[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3093-S3099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 3297. A bill to update United States policy and authorities to 
help advance a genuine transition to democracy and to promote recovery 
in Zimbabwe; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator 
Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy 
and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United 
States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in 
Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global 
Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a 
new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment 
has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses 
continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation 
of the transitional government have created new political realities and 
realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push 
for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The 
United States and other international stakeholders can seize those 
opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up 
pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims 
to promote such a dynamic approach.
  We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. 
Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food 
producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader 
Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of 
southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten 
their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the 
political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private 
property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been 
disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy 
and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the 
end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record 
inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment 
over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to 
increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, 
following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies 
launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters 
of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of 
voting.
  I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I 
traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this 
political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, 
committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said 
on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the 
international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before 
it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to 
author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.

[[Page S3094]]

And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe 
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is 
known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international 
loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President 
certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely 
an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also 
called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for 
politically motivated violence.
  At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' 
commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect 
peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a 
strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their 
country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that 
commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts 
to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my 
visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. 
In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss 
the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 
2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa 
Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. 
policy options.
  With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and 
his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the 
agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in 
the transitional government have resisted any moves that would 
undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe 
has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to 
use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces 
remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass 
civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, 
seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has 
changed in Zimbabwe.
  Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a 
transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who 
were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle 
has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for 
years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of 
government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward 
enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to 
halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the 
disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, 
progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We 
cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and 
other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken 
root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the 
leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome 
the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security 
sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this 
struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic 
recovery.
  I respect those who are cautious about changing the international 
posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear 
transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be 
so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean 
people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we 
can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years 
prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have 
changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but 
there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach 
allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in 
the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, 
while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and 
regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted 
engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in 
government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace 
such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional 
change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those 
possibilities.
  The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue 
to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and 
support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States 
provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food 
assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have 
begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help 
reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the 
groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some 
technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This 
is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to 
proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we 
should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those 
individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We 
should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that 
are in violation of the GPA.
  The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 
2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for 
the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward 
Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical 
assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as 
well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive 
laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal 
year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for 
greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, 
it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as 
much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively 
press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all 
landowners.
  In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States 
greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International 
Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. 
support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to 
Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political 
conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction 
currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible 
for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which 
now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become 
a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and 
Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African 
Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting 
Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our 
bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. 
support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically 
whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, 
and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have 
demonstrated a commitment to reform.
  Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the 
U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the 
years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a 
symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While 
those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will 
go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning 
this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous 
policies.
  ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions 
against specific individuals and financial institutions that are 
directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of 
power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no 
reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to 
widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and 
updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address 
illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly 
fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it 
urges the

[[Page S3095]]

Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals 
overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from 
the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the 
Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that 
process.
  Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a 
critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a 
sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints 
for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This 
cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move 
forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated 
strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around 
such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin 
engaging with international partners now toward developing such a 
strategy.
  International actions alone will not determine whether real and 
lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately 
be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe 
that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward 
democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that 
is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the 
ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach.
  Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to 
support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, 
democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. 
Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe 
Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues 
will join us in doing so.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 3299. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to allow 
all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal elections; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three 
bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills 
would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and 
when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological 
developments have changed the way people manage everything from their 
bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can 
also give voters more power to control their involvement in the 
electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would 
increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the 
security and integrity of elections.
  As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One 
thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories 
for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime 
examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now 
time to take that proven success to the national level.
  An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail. 
In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots 
nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that 
blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There 
were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996. 
That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general 
election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of 
course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a 
success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.
  Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks 
in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines, 
malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling 
places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide, 
Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon 
on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70 
percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections. 
The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle, 
meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by 
mail.
  The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that 
Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online 
voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail 
Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the 
right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an 
absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary 
requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.
  The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to 
states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to 
Vote by Mail.
  Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to 
states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters 
to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee 
ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online 
systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it 
easier for voters to participate in elections.
  Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has 
shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters 
in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in 
2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to 
conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost-
effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division 
estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail 
replaced polling place elections.
  One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's 
election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome 
that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in 
Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an 
increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote 
by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower-
profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.
  Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter-
intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than 
voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many 
safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a 
paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at 
a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By 
expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day--
Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems, 
fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of 
our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is 
heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.
  Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is 
almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is 
opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it 
matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period 
involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail 
election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is 
valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud. 
If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never 
happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found, 
the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon 
converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots 
have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been 
challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough 
investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine 
instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any 
large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail 
was first adopted in Oregon.
  Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily 
apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, 
Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, 
parts of the county

