to 
     permit voters whose name does not appear on the voter 
     registration list to cast a provisional ballot, it gives 
     complete discretion to the state to decide when and if 
     provisional ballots will be counted, even in federal 
     elections. As we have seen in the past, these ballots can 
     determine the outcome of an election.
       This election reform legislation is the only major piece of 
     civil rights legislation the Senate and House have taken up 
     in the 107th Congress. We urge you to carefully consider the 
     negative implications associated with the provisions that 
     will undermine critical advances the United States has made 
     in voting rights. While this legislation would authorize much 
     needed funding to states and local governments to improve 
     their election systems, it simultaneously imposes 
     requirements that will effectively suppress voter 
     participation. New machines are meaningless if policies are 
     enacted that prevent people from voting on them.
       Outlined below are two problematic provisions contained 
     within the conference report that threaten to exacerbate the 
     very problems that the legislation is intended to correct, to 
     ensure that every citizen eligible to vote can vote. They are 
     the driver's license and social security number requirement 
     to register to vote and the photo identification requirement 
     to vote.


   driver's license and social security required to register to vote

       The conference report imposes additional requirements in 
     order for citizens to register to vote. Under this 
     legislation, the voter would be required to provide a 
     driver's license number or, in the event they do not have 
     one, the last four digits of their social security number. 
     Any voter who has either number but does not provide it--even 
     for privacy reasons--would not be registered.
       When the voter provides either their driver's license 
     number or the last four digits of their social security 
     number, the state must verify the accuracy of the data 
     provided. This includes checking data against state motor 
     vehicle and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases, 
     to verify the voter's name, date of birth and social security 
     number. But, there are many reasons why the data provided by 
     an eligible voter may not match the data in a motor vehicle 
     or SSA database, even though it is the same person. For 
     example, women may have married or divorced without changing 
     their name in the SSA database. Many Latinos use both their 
     mother and father's surname, or both their father's and 
     spouse's surnames, which SSA may list incorrectly--resulting 
     in a false ``no-match.'' A simple juxtaposition of a number 
     could result in a ``no-match,'' whether due to the fault of 
     the applicant, or an SSA employee who enters the number into 
     the database incorrectly. This could result in either purging 
     or the invalidation of a voter's registration application.
       Also, this conference report would remove social security 
     number disclosure (last four digits) from the protection of 
     the Privacy Act of 1974, which makes it unlawful for local, 
     state or federal agencies to deny someone a right provided by 
     law for refusing to disclose their social security number. 
     Congress did not limit the protection in Sec 7(a) of the 
     Privacy Act to parts of the social security number. All nine 
     digits of the social security number are part of the ``social 
     security account number'' and are therefore protected. It was 
     the use of the social security number for identification 
     purposes that Congress was restricting. There can be no doubt 
     that the requirement that voters disclose the last four 
     digits of their social security in order to register to vote 
     is an attempt to use the numbers as an identifier. If 
     Congress intended to protect only five (5) of the nine (9) 
     digits it would have written legislation that explicitly did 
     so. Permitting a state to require parts of the social 
     security account number creates an exception that would 
     frustrate the intent of Congress. Furthermore, it is 
     incorrect to suggest that by merely requiring a voter to 
     disclose the last four digits of their social security number 
     that their privacy is somehow protected.
       In addition, forced disclosure of social security numbers 
     threatens a citizens' privacy and could lead to identity 
     fraud, where imposters armed with a person's name and social 
     security number can raid back accounts, establish fraudulent 
     credit cards and even ruin a voter's credit. The Social 
     Security Administration Office of Inspector General has 
     registered a 500 percent increase in allegations of Social 
     Security fraud in the past several years--from 11,000 in 1998 
     to 65,000 in fiscal year 2001.


                 photo identification required to vote

       The second major setback in the conference report is the 
     photo identification requirement. As with the other methods 
     of disenfranchisement in American history, such as literacy 
     tests and poll taxes, the photo identification requirement 
     would present barriers to voting and have a chilling effect 
     on voter participation. There are voters who simply do not 
     have identification and requiring them to purchase photo 
     identification would be tantamount to requiring them to pay a 
     poll tax. As a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic 
     minority voters, the homeless, as well as voters with 
     disabilities and certain religious objectors, do not have 
     photo identification nor the financial means to acquire it, 
     the burden of this requirement would fall disproportionately 
     and unfairly upon them, perhaps even violating the Voting 
     Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973.
       Further, the limited alternatives to photo identification 
     provided in the bill--including a government check or 
     government document, utility bill, or bank statement that 
     shows the name and address of the voter--place the poor in no 
     better position. Certain populations of battered women and 
     homeless people, for example, cannot produce any of the 
     required documents, because they often do not live in a house 
     or apartment and if they do, the utility bills are not in 
     their name, they do not have a bank account, and they may not 
     receive a government check. American citizens should not be 
     denied their constitutional right to vote because they do not 
     have these documents, particularly when there are other 
     alternatives to these requirements such as attestation or 
     signature clauses which are currently used effectively by 
     many states to prevent fraud.
       The Department of Justice (DOJ) has consistently raised 
     objections to imposing photo identification as a prerequisite 
     for voting because such requirements are likely to have a 
     disproportionately adverse impact on black voters and will 
     lessen their political participation opportunities. In 1994, 
     DOJ found that African-American persons in Louisiana were 
     four to five times less likely than white persons to have 
     driver's licenses or other picture identification cards. In 
     addition, the Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 
     report to Congress that photo identification entails major 
     expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an 
     undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in 
     exercising their basic right to vote.
       Effective federal legislation should not erect new 
     obstacles or weaken existing voting rights laws. Eliminating 
     these discriminatory provisions is the most certain and 
     complete way to guarantee that all states meet the 
     requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, 
     121 S. Ct. 525 (2000). Voters should not have to resort to 
     the courts to ensure compliance with the ``one person-one 
     vote'' rule.
       We recognize that reform of our nation's electoral systems 
     is critical. But it cannot be done in a manner that unduly 
     prevents legitimate voters from exercising their 
     constitutional right to vote. For the reasons indicated 
     above, we urge you to vote ``no'' on final passage and will 
     score a vote in favor of this legislation as a vote against 
     voting rights. If you have questions, please contact ACLU 
     Legislative Counsel LaShawn Warren.
           Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy,
       Director.
     LaShawn Y. Warren,
       Legislative Counsel.

[[Page S10503]]

     
                                  ____
                                          Leadership Conference on


                                                 Civil Rights,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on 
     Civil Rights, nation's oldest, largest and most diverse civil 
     rights coalition, we write to provide our assessment of the 
     final conference report on H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002.'' In a number of significant respects, the 
     House-Senate election reform agreement is an important step 
     forward in improving election procedures and administration 
     throughout the nation. However, we do have several remaining 
     concerns about the report language that prevent us from being 
     able to endorse the final package.
       Given the fact the millions of American citizens were 
     denied their basic right to cast a vote and to have that vote 
     counted in the 2000 election, the enactment of meaningful 
     election reform has been the Leadership Conference's highest 
     legislative priority. We greatly appreciate the efforts of 
     Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles 
     Schumer (D-NY) as well as Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH), Steny Hoyer 
     (D-MD), John Conyers (D-MI), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) and 
     others to reach a bipartisan agreement on comprehensive 
     election reform. Among its beneficial provisions, the 
     conference agreement will:
       Set uniform, minimum standards for federal elections 
     nationwide, including providing voters with a chance to check 
     for and correct ballot errors;
       Ensure accuracy of state voter registration databases by 
     implementing uniform, statewide computerized lists;
       Provide provisional ballots, which allow voters who are 
     erroneously left off the voter registration lists to vote and 
     be counted once eligibility can be verified;
       Help eliminate outmoded punch-card and lever voting 
     systems, and upgrade voting systems and equipment in every 
     state; and
       Provide funding to ensure that voters with disabilities are 
     able to cast ballots privately and independently.
       The conference report language, however, does contain 
     several troubling provisions:
       First, the report contains a requirement that all persons 
     seeking to register must provide the state with a drivers 
     license number or, in the event they do not have one, the 
     last four digits of their social security number. Any person 
     who has either number but does not provide it--even for 
     privacy reasons--will not be registered. Once a voter 
     provides either number, the state must verify the accuracy of 
     the data provided by checking it against state motor vehicle 
     or Social Security Administration (SSA) databases. This 
     system set out by the conference report is both cumbersome 
     and prone to error. There are many legitimate reasons why the 
     data provided by an eligible voter may not match the data in 
     a motor vehicle or SSA database. For example, a woman may 
     marry or divorce without updating her last name in the 
     database; many Latinos use two last names, which the SSA may 
     list incorrectly; some Asians list their last name first; and 
     in entering their date of birth, some people enter the date 
     followed by the month, the opposite of U.S. customs. Even a 
     simpler juxtaposition of a number could result in a ``no-
     match.''
       Second, amendments that have been made to the ID 
     requirement fail to reduce its disenfranchising impact upon 
     first-time voters. While the conference report includes minor 
     improvements, these provisions fall far short of reducing the 
     disproportionate negative impact of the ID provision.
       In order to reduce its harmful impact on first-time voters, 
     the ID requirement should have been linked to the requirement 
     that a state have a computerized voter list in place. 
     Instead, while the compromise bill requires mail-in 
     registrants to meet the ID requirements in the 2004 election-
     cycle, it gives states a waiver until 2006 to create the 
     statewide computerized lists. As a result, voters in states 
     without state-wide lists will have to comply with the ID 
     provision anytime they move within the state. Thus, the 
     burden of the ID requirement will fall more heavily on 
     renters, who change residences more often than homeowners, 
     and who generally have lower incomes.
       Third, the conference report would invalidate the 
     registration of any voter who does not check off a new box on 
     the registration form declaring that he or she is a U.S. 
     citizen. Many elderly voters and voters with low levels of 
     literacy, who find filling out forms difficult, will be 
     likely to inadvertently fail to check the boxes and will, as 
     a result, disproportionately be kept off the registration 
     rolls.
       Provisional ballots will not solve the above problems. Even 
     if a voter is allowed to file a provisional ballot, it will 
     not be counted because he or she was never ``properly'' 
     registered, due to these onerous registration and 
     verification requirements.
       We hope you will keep the above issues in mind when 
     deciding how you will vote on the conference report to H.R. 
     3295. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact 
     Rob Randhava, LCCR Policy Analyst, at 202/466-6058 or Nancy 
     Zirkin, LCCR Deputy Director/Director of Public Policy. Thank 
     you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Dr. Dorothy I. Height,
       Chairperson.
     Wade Henderson,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  People For the American Way,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2002.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the 600,000 members 
     and supporters of People For the American Way (PFAW), we are 
     writing to express our views on the conference report to HR 
     3295, the Help America Vote Act.
       We are pleased by many of the bill's provisions, which we 
     believe will significantly improve our nation's election 
     system. The legislation will allow registered individuals to 
     cast provisional ballots even if their names are mistakenly 
     excluded from voter registration lists at their polling 
     places. It will require states to develop centralized, 
     statewide voter registration list to ensure the accuracy of 
     their voter registration records. It will also require states 
     to provide at least one voting machine per polling place that 
     is accessible to the disabled, and ensure that their voting 
     machines allow voters to verify and correct their votes 
     before casting them. Finally, the legislation authorizes $3.8 
     billion in critically needed funds to fix antiquated voting 
     systems and to meet the minimum standards set forth in the 
     bill.
       At the same time, we are concerned by other provisions that 
     may erect new barriers to voting. These provisions include 
     the identification requirements for first time voters who 
     register by mail and the provision (added by the conference 
     committee) that allows election officials to return voter 
     registration forms as incomplete if the ``citizenship box'' 
     is left blank by the voter.
       Since the effectiveness of this legislation depends on 
     uniform and non-discriminatory enforcement, PFAW will be 
     vigilant in our efforts to educate the public about new 
     requirements and will monitor the application of these 
     provisions in the states. We will be advocating for full 
     funding of programs authorized by the bill in order to ensure 
     that the bill does not contain empty promises. Concurrently, 
     we will begin to identify areas where we can strengthen the 
     progress made by this bill, and work with our allies on 
     legislation to correct deficiencies.
       Finally, through PFAW Foundation's election protection 
     program, now operating in six states, we will intensify 
     efforts to educate voters to ensure that individuals know and 
     understand their new rights and responsibilities. People For 
     the American Way Foundation will also take other action as 
     appropriate to protect voters' rights.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph G. Neas,
       President.
     Stephenie Foster,
       Director of Public Policy.

