Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to express my disappointment. I was going to call up some legislation that we have worked very hard on dealing with children, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. It was legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in September, about a month ago. I think it was adopted unanimously. It deals with abused children. It reauthorizes the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, better known as CAPTA. This is a piece of legislation that has been around for a number of years. It was a bipartisan bill that was introduced by myself, Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Collins, DeWine, and Wellstone, and approved unanimously by voice vote. This is one of those bills with that kind of support out of the committee, on a bipartisan basis, and was done early enough that we thought we would have little difficulty in having this adopted as part of a unanimous consent calendar, rather than engaging in taking up the time of the Senate. Unfortunately, I am told that any effort to try to pass this legislation will be objected to. As such, I regret to inform my colleagues that the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act reauthorization will just not get an endorsement by this Congress. That is a sad note indeed. Mr. President, about 3 million children each year are abused in this country. Close to 900,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment or abuse. The most tragic consequence of child maltreatment is death, obviously. The most recent data available for the year 2000 show that 1,200 children died in this country of abuse and neglect. Children younger than 6 years of age accounted for 85 percent of child fatalities, and children younger than 1 year of age accounted for 44 percent of child fatalities. What more tragic news could there be than a child, an infant--1,200 in this country of ours--dying as a result of abuse and neglect? Here we are trying to do everything we can to help bring these numbers down. Just imagine the face of a young child facing the horror of abuse and neglect that goes on far too often. Unfortunately, despite the unanimous vote out of the committee of jurisdiction, a bipartisan agreement to reauthorize these dollars, to allow us to go forward and deal with this situation, we are told: We are sorry, we cannot do this. We do not have either the time or the desire. I am deeply saddened by it. As a first-time father with a 1-year-old child, I cannot imagine anyone abusing my daughter Grace. The idea that some child her age, some infant--1,200 of them around the country, according to the statistics in the year 2000--lost their lives, not to mention the several thousands more who are abused and survive but suffer the scars of that abuse, and that the Child Abuse Treatment and Prevention Act, which has actually done a great deal to assist families and communities in dealing with this issue is not going to have the imprimatur approval, despite the unanimous bipartisan agreement of the committee, to bring that matter up for consideration by this body. The people who work in this area give tirelessly of their time and efforts to go out and save a few lives. I am not suggesting we save all 1,200, but what if we save 20? What if we save 10? Is it worth this Senate's time to spend a few minutes to pass some legislation that might save one child's life this year? Would that be wrong? I would not hesitate to say our allocation of time for an issue of that type, the life of one child we might save, is worthy of this Senate's attention and time. It is with a high degree of sadness that I report to my colleagues we are going to have to wait for another day, I guess, maybe later in the next Congress, to do something. But when you pick up a newspaper over the next several months and read another child lost their life as a result of abuse and neglect, then you might look back on a moment like this and wonder: Maybe this Congress, despite the time we spent on other issues of questionable value, could have found a few minutes to deal with this issue of child neglect and abuse. I regret to report to colleagues and others that this issue will have to wait for another day. Hopefully, the families of some children will not have to look back and wonder whether or not if we acted, we might have saved a life or saved a child from the lifetime scars that abuse and neglect can bring. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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.

Mr. DODD. I yield.

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. 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.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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. 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, 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.

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 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.