[[Page S3096]]

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 
percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by 
Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural 
disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.
  It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an 
illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious 
obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote 
at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of 
these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may 
prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those 
states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get 
an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot 
should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing 
arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in 
America.
  I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee 
ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All 
information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part 
of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to 
reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to 
vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots 
while having their privacy ensured.
  That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. 
This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen 
should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are 
caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When 
voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New 
Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't 
force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement 
any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an 
absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have 
equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.
  I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would 
create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or 
smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one 
in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by 
Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local 
jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote 
by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to 
states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay 
for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by 
Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than 
simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution 
that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the 
Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a 
study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.
  Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help 
give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and 
request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower 
voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters 
of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of 
young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering 
to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to 
accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just 
about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well-
suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce 
paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew 
their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the 
list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration 
simply makes sense.
  Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter 
registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation 
for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less 
than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense, 
but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable 
start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would 
provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation 
costs.
  I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail, 
including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry, 
Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank 
the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the 
National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of 
Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American 
Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National 
Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations 
including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of 
many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause, 
the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.
  I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater 
opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important 
bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st 
century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an 
important step in that direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3299

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Universal Right to Vote by 
     Mail Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) An inequity of voting rights exists in the United 
     States because voters in some States have the universal right 
     to vote by mail while voters in other States do not.
       (2) Many voters often have work, family, or other 
     commitments that make getting to polls on the date of an 
     election difficult or impossible. Under current State laws, 
     many of these voters are not permitted to vote by mail.
       (3) 28 States currently allow universal absentee voting 
     (also known as ``no-excuse'' absentee voting), which permits 
     any voter to request a mail-in ballot without providing a 
     reason for the request, and no State which has implemented 
     no-excuse absentee voting has repealed it.
       (4) Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their 
     choices, which is especially important as many ballots 
     contain greater numbers of questions about complex issues 
     than in the past due to the expanded use of the initiative 
     and referendum process in many States.
       (5) Voting by mail is cost effective. After the State of 
     Oregon adopted vote by mail for all voters, the cost to 
     administer an election in the State dropped by nearly 30 
     percent over the next few elections, from $3.07 per voter to 
     $2.21 per voter.
       (6) Allowing all voters the option to vote by mail can 
     reduce waiting times for those voters who choose to vote at 
     the polls.
       (7) Voting by mail is preferable to many voters as an 
     alternative to going to the polls. Voting by mail has become 
     increasingly popular with voters who want to be certain that 
     they are able to vote no matter what comes up on Election 
     Day.
       (8) No evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud 
     in absentee balloting is greater than the potential for fraud 
     by any other method of voting.
       (9) Many of the reasons which voters in many States are 
     required to provide in order to vote by mail require the 
     revelation of personal information about health, travel 
     plans, or religious activities, which violate voters' privacy 
     while doing nothing to prevent voter fraud.
       (10) State laws which require voters to obtain a notary 
     signature to vote by mail only add cost and inconvenience to 
     voters without increasing security.

     SEC. 3. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL IN 
                   FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title III of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended 
     by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 303A. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

       ``(a) In General.--If an individual in a State is eligible 
     to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State 
     may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on 
     the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such 
     election by mail, except to the extent that the State imposes 
     a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting 
     materials from the appropriate State or local election 
     official and for returning the ballot to the appropriate 
     State or local election official.