  Mr. DODD. The concerns of these groups are reflected in three of the 
provisions of the conference report: (1) the first-time mail 
registration requirements of section 303(b); (2) the requirement that 
the drivers license, or last 4 digits of the voter's Social Security 
number, be provided on the registration form under section 303(a)(5); 
and (3) the citizenship check-off box requirements of section 
303(b)(4). I intend to address each of these issues in turn.
  Let me state from the start that each of these groups was 
significantly involved in the development of the original Dodd-Conyers 
legislation, and all continued to provide valuable input and comments 
as we worked to develop a bipartisan compromise in the Senate last 
December and then perfect that compromise in conference with the House 
this summer and fall. Many of these same groups expressed reservations 
at the time about the Senate compromise and withheld support for the 
bill when it passed the Senate. Each of these organizations played a 
pivotal role in the formation of this legislation and I continue to 
personally value their perspective and input.
  Let me state for the record, that as the principal Senate author of 
this conference report, it has consistently been my goal and position 
that this legislation be uniform and nondiscriminatory in both intent 
and result without regard to color or class, gender or age, disability 
or native language, party or precinct. While I understand the 
collective, and individual, concerns of these organizations, the 
ultimate test of this legislation will be in its implementation by the 
States and I am confident that a fair reading of its provisions will 
produce the desired result. With that, let me offer my perspective on 
several issues raised by these organizations.
  First, with regard to the anti-fraud provisions, I share the concern 
that the hearings and studies by numerous organizations, including the 
Senate Rules Committee, over the past two years did not unearth any 
evidence of widespread voter fraud. However, even the anecdotal 
evidence of dogs and deceased persons registering, and perhaps even 
voting, and registration lists with duplicate names in several 
different jurisdictions illustrate the frailties of current 
registration procedures. While I continue to believe that the most 
effective anti-fraud provision in the Senate-passed bill, and in this 
conference

[[Page S10504]]

report, remains the requirement that States establish a centralized 
computerized registration list, I also recognize that but for the 
provision of section 303(b) affecting first-time voters who register by 
mail, this legislation and all the good it contains would not have made 
it this far.
  While I appreciate the sensitivities of these organizations to the 
potential that the first-time mail registrant voter requirement of 
section 303(b) will fall disproportionately on minorities and low 
income individuals, I am not convinced that the sound interpretation of 
this legislation will ultimately result in the disenfranchisement of 
such voters. In order to better establish empirical data on the 
prevalence of such fraud, the conference report directs the new 
Commission to make periodic studies and reports, with recommendations 
to Congress, on nationwide statistics on voter fraud and methods of 
identifying, deterring and investigating such fraud.
  More importantly, the Commission is directed to conduct a special 
study, to be completed within 18 months of the effective date of the 
first-time voter provision, on the impact such requirement has on these 
voters and voter registration in general. The Commission is directed to 
also study the additional requirement that new registrants provide the 
last four digits of their Social Security number at registration if 
they do not have a valid drivers license number. If the results of 
these studies indicate either a lack of empirical evidence that 
widespread voter fraud exists, or that these new anti-fraud provisions 
are disenfranchising voters, particularly minority and low-income 
voters, Congress will be in a position to modify or repeal these 
provisions.
  In the meantime, changes made to the conference report will work to 
mitigate, and perhaps even obviate, the need for States to implement 
the first-time mail registrant voter requirement.
  To make clear that Congress intends that the first-time voter 
provision of section 303(b) must not result in a disparate impact on 
minority voters, the conferees agreed to add language to this section 
to require that it be implemented in a uniform and nondiscriminatory 
manner. The conference report also contains a new notice provision, 
section 303(b)(4)(iv), which requires that the NVRA registration form 
contain a statement informing the applicant that if they register by 
mail, appropriate information must be included in order to avoid the 
additional identification requirements upon voting for the first time. 
As in the Senate-passed bill, if any voter is challenged as not being 
eligible to vote, including for reasons that he or she is a first-time 
mail registrant voter without proper identification, such voter is 
entitled to vote by provisional ballot, and that ballot is counted 
according to State law.
  As I stated yesterday, nothing in this bill establishes a Federal 
definition of when a voter is registered or how a vote is counted. If a 
challenged voter submits a provisional ballot, the State may still 
determine that the voter is eligible to vote and so count that ballot, 
notwithstanding that the first-time mail registrant voter did not 
provide additional identification required under section 303(b). 
Whether a provisional ballot is counted or not depends solely on State 
law, and the conferees clarified this by adding language in section 
302(a)(4) stating that a voter's eligibility to vote is determined 
under State law.
  More importantly, however, is the combination of the existing 
language in the Senate-passed bill (offered by Senator Wyden) and the 
provision, modified from the Senate-passed bill, which requires new 
registrants to provide a drivers license number upon registration, or 
the last 4 digits of their Social Security number if they do not have a 
drivers license number.
  The Wyden amendment included in the Senate-passed bill, and retained 
without modification in the conference report, provides a means by 
which first-time mail registrant voters can avoid the additional 
verification requirements of section 303(b) altogether. At the choice 
of the individual, under section 303(b)(3), a first-time mail 
registrant voter can opt to submit their drivers license number, or at 
least the last 4 digits of their Social Security number, on the mail-in 
voter registration form in order for the State to match the information 
against a State database, such as the motor vehicle authority database. 
If such information matches, the additional identification requirements 
of section 303(b)(1) do not apply to that individual.
  Under the new requirements added in conference as section 303(a)(5), 
effective in 2004 (unless waived until 2006), all new applicants must 
provide at the time of registration, a valid drivers license number, or 
if the individual does not have such, the last 4 digits of their Social 
Security number (or if they have neither, the State shall assign them a 
unique identifying number). States must then attempt to match such 
information, thereby satisfying the provisions of section 303(b)(3) 
which renders the first-time mail applicant provisions of section 
303(b)(1) inapplicable. By operation of section 303(a)(5) added in 
conference, in conjunction with the existing language of the Senate-
passed bill (as added by Senator Wyden) in section 303(b)(3), the 
first-time voter identification requirement is obviated and essentially 
rendered moot, thereby avoiding the potential disenfranchisement of 
minority voters.
  Secondly, with respect to the provisions of section 303(a)(5) which 
require verification of voter registration information, it is important 
to remember that nothing in this conference report establishes a 
Federal definition, or standard, for when a voter is duly registered. 
That authority continues to reside solely with State and local election 
officials pursuant to State law. Nor does this conference report 
require States to enact legislation changing voter eligibility 
requirements to conform to the Act. As I pointed out yesterday, 
Chairman Ney, the principal author of this conference report on behalf 
of the House, stated last week that this bill provides for basic 
requirements that States shall meet, but leaves to the discretion of 
the States how they meet those requirements in order to tailor 
solutions to their own unique problems. This section is not an 
exception to that rule.
  Section 303(a)(5) is a modification to provisions added to the Senate 
bill during floor debate which authorized States to request a voter's 9 
digit Social Security number. Concerns had been expressed, which I 
shared, that even allowing States the discretion to require the full 
Social Security number potentially ran afoul of Privacy Act 
protections. While this provision goes further than I would have 
wished, it is simply not an accurate reading of this section to 
conclude that a lack of a match--or a ``no-match'' will result in the 
invalidation of a voter's registration application or the purging of 
the voter's name.
  First, with respect to purging, this provision applies only 
prospectively to new applicants and as such cannot be used to purge 
names of existing voters from the rolls. More importantly, however, the 
language of the conference report, and the Statement of Managers on 
this point specifically, make it abundantly clear that any purging of 
names must conform to existing NVRA requirements. There is no provision 
in the current NVRA which would authorize purging for lack of a match 
of either a drivers license number or the last 4 digits of a Social 
Security number.
  As for the argument that this provision will result in the 
invalidation of a voter's application, that conclusion is simply not 
supported by a reading of all the relevant provisions. Effective in 
2004 (or 2006 if a waiver of section 303(a) is requested by the State), 
this section prohibits States from accepting or processing a voter 
registration application unless it contains the voter's drivers license 
number. However, there is no similar prohibition on local election 
officials who presumably will continue to have the authority to process 
voter applications until the State implements the centralized 
computerized registration list and becomes responsible for maintaining 
the official list of eligible voters under section 303(a)(1).
  In the meantime, if an applicant has not been issued a current and 
valid drivers license, then the applicant must provide the last 4 
digits of his or her Social Security number. If the applicant has 
neither number, the State shall issue the individual a number which 
becomes the voter's unique identifier (as required for the centralized 
computerize registration list). The chief state election official must 
also

[[Page S10505]]

enter into agreements with the State motor vehicle authority and the 
Commissioner of Social Security in order to match information supplied 
by the voter with these databases.
  However, nothing in this section prohibits a State from accepting or 
processing an application with incomplete or inaccurate information. 
Section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii) specifically reserves to the States the 
determination as to whether the information supplied by the voter is 
sufficient to meet the disclosure requirements of this provision. So, 
for example, if a voter transposes his or her Social Security number, 
or provides less than a full drivers license number, the State can 
nonetheless determine that such information is sufficient to meet the 
verification requirements, in accordance with State law. Consequently, 
a State may establish what information is sufficient for verification, 
preserving the sole authority of the State to determine eligibility 
requirements for voters. Furthermore, nothing in this conference report 
requires a State to enact any specific legislation for determining 
eligibility to vote.
  Moreover, nothing in this section prohibits a State from registering 
an applicant once the verification process takes place, notwithstanding 
that the applicant provided inaccurate or incomplete information at the 
time of registration (as anticipated by section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii)) or 
that the matching process did not verify the information. The provision 
requires only that a verification process be established but it does 
not define when an applicant is a duly registered voter. Again, this 
conference report does not establish Federal registration eligibility 
requirements those are found only in the U.S. Constitution. Section 
303(a)(5)(A)(iii) makes it clear that State law is the ultimate 
determinant of whether the information supplied under this section is 
sufficient for determining if an applicant is duly registered under 
State law.