[[Page S3097]]

       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) 
     shall be construed to affect the authority of States to 
     conduct elections for Federal office through the use of 
     polling places at which individuals cast ballots on the date 
     of the election.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply 
     with the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to 
     elections for Federal office held in years beginning with 
     2012.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Enforcement.--Section 
     401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking 
     ``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 303A''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     303 the following new item:

``Sec. 303A. Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 3300. A bill to establish a Vote by Mail grant program; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3300

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Vote by Mail Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. Sims that 
     ``[i]t has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified 
     voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote . . . 
     and to have their votes counted.''
       (2) In recent presidential elections, voting technology 
     failures, procedural irregularities, and long lines for 
     polling places deprived some Americans of their fundamental 
     right to vote.
       (3) Under the Oregon Vote by Mail system, election 
     officials mail ballots to all registered voters at least 2 
     weeks before election day. Voters mark their ballots, seal 
     the ballots in both unmarked secrecy envelopes and signed 
     return envelopes, and return the ballots by mail or to secure 
     drop boxes. Once a ballot is received, election officials 
     scan the bar code on the ballot envelope, which brings up the 
     voter's signature on a computer screen. The election official 
     compares the signature on the screen and the signature on the 
     ballot envelope. Only if the signature on the ballot envelope 
     is determined to be authentic is the ballot forwarded on to 
     be counted.
       (4) Oregon's Vote by Mail system has deterred voter fraud 
     because the system includes numerous security measures such 
     as the signature authentication system. Potential misconduct 
     is also discouraged by the power of the State to punish those 
     who engage in voter fraud with up to 5 years in prison, 
     $100,000 in fines, and the loss of their vote.
       (5) Oregon's Vote by Mail system promotes uniformity and 
     strict compliance with Federal and State voting laws because 
     ballot processing is centralized in county clerks' offices, 
     rather than at numerous polling places.
       (6) Vote by Mail is 1 factor making voter turnout in Oregon 
     consistently higher than the average national voter turnout. 
     In the 2004 presidential election, for example, Oregon had a 
     turnout rate of 86.48 percent of registered voters, compared 
     to 69.96 percent turnout of registered voters nationally.
       (7) Women, younger voters, and homemakers also report that 
     they vote more often using Vote by Mail.
       (8) Vote by Mail reduces election costs by eliminating the 
     need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire 
     and train poll workers. Oregon reduced its costs to 
     administer elections by nearly 30 percent after implementing 
     Vote by Mail. In Oregon's last polling place election in 
     1998, the cost per voter was $3.07. By 2004, the cost per 
     voter in Oregon had dropped to $2.21.
       (9) Vote by Mail allows voters to educate themselves 
     because they receive ballots well before election day, which 
     provides them with ample time to research issues, study 
     ballots, and deliberate in a way that is not possible at a 
     polling place.
       (10) Vote by Mail is accurate--at least 2 studies comparing 
     voting technologies show that absentee voting methods, 
     including Vote by Mail systems, result in a more accurate 
     vote count.
       (11) Vote by Mail results in more up-to-date voter rolls, 
     since election officials use forwarding information from the 
     post office to update voter registration.
       (12) Vote by Mail allows voters to visually verify that 
     their votes were cast correctly and produces a paper trail 
     for election recounts.
       (13) In a survey taken 5 years after Oregon implemented the 
     Vote by Mail system, more than 8 in 10 Oregon voters said 
     they preferred voting by mail to traditional voting.
       (14) Voters in other States are moving toward Vote by Mail 
     as well. In 2008, 89 percent of voters in Washington State 
     who cast ballots voted by mail, 64 percent of voters in 
     Colorado voted by mail, and 44 percent of voters in 
     California voted by mail.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Election.--The term ``election'' means any general, 
     special, primary, or runoff election.
       (2) Participating state.--The term ``participating State'' 
     means a State receiving a grant under the Vote by Mail grant 
     program under section 4.
       (3) Residual vote rate.--The term ``residual vote rate'' 
     means the sum of all votes that cannot be counted in an 
     election (overvotes, undervotes, and otherwise spoiled 
     ballots) divided by the total number of votes cast.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States.
       (5) Voting system.--The term ``voting system'' has the 
     meaning given such term under section 301(b) of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(b)).

     SEC. 4. VOTE BY MAIL GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Election Assistance Commission 
     shall establish a Vote by Mail grant program (in this section 
     referred to as the ``program'').
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to make 
     implementation grants to participating States solely for the 
     implementation of procedures for the conduct of all elections 
     by mail at the State or local government level.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--In no case may grants made 
     under this section be used to reimburse a State for costs 
     incurred in implementing mail-in voting for elections at the 
     State or local government level if such costs were incurred 
     prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Application.--A State seeking to participate in the 
     program under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Election Assistance Commission containing such information, 
     and at such time, as the Election Assistance Commission may 
     specify.
       (e) Amount and Awarding of Implementation Grants; Duration 
     of Program.--
       (1) Amount of implementation grants.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount of 
     an implementation grant made to a participating State shall 
     be, in the case of a State that certifies that it will 
     implement all elections by mail in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsection (f), with respect to--
       (i) the entire State, $2,000,000; or
       (ii) any single unit or multiple units of local government 
     within the State, $1,000,000.
       (B) Excess funds.--
       (i) In general.--To the extent that there are excess funds 
     in either of the first 2 years of the program, such funds may 
     be used to award implementation grants to participating 
     States in subsequent years.
       (ii) Excess funds defined.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     term ``excess funds'' means any amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to the authorization under subsection (h)(1) with respect to 
     a fiscal year that are not awarded to a participating State 
     under an implementation grant during such fiscal year.
       (C) Continuing availability of funds after appropriation.--
     An implementation grant made to a participating State under 
     this section shall be available to the State without fiscal 
     year limitation.
       (2) Awarding of implementation grants.--
       (A) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall 
     award implementation grants during each year in which the 
     program is conducted.
       (B) One grant per state.--The Election Assistance 
     Commission shall not award more than 1 implementation grant 
     to any participating State under this section over the 
     duration of the program.
       (3) Duration.--The program shall be conducted for a period 
     of 3 years.
       (f) Requirements.--
       (1) Required procedures.--A participating State shall 
     establish and implement procedures for conducting all 
     elections by mail in the area with respect to which it 
     receives an implementation grant to conduct such elections, 
     including the following:
       (A) A process for recording electronically each voter's 
     registration information and signature.
       (B) A process for mailing ballots to all eligible voters.
       (C) The designation of places for the deposit of ballots 
     cast in an election.
       (D) A process for ensuring the secrecy and integrity of 
     ballots cast in the election.
       (E) Procedures and penalties for preventing election fraud 
     and ballot tampering, including procedures for the 
     verification of the signature of the voter accompanying the 
     ballot through comparison of such signature with the 
     signature of the voter maintained by the State in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A).
       (F) Procedures for verifying that a ballot has been 
     received by the appropriate authority.
       (G) Procedures for obtaining a replacement ballot in the 
     case of a ballot which is destroyed, spoiled, lost, or not 
     received by the voter.
       (H) A plan for training election workers in signature 
     verification techniques.
       (I) Plans and procedures to ensure that voters who are 
     blind, visually-impaired, or

[[Page S3098]]