  Finally, with respect to the issue of the citizenship check-off box 
on the voter application form under section 303(b)(4), the Senate-
passed bill contained the requirement that the NVRA registration form 
include two new questions and a check-off box for voters to mark to 
indicate their answers to questions regarding age and citizenship 
eligibility. The conference agreement added a new provision in section 
303(b)(4)(B) which requires that if a voter does not check-off the 
citizenship box, the appropriate election official must notify the 
applicant of the omission and provide the applicant an opportunity to 
complete the form in time for processing to be completed to allow the 
voter to participate in the next Federal election.
  It is simply inaccurate to state that any registration application is 
required to be invalidated under this section if an applicant forgets 
to check-off the citizenship box. Nothing in this provision makes the 
completion of the check-off box a condition of Federal eligibility. The 
conference report does not establish Federal eligibility requirements 
for voting. NVRA only requires that an applicant sign the registration 
form attesting to his or her eligibility, including citizenship. The 
check-off box is a tool for registrars to use to verify citizenship, 
but nothing in the conference report requires a check-off or 
invalidates the form if the box is left blank.
  In fact, this provision will ensure that if a voter did not check-off 
the citizenship box, his or her registration form cannot be discarded 
as invalid on its face. Ultimately, the registrar determines whether or 
not the voter has met the citizenship requirement notwithstanding 
whether or not the box is checked. A signed attestation as to 
citizenship eligibility is still sufficient under NVRA. Jurisdictions 
that currently use citizenship check-off boxes may continue to process 
such information pursuant to State law, but in fact will not be able to 
invalidate a form based on the lack of a check-off without notification 
to the voter first.
  With respect to each of these three issues, it is important to note 
that each of these provisions will likely require some adjustment to 
the NVRA registration form. The new Election Assistance Commission 
specifically does not have rulemaking authority with the exception of 
the authority permitted, and currently exercised by the Federal 
Election Commission, under section 9(a) of the NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
7(a)) to prescribe such regulations necessary to develop the mail 
registration form used in Federal elections. Consequently, it is 
anticipated that the new Commission will be required to revise the 
current NVRA registration form in order to effectuate the requirements 
under this Act, including: notice requirements for first-time voters 
under section 303(b)(4)(iv); the collection of a drivers license number 
or last 4 digits of a Social Security number under sections 303(a)(5) 
and 303(b)(3); and the age and citizenship check-off boxes under 
section 303(b)(4), in addition to any other changes in the Federal 
registration application form that the Commission views as necessary to 
implement this Act. This exercise will afford interested parties an 
opportunity to ensure that these requirements do not result in the 
disenfranchisement of applicant voters.
  As a final observation, let me state that while the enforcement 
provisions of the Senate-passed bill included tough preclearance-type 
reviews of grant applications by the Department of Justice, the 
conference report contains an important new administrative grievance 
procedure intended to provide voters, and others aggrieved by violation 
of the requirements of this Act, a timely and convenient means of 
redressing alleged violations. Each State that receives funds under 
Title I must establish a state-based administrative procedure for 
reviewing alleged grievances under Title III of this Act. If the State 
does not render a decision within 90 days of receiving a complaint, the 
proceeding is moved to an alternative dispute resolution process which 
must resolved the issue within 60 days.
  While I would have preferred that we extend the private right of 
action afforded private parties under NVRA, the House simply would not 
entertain such an enforcement provisions. Nor would they accept Federal 
judicial review of any adverse decision by a State administrative body. 
However, the state-based administrative procedure must meet basic due 
process requirements and afford an aggrieved party a hearing on the 
record if they so choose.
  It is important to note that this state-based administrative 
proceeding is in addition to any other rights the aggrieved has and is 
limited only to the adjudication of violations of the requirements 
under Title III of this Act. This enforcement scheme in no ways 
replaces or alters the adjudication provisions of any other civil 
rights or voting rights law.
  As with all provisions of this legislation, the proof is in the 
implementation of these requirements by the States. But nothing in this 
conference report requires States or localities to change any voter 
eligibility requirements nor does this Act in any way infringe upon the 
sole authority of State and local election officials to determine who 
is a duly registered voter. I agree that it will require diligence and 
education of State and local election officials to ensure that these 
provisions do not serve to disenfranchise voters and I stand ready to 
monitor actions by the States to ensure that they do not undermine the 
purposes of this Act: to make it easier to vote, but harder to defraud 
the system.
  Mr. President, the conference report that we are about to adopt is a 
true compromise. It is a melding of the House-passed and Senate-passed 
bills. While there was much in common in the legislation that passed 
each House, there were significant differences also. I commend my House 
counterparts, Chairman Bob Ney and Congressman Steny Hoyer, for their 
willingness to spend countless hours and several long nights to hammer 
out the differences in these two approaches in order to reach the 
conference report we present to the Senate for adoption today.
  On at least one occasion, Chairman Ney, Congressman Hoyer and I, 
along with our staff, worked literally around the clock for twelve 
hours in order to reach consensus, with the final agreement being 
reached long after the midnight hour. Such effort is just one 
indication of the level of commitment that the House conferees 
demonstrated in reaching a consensus on this historic legislation, and 
I thank them for their dedication to seeing this process through to a 
satisfactory conclusion. The American people owe them a debt

[[Page S10506]]

of gratitude for their efforts to ensure that henceforth, in Federal 
elections, every eligible voter will be able to vote and have their 
vote counted.
  The original House and Senate bills addressed the problems that came 
to light in the November 2000 presidential election in similar ways. 
While the Senate bill set out minimum requirements of the States to 
meet over the next four years, and funded those requirements at 100 
percent of costs, the House bill used Federal funds as an incentive to 
encourage States to take preferred action, either by following Federal 
standards or by adopting standards of their own. Both bills however, 
preserved the traditional authority of State and local election 
officials to determine the specific means of meeting those requirements 
or standards. Both bills also preserved the authority of State and 
local election officials to be the sole determinants of whether an 
applicant is a duly registered voter. And both bills preserved the 
authority of State law to determine when a vote has been cast and 
whether a vote, once cast, will ultimately be counted.
  My counterpart in the House, Chairman Ney, said it best last week 
during the House debate on the conference report, and I agree with his 
assessment. Let me quote Chairman Ney:

       One size fits all solutions do not work and only lead to 
     inefficiencies. States and locales must retain the power and 
     the flexibility to tailor solutions to their own unique 
     problems. This legislation will pose certain basic 
     requirements that all jurisdictions will have to meet, but 
     they will retain the flexibility to meet the requirements in 
     the most effective manner.

  That is the hallmark of this legislation, it requires that States and 
localities meet basic requirements in the type of voting system they 
use in Federal elections, in the offering of provisional ballots, in 
the creation of a centralized computerized registration list and the 
collection of data for that list, and in the verification of 
identification for new registrants. But in the implementation of these 
requirements, the sole determination is left to the State as to what 
type of voting system a jurisdiction chooses to use, and whether a 
provisional ballot is ultimately counted pursuant to State law, and 
whether an individual registrant is determined under State law to be 
duly registered and entered into the centralized registration list.

  I am gratified that the conferees agreed to include in this 
conference report what this Senator believes are the most important 
provisions of the Senate bill: the requirements for voting system 
standards, provisional balloting, and the creation of statewide 
computerized registration lists. The conference report retains the core 
requirements and language of the Senate-passed bill, most of which were 
contained in the original bill reported by the Senate Rules Committee 
just fourteen months ago in August of 2001 as S. 565. These 
requirements were the fundamental elements of the Senate-passed bill 
and are an equally integral component of the conference report. These 
provisions include required standards that all voting systems used in 
Federal elections must meet; the offering of provisional ballots so 
that no voter is ever turned away from the polls again; and the 
creation of an official centralized computerized registration list to 
include the names of all eligible voters and procedures for ensuring 
the accuracy of that list, as well as provisions for verifying the 
identity of certain new registrants.
  Title III of the conference report contains the three basic 
requirements for voting system standards and administrative procedures 
to be used in Federal elections.
  Section 301 establishes six standards that all voting systems used in 
Federal elections after January 1, 2006 must meet:
  (1) While maintaining voter privacy and ballot confidentiality, 
permit voters to verify their selections on the ballot, notify voters 
of over-votes, and permit voters to change their votes and correct any 
errors before casting the ballot. The conference report retains the 
provisions of section 101 of the Senate-passed bill that created an 
alternative means of notifying voters of over-votes for jurisdictions 
using paper ballots, punch card, or central-count voting systems 
(including absentee and mail-in ballots). Such jurisdictions may 
instead use voter education and instruction programs for notification 
of over-votes only. However, all voting systems, including these paper 
ballot systems, must provide voters with so-called ``second-chance'' 
voting, i.e., the ability to verify the voter's selection and the 
ability to correct or change the ballot prior to it being cast. The 
conference report also clarifies that this requirement cannot be used 
to render a paper ballot invalid or unable to be modified in order to 
meet the requirements.
  Notification to the voter of an over-vote is essential because it 
provides an eligible voter a ``second chance'' opportunity to correct 
his or her ballot before it is cast and tabulated. Any such 
notification must be accomplished in a private and independent manner. 
With regard to the notification, it is the voting system itself, or the 
educational document, and not a poll worker or election official, which 
notifies the voter of an over-vote. The sanctity of a private ballot is 
so fundamental to our system of elections, that the language of this 
compromise contains a specific requirement that any notification under 
this section preserve the privacy of the voter and the confidentiality 
of the ballot. The Caltech-MIT study noted that secrecy and anonymity 
of the ballot provide important checks on coercion and fraud in the 
form of widespread vote buying.

  Paper ballot systems include those systems where the individual votes 
a paper ballot that is tabulated by hand. Central count systems include 
mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in balloting, such as that used 
extensively in Oregon and Washington state, and other states where a 
paper ballot is voted and then sent off to a central location to be 
tabulated by an optical scanning or punch card system. A mail-in ballot 
or mail-in absentee ballot is treated as a paper ballot for purposes of 
notification of an over-vote under section 301 of the conference 
report, as is a ballot counted on a central count voting system. 
However, if an individual votes in person on a central count system, as 
is used in some states that allow early voting or in-person absentee 
voting, for that voter, such system is required to actually notify the 
voter of the over-vote.
  As for the other types of voting systems, namely lever machines, 
precinct-based optical scanning systems, and direct recording 
electronic systems, or DREs, the voting system itself must meet the 
standard. Specifically, the functionality of the voting system shall 
permit the voter to verify the votes selected, provide the voter with 
an opportunity to change or correct the ballot before it is cast or 
tabulated, and actually notify the voter if he or she casts more than 
one vote for a single-candidate office.
  The conference report recognizes the inherent differences between 
paper ballot systems and mechanical or electronic voting systems. The 
conferees retained the reasonable balance struck in the Senate-passed 
bill between ensuring that no voting system is eliminated as long as 
the requirement that all voters have the opportunity to verify their 
ballot and a ``second-chance'' to correct any error on the ballot or 
change the ballot, before it is cast and counted. Although this 
compromise provides an alternative method of notifying voters of over-
votes for punch card and paper ballot systems, nothing in this 
legislation precludes jurisdictions from going beyond what is required, 
so long as such methods are not inconsistent with the Federal 
requirements under Title III or any law described in section 906 of 
Title IX of this Act.
  The conference report is silent on the issue of notification to the 
voter of an under-vote and neither requires nor prohibits such 
notification. However, the Election Assistance Commission is charged 
with studying the feasibility of notifying voters of under-votes.
  (2) Each voting system must produce a permanent paper record for the 
voting system that can be manually audited. Such record must be 
available as an official record for recounts, however, there is no 
intent to mandate that the paper record serve as the official record. 
Whether this record becomes the official record is left to the 
discretion of the States. As the Chairman of the Rules Committee, let 
me advise my colleagues of the importance of this feature in the 
unlikely event that a petition of election contest is filed with the 
Senate. Often, in order to resolve such contests, the Rules Committee 
must have access to an audit

[[Page S10507]]

trail in order to determine which candidate received the most votes. 
This standard will ensure that the Senate and the House will have 
access to reliable records in the case of election contests.
  (3) Consistent with the Senate-passed provision, each voting system 
must provide to individuals with disabilities, including the blind and 
visually impaired, the same accessibility to voting as other voters. 
Jurisdictions may meet this standard through the use of at least one 
DRE, or other properly equipped voting system, at each polling place. 
However, any system purchased on or after January 1, 2007, if purchased 
with Federal funds made available under Title II of the Act, must meet 
the accessibility standard.
  The accessibility standard for individuals with disabilities is 
perhaps one of the most important provisions of this legislation. Ten 
million blind voters did not vote in the 2000 elections in part because 
they cannot read the ballots used in their jurisdiction. With 21st 
century technology, this is simply unacceptable.
  The Senate Rules Committee received a great deal of disturbing 
testimony regarding the disenfranchisement of Americans with 
disabilities. Mr. James Dickson, Vice President of the American 
Association of People with Disabilities, testified that our nation has 
a `` . . . crisis of access to the polling places.'' Twenty-one million 
Americans with disabilities did not vote in the last election--the 
single largest demographic groups of non-voters.
  To statutorily address this ``crisis of access,'' the conference 
report contains the provisions of the Senate-passed bill requiring that 
by the Federal elections of 2006, all voting systems must be accessible 
for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility 
for the blind and visually impaired. Most importantly, that 
accommodation must be provided in a manner that provides the same 
opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and 
independence, as for other voters. Accessibility is required for 
individuals with all disabilities, not just physical disabilities.
  In order to assist the States and localities in meeting this standard 
by 2006, the conference report retains the Senate-passed provision that 
allows jurisdictions to satisfy this standard through the use of at 
least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system, or any other 
voting system that is equipped to accommodate individuals with 
disabilities, in every polling place. It must be noted, moreover, that 
the compromise does not require that a jurisdiction purchase a DRE to 
meet the accessibility requirement since jurisdictions may also choose 
to modify existing systems to meet the needs of the disabled voter.
  A DRE used to meet the accessibility standard under this requirement 
is not intended to be used solely by individuals with disabilities. 
Obviously, any eligible voter should have access to such a machine, and 
in fact, may find voting on such a system to be preferable to other 
systems used in that polling place. Nothing in this conference report 
is intended to suggest that because each polling place must have an 
accessible machine, that machine is for the exclusive use of 
individuals with disabilities, nor that such machine, or individuals 
who use such system, should be separated from other voters. Such 
treatment would be contrary to the requirement in section 301(a)(3)(A) 
that such individuals be given the same opportunity for access and 
participation (including privacy and independence).
  In addition, the Caltech-MIT study suggests that DREs have the 
potential to allow for more flexible user interface to accommodate 
multiple language ballots. Consequently, such DRE voting systems can 
also be used to meet the accessibility requirements for language 
minorities under the Voting Rights Act, and this conference report, as 
well.
  It has been suggested that this may be a wasteful requirement for 
jurisdictions that have no known disabled voters. Let me make clear 
that the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the disabled 
have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted, 
just as all other non-disabled Americans, with privacy and 
independence. It is simply not acceptable that individuals with 
disabilities should have to hide in their homes and not participate 
with other Americans on election day simply because no one knows that 
they exist. It is equally unacceptable to suggest that individuals with 
disabilities must come forward and declare their disability in order to 
participate in democracy through the polling place.
  (4) Each voting system must provide alternative language 
accessibility as required by law. This is a slight modification to the 
Senate-passed bill in order to make clear that the alternative language 
requirements must conform to existing Voting Rights Act requirements.
  The Voting Rights Act mandates that covered jurisdictions must 
provide translated voting materials, such as bilingual ballots, voter 
registration forms, voting instructions, other voting materials, oral 
translation services and interpreters to ensure accessibility to the 
right to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Nothing in this Act 
overturns or undermines the Voting Rights Act.
  The alternative language accessibility standard follows the 
procedures for determining when a language minority (e.g., only the 
four general groups currently recognized by VRA: Asian Americans, 
people of Spanish heritage, Native Americans and native Alaskans) must 
be accommodated under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. This 
conference report leaves in place the numerical triggers under the 
Voting Rights Act, which require states and political subdivisions that 
meet the triggers of non-English speaking citizens of voting age to 
provide language assistance services at the polls for American voters. 
On July 26, 2002, the Department of Justice released new jurisdictions 
and languages covered under the language assistance provisions of the 
Voting Rights Act based on Census 2000 figures.
  The conference report provides safeguards to ensure an equal 
opportunity for all eligible language minorities to cast a vote and 
have that vote counted. This is accomplished with uniform and 
nondiscriminatory requirements that ensure alternative language 
accessibility to voting systems, provisional balloting, and inclusion 
as a registered voter in the statewide voter registration lists. In 
addition, this compromise provides for the Election Assistance 
Commission to study and make recommendations as to whether the voting 
systems are, in fact, capable of accommodating all voters with a 
limited proficiency in the English language.
  (5) Each voting system must comply with an ``out-of-the-box'' error 
rate standard as established in section 3.2.1 of the Federal voting 
system standards issued by the Federal Election Commission and in 
effect on the date of enactment. While the specific error rate will not 
change, it is anticipated that over time, should technology provide for 
an improved error rate, Congress will amend this provision to reflect 
changing technology. Neither the conference report, nor the Senate-
passed bill, establishes performance error rates, or residual error 
rates, for particular types of voting systems, as recommended by the 
Carter-Ford Commission. However, the conference report does require 
that the new Commission study the best methods for establishing voting 
system performance benchmarks, expressed as a percentage of residual 
vote in the Federal contest at the top of the ballot. If such 
benchmarks can be established with reliability, a future Congress may 
decide to add a performance benchmark, or performance error rate, to 
the voting system standards.
  Finally, (6) the conference report contains an additional standard, 
taken from the House-passed bill, requiring each State to adopt uniform 
standards defining what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as 
a vote for each certified voting system. This provision is an 
improvement over the Senate bill and will ensure that voters using 
similar machines will have their votes counted in a uniform and 
nondiscriminatory manner within a State.
  Under this additional standard, States must define what constitutes a 
``legal'' vote on a specific voting system with a companion definition 
of when that ``legal'' vote will be counted on that specific voting 
system. These two state-based definitions will provide another 
incremental step toward ensuring that votes are cast and counted

[[Page S10508]]

in a uniform, non-discriminatory manner and should help ensure against 
a repeat of the 4-6 million votes that were cast but not counted in the 
2000 general election according to the Caltech-MIT study. Such state-
based definitions will erase the inconsistent standards, practices, or 
procedures within states and localities that have diluted votes cast in 
certain communities. Now, no matter where the voter lives and votes, 
that voter will have an equal opportunity to cast his or her vote and 
an equal opportunity to have his or her vote counted.
  The effective date for the voting system standards remains for any 
Federal election held in a jurisdiction after January 1, 2006. It is 
important to note, that with regard to effective dates, the actual date 
on which the standards under the voting system requirement must be 
implemented will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending upon 
when the first Federal election occurs in 2006. A federal election 
includes a general, primary, special, or runoff election for federal 
office.
  Section 302 establishes the second requirement that all States and 
jurisdictions must meet beginning for Federal elections after January 
1, 2004: the requirement that jurisdictions provide for provisional 
voting for any voter who is challenged as ineligible but who attests, 
in writing, that they are registered and eligible to vote. This 
provision ensures that never again can a voter who appears at the polls 
in order to vote and desires to vote can be turned away, for any 
reason. The conference report follows the Senate bill in laying out the 
steps that such provisional balloting must follow.

  First, any voter who declares that they are registered to vote in a 
Federal election in a jurisdiction but are not on the official list of 
registered voters or are otherwise alleged to be ineligible, must be 
offered and permitted to cast a provisional ballot. Any challenge to 
the voter's eligibility qualifies the voter for a provisional ballot, 
including, but not limited to:
  The voter's name does not appear on the official registration list; 
or
  The voter's name, or other registration information, appears 
inaccurately on the registration list; or
  The voter does not meet the requirements of section 303(a) because 
there is a question about, or they cannot provide, the number on their 
drivers license or the last 4-digits of their Social Security number, 
or the State/jurisdiction refuses to assign a unique identifier number 
that the voter could use for voter registration purposes; or
  A voter is a first time voter who registered by mail and does not 
meet the requirements of section 303(b) because they do not have any of 
the specified identification, such as a photo-ID, utility bill, bank 
statement, paycheck or other government document required to be shown 
under this Act; or
  There are questions about the voter's eligibility to vote, even if 
their name appears on the official registration list; or
  The voter believes he or she has registered within the States' 
registration deadline but their names does not appear on the official 
registration list; or
  The voter has recently moved but his or her name does not appear on 
the official registration list; or
  There are questions about the voters' eligibility to vote based upon 
section 303(c) that requires if polling hours are extended as a result 
of a court order, any ballot cast in a federal election during that 
extension be provisional and be held separately from other provisional 
ballots; or
  There are questions about the voters' eligibility to vote based upon 
reassignment pursuant to state re-districting laws; or for any other 
reason.

  Any and all of the above voters may, under the conference report, 
cast a provisional ballot. Not only must the State provide access to 
the provisional ballot, but the State or local election official has a 
legal obligation under this Act to provide notice to each individual 
voter, who has had his or her ability to cast a regular ballot 
questioned, that they may cast a provisional ballot in that Federal 
election at that polling place.
  To receive and cast a provisional ballot, all the individual must do 
is execute a written affirmation that he or she is a registered voter 
in that jurisdiction and is eligible to vote in that election. If an 
individual is motivated enough to go to the polls and sign an 
affidavit, under perjury of law, that he or she is eligible to vote in 
that election, then the state or local election official shall protect 
that individual's right to cast a provisional ballot. That right is so 
fundamental, as is evidenced by its widespread use across this Nation, 
that we must ensure that it is offered to all Americans, not in an 
identical process, but in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.
  Once executed, the affidavit is handed over to the appropriate 
election official who must promptly verify the information and issue a 
provisional ballot. It is important to note that in some jurisdictions, 
the verification of voter eligibility will take place prior to the 
issuance of a ballot based upon the information in the written 
affidavit. In other jurisdictions, the ballot will be issued and then 
laid aside for verification later. Both procedures are equally valid 
under this compromise, which provides flexibility to states to meet the 
needs of their communities in slightly differing ways. States that 
offer same-day registration procedures similarly meet the requirements 
of section 302 provided the individual attests, in writing, to their 
eligibility and the State otherwise determines, pursuant to State law, 
that the voter is eligible to vote.
  Any provisional ballot must be promptly verified and counted if the 
individual is eligible under State law to vote in the jurisdiction. 
Nothing in this conference report establishes a rule for when a 
provisional ballot is counted or not counted. Once a provisional ballot 
is cast, it is within the sole authority of the State or local election 
official to determine whether or not that ballot should be counted, 
according to State law. Consequently, even if a voter does not meet the 
new Federal requirements for first-time voters to verify their 
identity, or for new registrants to provide their drivers license 
number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number, if 
that voter otherwise meets the requirements as set out in State law for 
eligibility, the State shall count that ballot pursuant to State law.
  Finally, at the time that the voter casts a provisional ballot, the 
appropriate State or local election official shall give the individual 
written notice of how that voter can ascertain whether or not his or 
her ballot was counted through a free access system (such as a web site 
or toll-free telephone number). This is a particularly important 
provision as it ensures that a provisional voter will be able to cure 
any registration defect in time to become a regular voter in the next 
election. This provision, combined with the requirement in section 303 
for establishing a centralized computerized registration list, will 
ensure that no eligible voter will be denied the right to vote and that 
State and local election officials will have access to accurate and up-
to-date voting records.
  All States must meet this requirement on provisional ballots for 
Federal elections in order to comply with this Act. However, those 
States which are described in section 4(b) of the National Voter 
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and are currently exempt from the 
provisions of the NVRA or those States that permit same-day 
registration or require no registration may meet the requirements for 
provisional balloting through their current registration systems.
  The Caltech-MIT report estimates that the aggressive use of 
provisional ballots could cut the lost votes due to registration 
problems in half. The Carter-Ford Commission recommended going even 
farther than this legislation in less time, recommending state-wide 
voter registration. The Commission noted, ``No American qualified to 
vote anywhere in her or his State should be turned away from a polling 
place in that State.'' While the conference report does not require 
state-wide registration, nothing in the conference report prohibits, or 
is intended to discourage, States from enacting such a provision.