     otherwise disabled have the opportunity to participate in 
     elections conducted by mail and to ensure compliance with the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002. Such plans and procedures 
     shall be developed in consultation with disabled and other 
     civil rights organizations, voting rights groups, State 
     election officials, voter protection groups, and other 
     interested community organizations.
       (J) Plans and procedures to ensure the translation of 
     ballots and voting materials in accordance with section 203 
     of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a)).
       (g) Best Practices, Technical Assistance, and Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall--
       (A) develop, periodically issue, and, as appropriate, 
     update best practices for conducting elections by mail;
       (B) provide technical assistance to participating States 
     for the purpose of implementing procedures for conducting 
     elections by mail; and
       (C) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress--
       (i) annual reports on the implementation of such procedures 
     by participating States during each year in which the program 
     is conducted; and
       (ii) upon completion of the program conducted under this 
     section, a final report on the program, together with 
     recommendations for such legislation or administrative action 
     as the Election Assistance Commission determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Consultation.--In developing, issuing, and updating 
     best practices, developing materials to provide technical 
     assistance to participating States, and developing the annual 
     and final reports under paragraph (1), the Election 
     Assistance Commission shall consult with interested parties, 
     including--
       (A) State and local election officials;
       (B) the United States Postal Service;
       (C) the Postal Regulatory Commission established under 
     section 501 of title 39, United States Code; and
       (D) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups 
     representing the disabled, and other civil rights or 
     community organizations.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     award grants under this section, for each of fiscal years 
     2012 through 2014, $6,000,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation until expended.
       (2) Administration.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to administer the program under this section, 
     $200,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2014, to 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation until 
     expended.
       (i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under 
     any of the following laws, or to supersede, restrict, or 
     limit the application of such laws:
       (1) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et 
     seq.).
       (2) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.).
       (3) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
     Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.).
       (4) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.).
       (5) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973gg et seq.).
       (6) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12101 et seq.).
       (7) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. STUDY ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MAIL-IN VOTING FOR 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States (in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller 
     General'') shall conduct a study evaluating the benefits of 
     broader implementation of mail-in voting in elections, taking 
     into consideration the annual reports submitted by the 
     Election Assistance Commission under section 4(g)(1)(C)(i) 
     before November 1, 2013.
       (2) Specific issues studied.--The study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include a comparison of traditional 
     voting methods and mail-in voting with respect to--
       (A) the likelihood of voter fraud and misconduct;
       (B) the accuracy of voter rolls;
       (C) the accuracy of election results;
       (D) voter participation in urban and rural communities and 
     by minorities, language minorities (as defined in section 203 
     of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a)), and 
     individuals with disabilities and by individuals who are 
     homeless or who frequently change their official residences;
       (E) public confidence in the election system;
       (F) the residual vote rate, including such rate based on 
     voter age, education, income, race, or ethnicity or whether a 
     voter lives in an urban or rural community, is disabled, or 
     is a language minority (as so defined); and
       (G) cost savings.
       (3) Consultation.--In conducting the study under paragraph 
     (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with interested 
     parties, including--
       (A) State and local election officials;
       (B) the United States Postal Service;
       (C) the Postal Regulatory Commission established under 
     section 501 of title 39, United States Code; and
       (D) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups 
     representing the disabled, and other civil rights or 
     community organizations.
       (b) Report.--Not later than November 1, 2013, the 
     Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), together with such 
     recommendations for legislation or administrative action as 
     the Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 3301. A bill to establish an Online Voter Registration grant 
program; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objeciton, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3301

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Online Voter Registration 
     Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Americans have become increasingly comfortable with 
     using the Internet for a wide range of purposes, including 
     gathering information, purchasing items, performing financial 
     transactions, and obtaining information and services from the 
     Government.
       (2) In 2008, 74 percent of adults in the United States 
     reported using the Internet, according to the Pew Internet 
     and American Life Project. Of those adults, 89 percent 
     reported using the Internet to find information, 71 percent 
     made purchases over the Internet, 70 percent read news 
     online, 56 percent looked up campaign or political 
     information, 55 percent utilized online banking, and 59 
     percent visited Government Internet websites.
       (3) The Internet is well-suited to allow individuals to 
     provide and update personal information. Completing such 
     tasks online saves time, reduces paper, increases efficiency, 
     and lowers costs.
       (4) Many States already allow citizens to access Government 
     services online, including renewing driver's licenses and 
     registering cars.
       (5) Two States, Arizona and Washington, have already 
     implemented online voter registration systems, and a number 
     of other States are in the process of adopting online voter 
     registration systems.
       (6) Although 2008 was the first election cycle that the 
     online voter registration system was in place in Washington 
     State, in the month prior to the general election, voter use 
     of the online voter registration system exceeded that of 
     mail-in registration cards by more than 20 percent.
       (7) Younger adults who are registering to vote for the 
     first time are the most adept Internet users and expect to be 
     able to accomplish most tasks online. In 2008, 87 percent of 
     adults age 18 to 29 used the Internet. In Washington State, 
     voters age 18 to 24 had the highest rate of use of its online 
     voter registration system.
       (8) During the 2008 election cycle, Washington State 
     processed about 130,000 online voter registration 
     transactions.
       (9) Implementing an online voter registration requires an 
     initial investment to purchase the needed technology and to 
     input existing voter information into the registration 
     database. Washington State, for example, spent $278,000 to 
     establish its online voter registration system.
       (10) Once in place, online voter registration systems allow 
     the processing of new voter registrations, changes of address 
     or party, and requests for absentee ballots.
       (11) Washington State reports that it costs approximately 
     25 cents to process paper voter registration cards and 43 
     cents to process those submitted via the department of motor 
     vehicles in compliance with the National Voter Registration 
     Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.). Voters must also pay 
     postage costs for registration cards sent through the mail. 
     Once in place, the online voter registration system requires 
     no processing by staff in order to complete a transaction, 
     and therefore has no per transaction cost. For the 2008 
     general election, the online voter registration system saved 
     Washington State $32,500, and saved consumers $54,600 in 
     postage costs, which resulted in total savings to the State 
     and consumers of over $87,000.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Election.--The term ``election'' means any general, 
     special, primary, or runoff election.
       (2) Participating state.--The term ``participating State'' 
     means a State receiving a grant under the Online Voter 
     Registration grant program under section 4.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 4. ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Election Assistance Commission 
     shall establish an Online Voter Registration grant program 
     (in this section referred to as the ``program'').