  In addition to the provisions requiring provisional balloting, 
section 302 also contains the requirement in the Senate-passed bill 
that a sample ballot and other voter information be posted at polling 
places on election day. In order to ensure that voters are aware of the 
provisional balloting process,

[[Page S10509]]

the registration and voting requirements for first-time voters who 
register by mail, including the option of providing a drivers license 
number or at least the last four digits of a Social Security number, 
along with other new state standards, practices and procedures, such 
notice and information are required to be posted at polling places on 
election day. In this information age, the expectation is that targeted 
state education programs will compliment any required posted 
information to best educate the voters and train poll workers, 
volunteers, and election officials
  Finally, the conference report contains a modified version of the 
requirement that, if polling hours are extended as a result of a court 
order, any ballot cast in a Federal election during that extension be 
by provisional ballot. The Senate-passed bill could have been read to 
apply to any voter who votes after the polls close, and not just voters 
who vote pursuant to a court or other order. Consequently, the 
conference report clarifies that only voters who vote pursuant to such 
order vote by provisional ballot and such provisional ballots shall be 
held separately from other provisional ballots.
  Section 303 of the conference report includes the provisions of the 
Senate-passed bill requiring that all States establish a centralized 
computerized registration list of all eligible voters. This requirement 
is the single greatest deterrent to election fraud, whether by 
unscrupulous poll workers or officials, voters, or outside individuals 
and organizations. The ability to capture every eligible voter in one 
centrally managed database with requirements for privacy and security 
of the information will help ensure the integrity of registration lists 
and ensure both the accuracy and authenticity of those lists.
  The Carter-Ford Commission explicitly recommended that every state 
adopt a system of statewide voter registration. The Caltech-MIT report 
similarly recommended the development of better databases with a 
numerical identifier for each voter. The Constitution Project also 
called for the development of a state-wide computerized voter 
registration system that can be routinely updated and is accessible at 
polling places on election day.
  The conference report contains much of the Senate-passed language on 
this provision with important additions to highlight the official, 
centrally managed nature of this list. Once implemented in 2004 (or 
2006 if the State seeks a waiver for good cause), voters should never 
again have to be turned away from the polls because their name was not 
updated on the list. Never again should poll workers have to wait hours 
to get through a central phone line in order to verify a voter's 
registration. And once such a list is in place, every first-time mail 
registrant voter should be able to verify their identity through the 
matching of a drivers license number or at least the last 4 digits of a 
Social Security number.
  The conference report retains the Senate-passed provisions of section 
303(a)(2) regarding list maintenance of the computerized list. Those 
provisions provide that any name that is removed from the list must be 
removed in accordance with provision of the National Voter Registration 
Act (NVRA), the so-called ``Motor-Voter'' law. This requirement will 
ensure that voters cannot be purged from the list unless they have not 
responded to a notice mailed by the appropriate election official and 
then have not voted in the subsequent two Federal general elections. 
Moreover, this provision ensures that voters who appear at the polls 
during this period and wish to vote will be allowed to as provided for 
in section 8(3) of the Motor-Voter law (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6).
  As a practical matter, once the computerized list has been developed 
and implemented, list maintenance will be almost automatic. While many 
of us have read of allegations of massive duplicate registrations, the 
fact is that even though alleged duplicate names appear on more than 
one jurisdiction's list, the vast majority of voters only live in one 
place and only vote in one place. In a highly mobile society likes 
ours, voters move constantly. And while voters may remember to change 
their mailing address with the post office, with utility companies, and 
with the bank and credit card companies, they may not even think about 
changing their address with the local election official until it comes 
time to vote. At the end of the day, this conference report ensures 
that mobile voters are not disenfranchised.
  The conference report also added a new minimum standard for ensuring 
the accuracy of the centralized computerized registration list. That 
provision, section 303(a)(4), was drawn from a provision contained in 
the House-passed measure, but with an important clarification. 
Consistent with section 303(a)(2), this provision parallels language in 
the NVRA that requires States to make a reasonable effort to remove 
registrants who are ineligible to vote, consistent with the provisions 
of NVRA, specifically the requirement that such voters fail to respond 
to a notice and then fail to vote in the subsequent two general Federal 
elections. Further, no voter may be removed from the list solely by 
reason of a failure to vote. As is stated in the Statement of Managers, 
this provision is completely consistent with NVRA.
  Section 303(a)(5) of the conference report is a new provision that is 
a modification to provisions added to the Senate bill during floor 
debate that authorized States to request a voter's 9 digit Social 
Security number. Effective in 2004 (or 2006 if a waiver of section 
303(a) is requested by the State), this section prohibits States from 
accepting or processing a voter registration application unless it 
contains the voter's drivers license number. However, there is no 
similar prohibition on local election officials who presumably will 
continue to have the authority to process voter applications until the 
State implements the centralized computerized registration list and 
becomes responsible for maintaining the official list of eligible 
voters under section 303(a)(1).
  In the meantime, if an applicant has not been issued a current and 
valid drivers license, then the applicant must provide the last 4 
digits of his or her Social Security number. If the applicant has 
neither number, the State shall issue the individual a number that 
becomes the voter's unique identifier (as required for the centralized 
computerize registration list). The chief state election official must 
also enter into agreements with the State motor vehicle authority and 
the Commissioner of Social Security in order to match information 
supplied by the voter with these databases.
  However, nothing in this section prohibits a State from accepting or 
processing an application with incomplete or inaccurate information. 
Section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii) specifically reserves to the States the 
determination as to whether the information supplied by the voter is 
sufficient to meet the disclosure requirements of this provision. So, 
for example, if a voter transposes his or her Social Security number, 
or provides less than a full drivers license number, the State can 
nonetheless determine that such information is sufficient to meet the 
verification requirements based on whatever information they already 
possess, in accordance with State law. Consequently, a State may 
establish what information is sufficient for verification, preserving 
the sole authority of the State to determine eligibility requirements 
for voters. Furthermore, nothing in this conference report requires a 
State to enact any specific legislation for determining eligibility to 
vote. In fact, State motor vehicle records are generally accurate and 
current and State and local election officials should affirmatively use 
these records to correct or complete the information wherever possible.
  Moreover, nothing in this section prohibits a State from registering 
an applicant once the verification process takes place, notwithstanding 
that the applicant provided inaccurate or incomplete information at the 
time of registration (as anticipated by section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii)) or 
that the matching process did not verify the information. The provision 
requires only that a verification process be established but it does 
not define when an applicant is a duly registered voter. Again, this 
conference report does not establish Federal registration eligibility 
requirements those are found only in the U.S. Constitution. Section 
303(a)(5)(A)(iii) makes it clear that State law is the ultimate 
determinant of whether the information supplied under this section is 
sufficient for determining if an applicant is duly registered under 
State law.

[[Page S10510]]

  The conference report also retains the provision championed by 
Senator Bond which will require that voters who register by mail must 
provide additional verification of their identity the first time that 
they appear to vote in person or by absentee ballot. To make clear that 
Congress intends that the first-time voter provision of section 303(b) 
must not result in a disparate impact on minority voters, the conferees 
agreed to add language to this section to require that it be 
implemented in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. The conference 
report also contains a new notice provision, section 303(b)(4)(iv), 
which requires that the NVRA registration form contain a statement 
informing the applicant that if they register by mail, appropriate 
information must be included in order to avoid the additional 
identification requirements upon voting for the first time. As in the 
Senate-passed bill, if any voter is challenged as not being eligible to 
vote, including for reasons that he or she is a first-time mail 
registrant voter without proper identification, such voter is entitled 
to vote by provisional ballot, and that ballot is counted according to 
State law.
  In the case of an individual who registers by mail, the first time 
the individual goes to vote in person in a jurisdiction, he or she must 
present to the appropriate election official one of the following 
pieces of identification: a current valid photo-ID; or a copy of any of 
the following documents: a current utility bill; a bank statement; a 
government check; a paycheck; or another government document with the 
voter's name and address. This compromise does not specify any 
particular type of acceptable photo identification. It is clear, 
however, that a driver's license, a photo-ID issued by the a DMV, a 
student ID, or a work ID that has a photograph of the individual would 
be sufficient. Additionally, states may continue to define its own form 
of acceptable photo-ID so long as such definitions are inclusive and 
not have the unintended consequences of targeting the persons with 
disabilities, poor, elderly, students, racial and ethnic minorities and 
otherwise legitimate voters.
  The conference report also preserves the existing exemptions under 
the NVRA law under section 1973gg-4(c)(2) of title 42 in the 
implementation of this compromise. A state may not by law require a 
person to vote in-person if that first-time voter is: (1) entitled to 
vote by absentee ballot under section 1973ff-1 of title 42 of the 
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; (2) provided the 
right to vote otherwise than in-person under section 1973ee-
1(b)(2)(b)(ii) and 1973ee-3(b)(2)(b)(ii) of the Voting Accessibility 
for the Elderly and Handicapped act; and (3) entitled to vote otherwise 
than in-person under any other federal law. These exemptions have the 
practical affect of preserving existing laws that provide the long-
standing practice of states permitting eligible uniform service and 
overseas voters to continue to vote by absentee ballot without this 
first-time voters requirement attaching. Similarly, these exemptions 
have the practical affect of preserving the rights of persons with 
disabilities not to be required to show-up in-person to vote or to be 
required to provide copies of photo-IDs or documents by mail.
  As I stated yesterday, nothing in this bill establishes a Federal 
definition of when a voter is registered or how a vote is counted. If a 
challenged voter submits a provisional ballot, the State may still 
determine that the voter is eligible to vote and so count that ballot, 
notwithstanding that the first-time mail registrant voter did not 
provide additional identification required under section 303(b). 
Whether a provisional ballot is counted or not depends solely on State 
law, and the conferees clarified this by adding language in section 
302(a)(4) stating that a voter's eligibility to vote is determined 
under State law.
  More importantly, however, is the combination of the existing 
language in the Senate-passed bill (offered by Senator Wyden) and the 
provision, modified from the Senate-passed bill, which requires new 
registrants to provide a drivers license number upon registration, or 
the last 4 digits of their Social Security number if they do not have a 
drivers license number.
  The Wyden amendment included in the Senate-passed bill, and retained 
without modification in the conference report, provides a means by 
which first-time mail registrant voters can avoid the additional 
verification requirements of section 303(b) altogether. At the choice 
of the individual, under section 303(b)(3), a first-time mail 
registrant voter can opt to submit their drivers license number, or at 
least the last 4 digits of their Social Security number, on the mail-in 
voter registration form in order for the State to match the information 
against a State database, such as the motor vehicle authority database. 
If such information matches, the additional identification requirements 
of section 303(b)(1) do not apply to that individual.
  Under the new requirements added in conference as section 303(a)(5), 
effective in 2004 (unless waived until 2006), all new applicants must 
provide at the time of registration, a valid drivers license number, or 
if the individual does not have such, the last 4 digits of their Social 
Security number (or if they have neither, the State shall assign them a 
unique identifying number). States must then attempt to match such 
information, thereby satisfying the provisions of section 303(b)(3) 
which renders the first-time mail applicant provisions of section 
303(b)(1) inapplicable. By operation of section 303(a)(5) added in 
conference, in conjunction with the existing language of the Senate-
passed bill (as added by Senator Wyden) in section 303(b)(3), the 
first-time voter identification requirement is obviated and essentially 
rendered moot, thereby avoiding the potential disenfranchisement of 
minority voters.
  The conference report also retains the Senate-passed provision that 
adds questions and check-off boxes to the NVRA registration form 
regarding age and citizenship. Under section 303(b)(4), the Senate-
passed bill contained the requirement that the NVRA registration form 
include two new questions and a check-off box for voters to mark to 
indicate their answers to questions regarding age and citizenship 
eligibility. The Senate-passed bill was silent as to the result of an 
unmarked box and left to States to determine whether such an omission 
was a fatal defect in the registration form.
  In order to clarify that States may not just summarily discard such 
incomplete forms, the conferees agreed to include language requiring 
that the registrar notify the voter of an incomplete form. Such notice 
must be provided in time for the registration application to be 
completed and processed prior to the next Federal election. However, 
nothing in this provision requires that the application be invalidated 
under this section if an applicant forgets to check-off the citizenship 
box. Nor does anything in this provision make the completion of the 
check-off box a condition of Federal eligibility. The conference report 
does not establish Federal eligibility requirements for voting. NVRA 
only requires that an applicant sign the registration form attesting to 
his or her eligibility, including citizenship. The check-off box is a 
tool for registrars to use to verify citizenship, but nothing in the 
conference report requires the check-off to be complete to process the 
registration form or invalidates the form if the box is left blank.
  In fact, this provision will ensure that if a voter did not check-off 
the citizenship box, his or her registration form cannot be discarded 
as invalid on its face. Ultimately, the registrar determines whether or 
not the voter has met the citizenship requirement notwithstanding 
whether or not the box is checked. A signed attestation as to 
citizenship eligibility is still sufficient under NVRA. Jurisdictions 
that currently use citizenship check-off boxes may continue to process 
such information pursuant to State law, but in fact will not be able to 
invalidate a form based on the lack of a check-off without notification 
to the voter first.
  This compromise provides state and local election officials with the 
necessary additional tools to make the ultimate decision regarding 
eligibility of voters to register to vote, eligibility of the voter to 
cast a regular vote and the eligibility of vote to be counted. Nothing 
in this compromise usurps the state or local election official's sole 
authority to make the final determination with respect to whether or 
not an applicant is duly registered, whether the voter can cast a 
regular vote, or whether that vote is duly counted.

[[Page S10511]]

  In the case of any missing information on a mail-in registration 
form, the election official may process it as he or she determines is 
appropriate under State law. That applies equally to the requirement 
for the citizenship check-off box, the requirement to provide one's 
drivers license number or the last 4 digit of the Social Security 
number, or any other provision of this Act. This means that State law 
governs whether the form is returned, whether and how the voter is 
contacted regarding the omission or whether the form is discarded. 
Current law under the NVRA does not require that voters be registered--
only that the voter be given the opportunity to register through a 
wider variety of State and local offices, including the DMV (thus the 
title, ``Motor-Voter"). Current law under the NVRA does not supercede 
the sole authority of State and local election officials to determine 
whether or not an applicant is duly registered. Similarly, this 
compromise does not supercede state law with respect to registration. 
After this law is enacted, there will still be no Federal law that 
overrides state law and preempts the field with respect to voter 
registration.
  Again, as with almost every aspect of this compromise, state 
implementation of the individual provisions of this compromise is key 
and will determine if the franchise is preserved and protected for all 
eligible American voters and if the integrity and security of the 
elections system is protected from corruption. Once again almost all 
the civil rights organizations and civil liberties coalitions, but 
particularly our language minority communities, raised legitimate 
concerns about the potential discriminatory solution to the check-off 
questions. At the end of the day, it will be the State and local 
election officials who will interpret what the omission on a 
citizenship box and an age box mean with respect to registration, 
consistent with State law, standards, practices or procedures. These 
State laws must implement all of these requirements in a uniform and 
nondiscriminatory manner. There is no cover of law under this 
compromise for any State or locality to establish a standard, practice 
or procedure that permits the check-off boxes to act as anti-
registration vehicles by voiding otherwise legal registrations under 
state law.
  In implementing these requirements, the States will have to rely on 
voluntary guidelines and voluntary guidance issued by the new Federal 
Election Assistance Commission. While the conference report includes 
the House prohibition on rule making authority for the new Commission, 
the conferees included an important modification to this language. 
Section 209 provides an exception to the no rule making authority to 
the extent permitted under section 9(a) of NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
7(a)).

  With respect to the provisions of the requirements affecting 
notification to first-time mail registrant voters, the submission of a 
drivers license number or the last 4 digits of a Social Security 
number, or the change in the citizenship check-off box, some adjustment 
to the NVRA registration form will be necessary. The exception provided 
to the no rule making authority would allow the new Commission to 
proscribe such regulations necessary to develop the mail registration 
form used in Federal elections.
  Consequently, it is anticipated that the new Commission will be 
required to revise the current NVRA registration form in order to 
effectuate the requirements under this Act, including: notice 
requirements for first-time voters under section 303(b)(4)(iv); the 
collection of a drivers license number or last 4 digits of a Social 
Security number under sections 303(a)(5) and 303(b)(3); and the age and 
citizenship check-off boxes under section 303(b)(4), in addition to any 
other changes in the Federal registration application form that the 
Commission views as necessary to implement this Act. This exercise will 
afford interested parties an opportunity to ensure that these 
requirements do not result in the disenfranchisement of applicant 
voters.
  With regard to effective dates, the conference report continues to 
harmonize the effective date of the computerized registration list with 
the 2004 effective date for provisional balloting. However, since it 
was widely acknowledged that some States may have legitimate difficulty 
in implementing the statewide registration list by January 1, 2004, a 
certification of good cause will be sufficient to request a waiver of 
the effective date until January 1, 2006. This waiver recognizes the 
administrative burden of the provision on both States and voters and so 
provides adequate time for jurisdictions to come into compliance and 
educate voters. This compromise also establishes a uniform effective 
date of January 1, 2003 for first-time voter registration subject to 
the first-time voter provision. This assures that all eligible voters, 
regardless of where they live or vote, will know that if they register 
to vote after that date, they will have to meet the new requirements 
for first-time mail-registrant voters.
  Finally, the conference report strikes a middle ground between the 
House-passed and Senate-passed bills with regard to how funds will be 
directed to the States to meet the requirements and fund other election 
reform initiatives. The conference report provides initial funds by 
means of a combination of targeted buy-outs of punch cards and lever 
systems, as well as a formula grant program, with a guaranteed $5 
million payment per each State. The requirements payments are similarly 
disbursed through a formula based on the relative voting age population 
of the State, with a minimum guaranteed payment of one-half of one 
percent per fiscal year.
  Borrowing from the Senate-passed bill, in order to receive 
requirements payments, States must first submit a State plan outlining 
how they will spend such funds to meet the requirements of Title III 
and otherwise meet the requirements of the Act. Such a plan is 
developed by a committee headed by the chief state election official, 
with community input and public review for a 30 day comment period. 
Once the plan is submitted to the Commission, it is published in the 
Federal Register and a State must wait 45 days after submitting the 
initial plan before it can apply for a requirements payment.
  While the enforcement provisions of the Senate-passed bill included 
tough pre-clearance reviews of grant applications by the Department of 
Justice, the conference report contains an important new administrative 
grievance procedure intended to provide voters, and others aggrieved by 
violation of the requirements of this Act, a timely and convenient 
means of redressing alleged violations. Each State that receives funds 
under Title I must establish a state-based administrative procedure for 
reviewing alleged grievances under Title III of this Act. Such 
procedure must allow for a party to request a hearing on the record and 
if the State does not render a decision within 90 days of receiving a 
complaint, the proceeding is moved to an alternative dispute resolution 
process that must resolve the issue within 60 days.
  Voters have the legal right to turn to their State to seek a remedy 
if their right to register or vote or have their vote counted has been 
violated. Aggrieved persons have a legal right to file the complaint 
and are entitled to a hearing on the record. If the State determines 
that there is a violation, then the State is required to order a 
remedy. If the State does not make a final determination within 90 days 
of the date that the complaint is filed, then the complainant may seek 
to initiate the alternative dispute resolution procedures (ADR). Under 
the enforcement provisions of this compromise, the State shall create a 
procedure to use ADR if they fail to meet the 90 day deadline for 
resolution of the complaint. The ADR procedure is an important 
guarantee within the state complaint process. However, the ADR 
procedure shall not be implemented to supplant any administrative 
judicial review which States already provide under State law.
  The complaint procedures, set up under this conference report, are in 
addition to, and are not intended to override or preempt, the 
procedures by which a State guarantees judicial review of state 
administrative procedures. The determination made by the State under 
this conference report shall be subject to the existing State laws 
which may, or may not, allow for judicial review of administrative 
decision making. Furthermore, this conference report is not intended to 
in any way limit or prohibit a state from creating, if they do not 
already have one,

[[Page S10512]]

a provision to allow state courts to review the administrative 
decisions made in accordance with this bill.
  Most importantly, this conference report preserves and protects 
existing voting rights laws, which provide for enforcement by private 
individuals who have either been denied the right to vote or had that 
right infringed. The conference report is designed to protect the 
enforcement provisions of many laws, including the Voting Rights Act 
and the National Voter Registration Act. Therefore, nothing in this 
legislation limits the enforcement measures or avenues of redress 
available to persons under those critical civil rights laws enumerated 
in Section 906 of Title IX of this Act.
  While I would have preferred that we extend the private right of 
action afforded private parties under the NVRA, the House simply would 
not entertain such an enforcement provisions. Nor would they accept 
Federal judicial review of any adverse decision by a State 
administrative body. However, the state-based administrative procedure 
must meet basic due process requirements, including a hearing on the 
record if the aggrieved individual so chooses.
  It is important to note that this state-based administrative 
proceeding is in addition to any other rights the aggrieved has and is 
limited only to the adjudication of violations of the requirements 
under Title III of this Act. This enforcement scheme in no ways 
replaces or alters the adjudication or enforcement provisions of any 
other civil rights or voting rights law.
  As with all provisions of this legislation, the proof is in the 
implementation of these requirements by the States. But nothing in this 
conference report requires States or localities to change any voter 
eligibility requirements nor does this Act in any way infringe upon the 
sole authority of State and local election officials to determine who 
is a duly registered voter. It will require diligence and education of 
State and local election officials to ensure that these provisions do 
not serve to disenfranchise voters undermine the purposes of this Act: 
to make it easier to vote, but harder to defraud the system.
  As is the case with any historic legislation that goes to the core of 
our democracy, a number of organizations participated in this effort. 
Yesterday, I recognized the efforts of over 60 staff members who 
participated in this effort. As is often the case when trying to 
develop a comprehensive list, there is a danger that someone's name 
will be inadvertently omitted. Unfortunately, that did occur and I 
would be remiss in not recognizing the significant efforts of Stuart 
Gottlieb of my staff. In addition to staff, I want to list the numerous 
organizations that have assisted in the development of this 
legislation. While not every organization supported every provision in 
this measure, each organization provided us with thoughtful input and 
suggestions and were of considerable help in the formation of this 
legislation over. The list of organizations that have provided 
invaluable assistance to this effort over the last 23 months is almost 
too lengthy to include here. But it is important to note the breadth 
and depth of the input that went into crafting this historic 
legislation. At the risk of again inadvertently leaving someone out, I 
want to recognize and thank the following organizations which have 
provided their expertise to this effort:

       American Association for People With Disabilities.
       American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees.
       American Foundation for the Blind.
       American Institute of Graphic Arts.
       Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       Brennan Center for Justice.
       Center for Constitutional Rights.
       Common Cause.
       Commission on Civil Rights.
       Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project.
       Constitution Project.
       Disability Rights Education Defense Fund, Inc.
       Election Center.
       International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America.
       Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       League of Women Voters.
       Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
       National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People( 
     NAACP) Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials (NALEO) Education Fund.
       National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems.
       National Association of Secretaries of State.
       National Association of State Election Directors.
       National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.
       National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Ford 
     Commission).
       National Congress of American Indians.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Federation of the Blind.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
       Paralyzed Veterans of America.
       People for the American Way.
       Public Citizen.
       Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       United Cerebral Palsy Associations.
       United States Public Interest Research Group.

  On balance, this is a good bill. It is an historic bill. It is 
landmark legislation. Members of the House of Representatives referred 
to this legislation last week as the first civil rights bill of the 
21st century. It is worthy of such a title and I am honored to have 
been able to be a part of the effort to bring this important 
legislation to pass. In the view of this Senator, at the end of this 
historic process, the Congress will have made a lasting contribution to 
the continued health and stability of this democracy for the people, by 
the people and of the people. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
conference report.
  I ask unanimous consent that a series of editorials from Greensboro, 
as well as from Sarasota, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, 
Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and others be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Hartford Courant, Oct. 16, 2002]

                        Score One for Sen. Dodd

       Congress' accomplishments have been few and far between 
     over the past year. But count as one of them the imminent 
     passage of bipartisan election reform legislation that chief 
     sponsor Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut calls ``the 
     first civil rights act of the 21st century.''
       Mr. Dodd is proud of this measure, and rightly so.
       It addresses many of the procedural and technological flaws 
     that cast a cloud over the 2000 presidential election in 
     Florida and other states. Badly designed ballots that 
     confused voters, punch-card ballots that were difficult to 
     count, eligible voters who were turned away from the polls 
     and other problems disenfranchised many voters in Florida and 
     elsewhere.
       Congress promised to act quickly to address the 
     irregularities, but Senate and House versions ran aground in 
     the conference committee for months.
       But earlier this month, after intense negotiations between 
     House and Senate conferees of both parties, Mr. Dodd 
     announced agreement on a bill that is expected to pass and be 
     signed by President Bush, Senate action is scheduled today. 
     Here, in part, is what the legislation will do:
       The federal government is authorized to spend $3.8 billion 
     over the next three years to help states replace and renovate 
     voting equipment, train poll workers, educate voters, upgrade 
     voter lists and make polling places more accessible to the 
     disabled. Connecticut will be able to tap some of that money, 
     perhaps to complete its statewide voter registration list and 
     to buy new equipment if state officials decide to replace the 
     ancient mechanical voting machines.
       A voter who does not appear on a registration list cannot 
     be turned away from the polls, but must be allowed to cast a 
     provisional ballot. The ballot would be counted if election 
     officials later confirmed that the voter was eligible.
       Voters must be given a chance to correct any errors on 
     their ballots before they are finally cast.
       States will be required to develop uniform standards for 
     counting ballots so that procedures don't vary from county to 
     county or precinct to precinct.
       Anyone registering to vote after January 2004 must provide 
     a driver's license number or the last four digits of his or 
     her Social Security number for verification.
       Some Democrats were uncomfortable with the identification 
     requirements, saying they would discourage first-time voters, 
     the poor and immigrants. Requiring ID's to cut down