[[Page S3099]]

       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to make grants 
     to participating States solely for the implementation of 
     online voter registration systems.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--In no case may grants made 
     under this section be used to reimburse a State for costs 
     incurred in implementing online voter registration systems at 
     the State or local government level if such costs were 
     incurred prior to October 1, 2009.
       (d) Application.--A State seeking to participate in the 
     program under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Election Assistance Commission containing such information, 
     and at such time, as the Election Assistance Commission may 
     specify.
       (e) Amount and Awarding of Implementation Grants; Duration 
     of Program.--
       (1) Amount of implementation grants.--
       (A) In general.--The amount of an implementation grant made 
     to a participating State shall be $150,000.
       (B) Continuing availability of funds after appropriation.--
     An implementation grant made to a participating State under 
     this section shall be available to the State without fiscal 
     year limitation.
       (2) Awarding of implementation grants.--
       (A) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall 
     award implementation grants during each year in which the 
     program is conducted.
       (B) One grant per state.--The Election Assistance 
     Commission shall not award more than 1 implementation grant 
     to any participating State under this section over the 
     duration of the program.
       (3) Duration.--The program shall be conducted for a period 
     of 5 years.
       (f) Requirements.--A participating State shall establish 
     and implement an online voter registration system which 
     individuals may use to register to vote, update voter 
     registration information, and request an absentee ballot in 
     the State.
       (g) Best Practices, Technical Assistance, and Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall--
       (A) develop, periodically issue, and, as appropriate, 
     update best practices for implementing online voter 
     registration systems;
       (B) provide technical assistance to participating States 
     for the purpose of implementing online voter registration 
     systems; and
       (C) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress--
       (i) annual reports on the implementation of such online 
     voter registration systems by participating States during 
     each year in which the program is conducted; and
       (ii) upon completion of the program conducted under this 
     section, a final report on the program, together with 
     recommendations for such legislation or administrative action 
     as the Election Assistance Commission determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Consultation.--In developing, issuing, and updating 
     best practices, developing materials to provide technical 
     assistance to participating States, and developing the annual 
     and final reports under paragraph (1), the Election 
     Assistance Commission shall consult with interested parties, 
     including--
       (A) State and local election officials; and
       (B) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups 
     representing the disabled, and other civil rights or 
     community organizations.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     award grants under this section, for each of fiscal years 
     2010 through 2016, $1,800,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation until expended.
       (2) Administration.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to administer the program under this section, 
     $200,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2016, to 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation until 
     expended.
       (i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under 
     any of the following laws, or to supersede, restrict, or 
     limit the application of such laws:
       (1) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et 
     seq.).
       (2) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.).
       (3) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
     Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.).
       (4) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.).
       (5) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973gg et seq.).
       (6) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12101 et seq.).
       (7) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

                          ____________________