[[Page S10513]]

     on fraud is sensible, however. Some Republicans were opposed 
     to Washington interfering in local elections. But clearly, 
     minimum statewide standards are needed. This is an acceptable 
     compromise.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2002]

                      Fixing Democracy's Machinery

       As recently as a month ago, hope of fixing serious flaws in 
     the nation's creaky voting system appeared doomed on Capitol 
     Hill. House and Senate negotiators, stalled over some 
     seemingly modest sticking points, appeared to have lost their 
     stamina for repairing glitches that have kept thousands of 
     Americans from exercising their right to participate in the 
     political process. Election reform was poised to become one 
     more casualty of the partisan gridlock that has stymied this 
     Congress for much of the year. But last month's chaotic 
     Florida primary was a bracing reminder that the nation's 
     damaged election system poses a continuing threat to our form 
     of democracy. It was, fortunately, the spark that ignited 
     renewed fervor for election reform and the event that 
     galvanized congressional negotiators to produce a compromise 
     bill the president has said he will sign.
       If the bill is enacted this week, as House and Senate 
     leaders anticipate, the 2004 presidential election could be a 
     far cry from the 2000 Florida debacle. The days of antiquated 
     punch-card voting machines, voter registration roll confusion 
     and botched elections may be numbered. The bill adopted by 
     the House and Senate negotiators would, for the first time, 
     impose minimum federal standards meant to guarantee the basic 
     quality of elections; allow voters to check their ballots and 
     correct errors; improve polling place access for the 
     disabled; discourage fraud by requiring new voters to provide 
     a driver's license number or the last four digits of their 
     Social Security number and, if they apply by mail, a current 
     photo ID card or utility bill; and require states to have a 
     computerized, statewide voter registration database to 
     prevent a person from voting in multiple jurisdictions. To 
     help states upgrade their voting machinery and train poll 
     workers, the bill calls for $3.9 billion in federal money 
     over three years--$1 billion of which congressional leaders 
     believe can be appropriated during the current fiscal year to 
     jump-start the reform effort.
       While the election reform bill is every bill the 
     ``historic'' federal response to Election Day flaws that 
     sponsors claim it to be, it would not supplant the functions 
     of state and local election officials. Their roles would 
     remain essential. The legislation would, however, 
     substantially fund the new requirements imposed on the 
     states, with the federal government shouldering 95 percent of 
     the costs. That the final measure has drawn bipartisan 
     congressional backing is testimony to the broad support 
     across the nation for revamping America's election system.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 8, 2002]

                       Upgrading the Way We Vote

       Congress now seems on the verge, at long last, of passing 
     meaningful legislation to improve the reliability of American 
     elections.
       The House and Senate had earlier passed bills addressing 
     the flaws in voting equipment and procedures that were so 
     manifest in the 2000 presidential vote. The sense of urgency, 
     however, seemed to erode as negotiators sought to reconcile 
     the two measures. Democrats had second thoughts about signing 
     on to anti-fraud provisions, while Republicans had qualms 
     about expanding the federal government's role in running 
     elections. Then last month, Florida's chaotic Congressional 
     primaries provided a fresh reminder of the price of inaction. 
     Last week the conferees struck a deal that the full Congress 
     is expected to approve within days and that President Bush is 
     expected to sign into law. The legislation calls for a big 
     infusion of federal resources into the administration of 
     elections--$3.9 billion over three years. Until Congress 
     actually appropriates the money, however, this amounts to 
     little more than a promise--one on which Mr. Bush and the 
     Congressional leadership are obliged to deliver.
       The funds will enable states to upgrade their equipment, 
     train poll workers and otherwise improve how elections are 
     administered. The legislation also imposes federal standards, 
     starting in 2004. States must offer ``provisional balloting'' 
     for voters whose eligibility is questioned at the polls, and 
     a means of allowing voters who have made mistakes in casting 
     their ballots a chance to rectify them. States must also 
     ensure access to disabled voters, establish uniform vote-
     counting standards and create computerized registration 
     lists.
       The legislation requires first-time voters who register by 
     mail to verify their identity when they vote. Some argue that 
     this imposes too onerous a burden on minority voters. We 
     disagree, although the Justice Department will have to be 
     vigilant to ensure that this anti-fraud provision is not 
     abused. The final draft of the legislation should also spell 
     out that this provision will not take effect until the full 
     $3.9 billion is appropriated.
       More might have been done to nationalize election 
     procedures, but in the context of America's federalism, this 
     legislation is a sound accomplishment.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7, 2002]

                         Cleaning Up Elections

       One of the most underreported stories in recent American 
     politics has been the growth in election fraud. We'd even say 
     that the politicians have been far ahead of the press corps 
     on this problem, perhaps because their futures depend on 
     honest vote counting.
       Two useful cases in point are now coming out of Washington, 
     of all unlikely places. One is the election reform bill that 
     finally looks ready to emerge from House-Senate conference. 
     The other is Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort this 
     week to mobilize his department to counter fraud from now 
     through this Election Day of November 5.
       Mr. Ashcroft has summoned assistant U.S. attorneys from 
     around the country to a day-long seminar tomorrow to focus on 
     elections crimes. There are plenty of anti-vote fraud laws on 
     the books, but rarely if ever are allegations of fraud 
     investigated, much less prosecuted. Mr. Ashcroft has invited 
     three assistant U.S. attorneys with experience in election 
     crimes--from the ripe climates of Kentucky, Alabama and New 
     York--to share their lessons and case studies.
       The Chihuahuas of the Beltway press corps will be inclined 
     to treat this as little more than political public relations. 
     But that's why they miss so many stories, including the 
     outbreak of voting fraud in places like Philadelphia, San 
     Francisco and St. Louis. In the latter, the dead and pets 
     cast ballots in 2000; only last year the voter rolls in St. 
     Louis included 13,000 more names than the U.S. Census lists 
     as the total number of adults over age 18. In New York City 
     earlier this year, the name of a candidate for lieutenant 
     governor was discovered to have voted twice in a previous 
     election. He dropped out after the New York Post broke the 
     story.
       It's helpful for Mr. Ashcroft to draw public attention to 
     this before Election Day, both to mobilize his own department 
     and perhaps to deter those looking to commit fraud. He's 
     asking each of his U.S. Attorneys to meet with state election 
     and law enforcement officials in the next month, says a 
     recent internal memo, to find ways to ``work together to 
     deter electoral corruption and bring violators to justice.''
       The election reform bill compromise also includes much-
     needed attention to ballot integrity. The heart of the bill 
     is of course aimed at avoiding another Florida butterfly-
     ballot fiasco, by sending $3.9 billion to the states to 
     upgrade their voting equipment and train poll workers, as if 
     the job were all that difficult.
       But the best provisions are those aimed at cleaning up 
     voter lists. Beginning this January 1, new voters who 
     register by mail will have to provide a photo ID or another 
     document, such as a utility bill, that shows a name and 
     address. States will also have to maintain a statewide voter 
     registration list. And voters who do not appear on a 
     registration list will be able to cast a provisional ballot, 
     to be counted only if its data can be later verified.
       Our own view is that if a citizen is too lazy to register 
     before an election, he's disqualified himself from voting. 
     But these reforms will at least address some of the problems 
     created by the disastrous ``motor voter law'' of 1994 that 
     was supposed to increase voter turnout; instead it created 
     many more opportunities for cheating.
       The people who pushed motor voter are also the same folks 
     now raising public doubts about the anti-fraud provisions of 
     this election reform. They are liberal lobbies who like to 
     shout about the ``possible disenfranchisement of voters,'' as 
     Kay Maxwell of the increasingly ideological League of Women 
     Voters put it to the Los Angeles Times. This is a subtle 
     race-card play, suggesting that the U.S. in 2002 resembles 
     Birmingham, Alabama circa 1956.
       Even in the contested Florida election of 2000, the black 
     share of the total vote was a record high, which is hard to 
     square with allegations of voter intimidation. Connecticut 
     Senator Chris Dodd and other Democrats deserve credit for 
     overruling their staffs and the liberal lobbies to cut a 
     reform deal with Republicans.
       With American politics now closely divided, many elections 
     are bound to be close and the temptation on both sides will 
     be to shout fraud whenever they lose. That's all the more 
     reason to attempt to deter fraud before Election Day.
                                  ____


                      [From Newsday, Oct. 8, 2002]

          Enact Balloting Reforms But Only If Money's Attached

       In resuscitating a bill to reform the nation's voting 
     procedures, House and Senate negotiators have crafted a solid 
     approach to reduce the likelihood of future voting fiascoes 
     like those that roiled the 2000 presidential election, whose 
     results were unclear for more than a month.
       Congress dawdled too long for its reform to have any impact 
     Nov. 5. But the next presidential race is just two years 
     away, so lawmakers should pass the bill--but only if the 
     money to fund it is assured. The bill sets minimum federal 
     standards for voting, including error rates, and authorizes 
     $3.9 billion to help states cover the cost of compliance. 
     Without that money, reform would be a sham; change would come 
     slowly, if at all.
       That would be a shame as the bill strikes a pretty good 
     balance between autonomy and accountability. Washington would 
     monitor performance and offer guidance on equipment 
     procedural changes, but its recommendations would not have 
     the force of law. State and local officials would have wide 
     discretion on how to meet the standards, for instance, in 
     choosing types of voting machines. The Justice Department 
     could

[[Page S10514]]

     sue to enforce the new standards. But election reform 
     wouldn't be micromanaged from Washington.
       Election-reform bills passed the House and Senate months 
     ago, but the effort to reconcile the two versions ran 
     aground. Republicans sought safeguards against fraud; 
     Democrats wanted to make sure that new identification 
     requirements would not disenfranchise voters.
       Under the current agreement, people registering to vote 
     would have to provide a driver's license number or Social 
     Security number. First-time voters who register by mail would 
     have to present one of those documents to poll workers before 
     casting their ballots.
       Civil rights advocates worry that poor or minority voters 
     would be deterred by those requirements and by poll workers 
     who might not apply them fairly and consistently. Those 
     concerns are important and should be closely monitored. But 
     they should not derail reform.
       Voting is too fundamental to democracy for the nation not 
     to get it right.
                                  ____


           [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 10, 2002]

Voting for Progress: Congressional Negotiators Agree on Election Reform

       If the 2000 presidential election in Florida weren't enough 
     of a debacle, the problems experienced in the same state's 
     primary election last month made the point anew:
       If American democracy is to retain any respect, Congress 
     had better help the states improve the way they hold 
     elections. After months of wrangling, Congress has risen to 
     the challenge, although controversy may still sink the 
     effort.
       After House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last 
     week, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, 
     correctly observed that it ``will help America move beyond 
     the days of hanging chads, butterfly ballots and illegal 
     purges of qualified voters.'' Some $3.9 billion in federal 
     money would be provided to the states over three years for 
     upgrading voting equipment, training poll workers and setting 
     up a computerized voter database.
       But so much for the mechanics of voting, the principal 
     concern of Democrats. What about the Republican fear of voter 
     fraud? This might be called the historic Tammany Hall 
     problem, immortalized by the line ``Vote early and often.''
       The Republicans had a point, whatever their political 
     motives. Just as it is important to make sure votes are 
     counted properly, it is also crucial to the integrity of the 
     system to make sure that those voting are entitled to do so.
       But civil rights groups and the League of Women Voters of 
     America object to any provision that would require checking 
     the IDs of voters; they say such requirements would unfairly 
     discourage minorities and elderly people from voting. It is 
     an understandable concern, but it has been overblown.
       The compromise legislation is hardly onerous. Beginning 
     Jan. 1, new voters who registered by mail would be required 
     to provide a current photo ID or another document such as a 
     utility bill with name and address. Eventually, voters would 
     have to supply part of a driver's license number or Social 
     Security number (or be assigned a number if they didn't have 
     one). If questions arose about a person's eligibility to 
     vote, he or she would receive a provisional ballot that would 
     be counted if the registration were later verified.
       In a sign that the agreement is not as bad as advertised, 
     the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed it. Former presidents 
     Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, who are honorary co-chairs of 
     the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, said the 
     bill ``represents a delicate balance of shared 
     responsibilities between levels of government.'' They're 
     right--and the House and Senate should approve what their 
     negotiators have worked out.
       There is a local footnote to the federal debate: When the 
     Post-Gazette suggested recently that some sort of voter ID 
     was not a bad idea for Pennsylvania, a couple of Democratic 
     legislators objected strongly. As this development in 
     Washington illustrates, once again the commonwealth is behind 
     the curve.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 15, 2002]

                            Getting Over It

       Angry and embarrassed over the election debacle of 2000, 
     the newly chosen Congress vowed to make reforming the 
     antiquated, 50-state patchwork system its first order of 
     business. Now, it appears the election reform bill will be 
     among the last items enacted as the 107th Congress stumbles 
     to a messy close.
       A final vote of the Senate tomorrow and the expected 
     signature of President Bush will establish federal standards 
     intended to ensure that eligible voters will never again be 
     turned away from the polls or have their votes voided because 
     of confusing ballots. The reforms come too late to apply to 
     this year's congressional elections, and may not have been 
     approved at all but for the botched Florida primary last 
     month that kick-started a stalled legislative drive.
       Much of the delay centered on a dispute over a requirement 
     that first-time voters who register by mail show one of 
     several forms of identification at the polls. Republican 
     senators, in particular, insisted on an ID requirement to 
     fight voter fraud.
       Civil rights groups complained such a requirement would 
     impose a barrier to voting for low-income Americans who don't 
     have drivers licenses or other common forms of 
     identification. At a minimum, they argued, the request for 
     such papers would be used as a way to harass or discourage 
     voters.
       Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, a leading Democratic 
     negotiator on the bill, won House approval for a version of 
     the measure without an ID requirement. But he faced a Senate 
     that had voted 99-1 to include one. He and the vast majority 
     of his colleagues, including the Congressional Black Caucus, 
     decided to accept the provision rather than let the bill die.
       That was the right choice. The legislation directs $3.9 
     billion in aid to the states to replace outdated punch-card 
     and lever voting machines and to train poll workers. Among 
     its innovative features is a $5 million program to recruit 
     college students to serve as poll workers and take over tasks 
     now often being performed by elderly party volunteers.
       Safeguards were also included: Voters without 
     identification or whose eligibility is otherwise challenged 
     would be allowed to cast provisional ballots so that no one 
     who turns up at the polls is turned away.
       The most scandalous aspect of our voting process is neither 
     fraud nor errors but the failure of half or more of all 
     eligible voters to even bother to cast ballots.
       Congress cannot mandate civic enthusiasm. But it can help 
     increase confidence in the election process by doing away 
     with a system that routinely lets thousands of votes from 
     those who do bother to show up go uncounted.
       Activists in both parties as well as voter and civil rights 
     advocates should work together to implement the new 
     procedures as quickly as possible and correct any flaws.
       It is long past time to get over it.
                                  ____


               [From the News and Record, Oct. 12, 2002]

           Nearly Two Years Later, Voting System Is Reformed

       Until last week, reform of the nation's voting process was 
     as dead as an uncounted hanging chad. National outrage over 
     Florida's voting debacle in the 2000 presidential election 
     had been high-pitched, but Congress lost interest. Florida's 
     botched primary last month--equipment failure, human error--
     put reform back on the radar screen. Congress passed 
     bipartisan legislation last week that authorizes $3.9 billion 
     over the next three years to help states buy new voting 
     equipment, computerize registered voter lists and train poll 
     workers.
       The bill also requires new voters who register by mail to 
     provide personal identification, such as a driver's license 
     or Social Security number, when they arrive at the polls. The 
     proviso prevents election fraud.
       The bill also requires ``provisional voting,'' meaning a 
     voter who goes to the polls and whose registration cannot be 
     validated is allowed to vote. If election officials later 
     verify the voter's registration, the vote counts. North 
     Carolina commendably adopted ``provisional voting'' years 
     ago.
       The legislation carefully pays constitutional obeisance to 
     states' rights. States, not the federal government, will 
     determine what constitutes a legal vote. That raises the 
     specter of Florida's recount of hanging chads. Yet Florida, 
     and other states, will supposedly have improved voting 
     machines and better trained poll workers before the 2004 
     presidential election when the reforms become operative.
       The bill enjoys bipartisan support but not without prior 
     hassles. Republicans feared voter fraud and insisted on 
     identification for new voters who register by mail. Fair 
     enough. Democrats sought to expand the franchise with 
     ``provisional voting'' and registering by mail. They, too, 
     got their wish.
       President Bush, whose brother, Jeb, is governor of Florida 
     and has been tarnished by his state's flawed voting system, 
     is eager to avoid a messy repeat performance. The president 
     is expected to sign the authorization bill and, ultimately, 
     the appropriations bill that funds it.
       It has taken a dawdling Congress two years after the 
     embarrassing 2000 presidential election to adopt voting 
     reforms. If it had failed to do so, voters' rights would have 
     been egregiously undermined.
                                  ____


           [From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Oct. 12, 2002]

 Federal Election Reform, Finally; Florida's Problems Helped Congress 
                          Resolve Differences

       Federal election reform appears to be a reality at last. 
     The nation can thank South Florida, whose recently bungled 
     primary inspired Congress to resolve stubborn differences 
     over a voting bill and push it toward final passage.
       The federal breakthrough comes too late for Florida, but 
     it's welcome nonetheless. Once it gains expected final 
     approval, the measure will address the kind of fundamental 
     election problems that savaged the 2000 presidential contest 
     and--despite state reforms enacted in 2001--bit Florida again 
     in the September primary. That federal reform took so long is 
     really a shame--but then, so are botched elections. The Bush/
     Gore battle of 2000 taught Americans how frustrating the act 
     of voting can be when rules vary from state to state, county 
     to county and chad to chad.
       As time passed, however, Congress' zeal to reform the mess 
     devolved into partisan quibbling. Though both the House and 
     Senate

[[Page S10515]]

     passed election bills, the chambers lacked the resolve to 
     work out their differences; the bills lay comatose for months 
     and by summer were presumed dead.
       Then came the September primary: Florida's newfangled 
     machines and revised procedures brought on precisely what 
     they were designed to avoid--angry voters, disputed ballot 
     and official confusion.
       Congress took note, resuscitated the election bills and 
     finally worked out a deal. It was announced last Friday in a 
     ceremony long on self-congratulation and short on details. 
     Here are some of the key points:
       The legislation would authorize nearly $4 billion to help 
     states modernize voting machines, educate voters, train poll 
     workers and improve the administration of elections. 
     (Separate appropriations bills are needed to actually come up 
     with the cash.)
       It would set more uniform election standards in machines, 
     counting, and other related procedures, and set up a 
     commission to lead this effort.
       It would modernize the lists of registered voters; require 
     voters to have the opportunity to correct their ballots if 
     they err; and allow provisional votes for people whose 
     eligibility is questioned.
       It would require certain anti-fraud measures; encourage 
     better access for overseas and military voters; and contain 
     criminal penalties for people who provide false information 
     in registering or voting. People who conspire to deprive 
     voters of fair elections also would face criminal sanctions.
       Florida already has initiated many of these reforms, but 
     the troubled September primary proved that implementation 
     requires lots of time and training. Congress should bear this 
     in mind and funds its legislation accordingly, lest Florida-
     style embarrassments pop up nationwide.
       Some civil rights groups oppose certain identification 
     requirements in the legislation, but these measures are 
     needed to discourage fraud--a crime that injures every 
     voter's right to be counted.
       Uniformity in election procedures, and money to achieve it, 
     are the key benefits of the federal legislation. Without 
     consistency from state to state and precinct to precinct, 
     it's difficult to guarantee that voters receive equal 
     protection--the concept on which the Supreme Court leaned for 
     its controversial ruling deciding the 2000 standoff.
       As the court wrote with notable understatement, ``The 
     problem of equal protection in election processes generally 
     presents many complexities.''
       This legislation could simplify many of those complexities. 
     It deserves final approval and full funding. Now.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues how much I appreciate 
their patience on this. This has been a very long and arduous effort to 
get to this point. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but I 
think it advances considerably the role the United States ought to be 
playing as a Federal Government in the conduct of elections. The world 
looks and watches us. We are not shy about lecturing people about 
democracy. When we have error rates as we do and millions of people 
turned away at the polls, it is long overdue that we correct the 
system. This bill goes a long way in doing that. It is a proud day. It 
ought to be for all of us here who responded to the challenge that was 
asked of us as a result of the elections of 2000.
  I commend my colleagues in the other body, and the leadership there 
and the leadership here, for allowing us to reach this point.
  I urge the adoption of this conference report.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of Senators who are stuck 
on a train. As a result of that, we are going to start the vote now and 
give ample opportunity for them to get here to vote. It is terribly 
unusual that we extend the vote, but we will this one time. I ask for 
the regular order on the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarly absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the 
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), 
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Clinton
     Schumer
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Allard
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Hutchinson
     Sessions
     Torricelli
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their overwhelming 
support for this legislation. As I said earlier, it has been a long 
journey to bring us to this juncture.
  We never claimed perfection in this bill. It is a compromise, 
obviously. We think it advances the cause of enfranchising people. I 
mentioned earlier people who talked about dogs who may have voted. I 
find a certain amount of humor in that and a degree of seriousness, if 
that is the case. When we end up with 4 million to 6 million human 
beings who could not vote, I hope we will spend a lot of time talking 
about this legislation, making sure people show up to vote who are 
alive and well.
  I thank my colleagues for their backing of this legislation. I look 
forward to, I hope, a Presidential signature on this legislation, and 
then doing the hard work of implementing the provisions of this bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, I can remember his managing the bill. 
It was very tough. He did a wonderful job of moving this most 
contentious legislation through the Senate.
  He was able to develop bipartisan support for it in committee and on 
the floor. There were many who felt we could never get this bill out of 
conference, but the Senator from Connecticut was persistent, 
unyielding, and we now have a bill.
  I hope people understand what a sea change this is going to be for 
voting in America. In Nevada, we need this legislation. The Secretary 
of State--who, by the way, is a Republican--was one of the first 
supporters of this legislation and developed a friendship with the 
Senator from Connecticut as a result of this legislation. It is that 
way all over the country. I only hope in the months and years to come, 
we understand how important this is and put our money where our mouths 
are. We have now authorized this most important legislation and have to 
fund it.
  This is groundbreaking, but I repeat, we have to put our money where 
our mouth is so we can implement this legislation. I hope we do that. 
If we do that, it is going to make elections fair, and it will make 
people feel good about their votes counting.

[[Page S10516]]

  None of this would have happened but for the doggedness of the 
Senator from Connecticut. He simply would not give up when many said it 
could not be done.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I noted earlier the support of House Members 
who did a tremendous job in getting a bill done. I talked about Bob Ney 
and Steny Hoyer. Obviously, bills do not get done just because they get 
done in the Senate. They can only finally get to the President's desk 
if the other body also acts, and without the leadership of Bob Ney of 
Ohio and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Chair and ranking Members of the 
House Administration Committee, we never would have had a negotiation 
to produce this product.
  So I want to extend my appreciation to them and to John Conyers, who 
was my coarchitect of this bill going back now a year and a half ago, 
who wanted to be available in Washington this morning, but he got 
delayed on a flight and could not be present for this final vote. When 
I first announced this bill, I stood in the room with two people. One 
was John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO. The other one was John Conyers, the 
dean of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House. John Conyers was a 
tremendous supporter of this effort all the way through. I am very 
grateful to him, again grateful to Steny Hoyer, Bob Ney, and a whole 
host of people who made this possible: The NAACP, the AFL-CIO, 
disability groups across the country, the National Association of 
Secretaries of State. There is a long list of organizations that 
rallied behind this effort, and without their support we would not have 
been able to arrive at this moment.
  So I thank all of those who were involved in this. I thank my 
colleague from Nevada for his very kind and generous comments.

                          ____________________