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. 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. DODD. I presume that time is equally divided between Senator McConnell and myself.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the conference report be considered as read.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to revise your unanimous consent request to provide an additional 4 minutes for Senator Bond and myself to talk about the election. I know that is not as compelling to some, but we think it is very important, and we want to say some things about it before the vote. After the 4 minutes is up, I will object to an extension of time.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I hesitate to interfere with my colleagues from Oklahoma and Minnesota who are engaged in a very important discussion.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I yield back all the remaining time on the conference report.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent tomorrow's cloture vote be vitiated and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 304 immediately upon the disposition of H.R. 5010, the Defense appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that tomorrow's order with respect to the election reform conference report, H.R. 3295, commence at 11:40 a.m. and tomorrow's order with respect to the Defense appropriations conference report commence at 2:15 p.m., with all other provisions of the above-mentioned orders remaining in effect. I am told this is cleared by the minority as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky, in the opening of his remarks, talked about this Congress not being terribly successful. I would take some issue with that. This Senate has been successful, as I look down the list I have of more than three pages of legislation going back to the use of force resolution after September 11, responses to terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act, the airport security, Defense authorizations, homeland defense, antiterrorism bills, terrorism insurance--we are still working on the conference--access to affordable pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs, reimportation, patients' bill of rights. Again, conference reports have not been reached, but this Senate has had extensive debates where all sides have been heard on these matters. I mentioned in the election reform bill more than 40 amendments were considered on the floor. With all due respect to the other body these days, it is not uncommon for legislation to be considered where only one or two amendments may be offered. It is regrettable we have not been able to reach agreement between the other body and this body on some of these matters, but the Senate over this last Congress has responded to incredible and unprecedented difficulties in this generation. In the wake of September 11, the anthrax attack, and the tremendous pressures that put on this institution, I am as disappointed as anyone that we do not have a prescription drug benefit, that we don't have a Patients' Bill of Rights, that we don't have a minimum wage, that we are not responding to the unemployment requests. That is not because this Senate has not wanted to step up, time after time. I am proud to be a Daschle Democrat. I hear people suggesting that as a moniker of derision. Many think Tom Daschle has done a remarkable job in being the majority leader. It is disappointing we have not been able to do on the other matters what we were able to get done on the election reform, but that is not the fault of the majority leader. I am proud of the election reform bill. I am proud of a lot of other things done in this Senate over the last number of months before we adjourn. I am disappointed we were not able to reach agreement on some of the other matters. The fault of that lies elsewhere. I wanted to not let the afternoon close without this Senator expressing his strong feelings about some of the other matters that the American public desperately need. I did not engage in the debate earlier today about the economic conditions of our country, but it is what people are asking about as I go throughout my State, and other parts of the country. People are very worried about where we are headed economically. They are worried about the quality of education. They are worried about whether jobs will be there. They want to hear us engaging in ideas that will advance how we can improve the quality of education, extend health care benefits to people. They want to get a sense we are on their side. They know we cannot do it all ourselves. It takes cooperation between private and other governmental sectors, but they want to know we care as much about what they struggle with to make ends meet, to provide for families and provide for their future. I think it is regrettable we will spend the last remaining days with people flying around the country attending fundraising events when we could be working on some of the economic problems afflicting people in this country. We see the deficits mounting again after the great hope the surpluses were going to provide, surpluses from the previous administration. It is sad we have come to this in our country. We ought to get our priorities straight and get back on the economic issues. The American people expect nothing less. If we wonder why people do not participate as often as we would like in the election process, some has to do with people being too lazy. An awful lot has to do with people wondering whether the things they worry most about are even being considered by the people they elect to public office. People do not think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans every day. They think of themselves as being citizens of the country: Parents, children, neighbors, coworkers. That is how they define themselves. They want to know their elected representatives, regardless of party, are keeping their interests in mind. This is a republic. They do not get the chance to vote. If 280 million Americans could be packed in the Chambers, the agenda would change. It would be about health care, it would be about prescription drugs, about a minimum wage, and improving the quality of elementary and secondary education. If they could stand here collectively, that is what they would ask us to do--to be leaders on those questions, to become forces in visions for improving the quality of life for people in the country. That is what Senator Daschle has tried to do over the past 2 years in the wake and midst of all the other problems we face. I commend him for it, Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, and other Members of the leadership here. I understand as well it is not easy for Trent Lott and Don Nickles, the leadership on the other side. My hope is when we come back here in January we get about the business of grappling with the underlying questions. We spent a lot of time on Iraq and the other questions. The American people want to know why we cannot spend a few days talking about the issues they worry most about. When they get up in the morning and they go to bed at night, they worry and they sit around talking about how they will lick these issues. They would like to know we would spend at least as much time on those questions as some of the other issues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the floor, I thank him and his staff as well for their tremendous contribution. One of the things we did in this bill--I say to my friend from Oregon that he is in large part responsible for this, I probably should give him more credit for this--we set Federal standards and rights that never have existed before in all Federal elections across the country, and we have enumerated the rights in this bill. One of the things I fought very hard to preserve is that what constitutes a valid registration of a voter and what constitutes a valid vote is left up to the States. We don't federalize registration and we don't federalize how votes get counted. We have left that to the States. It would be overreaching to go that far. I must say some of the most creative ideas on how to make this basic franchise accessible to the maximum number of people, the most creative ideas are occurring in our States across the country. There are differences in places, and States ought to have the flexibility of deciding what system works best for them. I will tell my colleague, I have learned of some fascinating historical stories. Going back, people have said: Where in the Constitution does it say you have to be a citizen to vote? Well, it is the 14th and 15th amendments. The 14th amendment describes what a citizen is, and the 15th amendment says all citizens have the right to vote. There was a time--and the Presiding Officer may find this interesting--when we discovered as part of our research that in the latter part of the 19th century, in certain areas of the upper Midwest, in efforts to attract immigrant populations to settle in some of the vast farmlands there, they actually said: We will allow you to vote in Federal elections--which they did. I cannot find the lawsuit that stopped it. I think it may have been by tradition, but it provided that the person who signed up made a promise that they would someday become a citizen. That was the condition that you had to fill out. There are actually some jurisdictions in this country, by the way, not in Federal elections but local elections, where noncitizens, by municipal law, are allowed to vote. The State of Oregon is, I think, on the cutting edge. I agree with my colleague on this. Maybe because I have a head of gray hair, but I like the idea of a community gathering at a polling place. There is a sense of community spirit about showing up. In my town of East Haddam, CT--it is a small place with only a few thousand people and where I have lived for the last two decades--we all gather in the old townhall, literally around the potbellied stove. The folks I have known for the last two decades run the polling operations there. We like it that way. I am not suggesting there is a younger generation coming along who do not like the way they do it in Oregon--I suspect they might, and I suspect there will be States allowing people, in the not-too-distant future, to vote by Internet. I thank him for bringing forward the Oregon and, we should add, the Washington experience, because they are similar experiences, to this debate. The fact we managed to accommodate the unique voting circumstances in their States gave rise to the idea there actually may be other States that may want to move in this direction. In fact, the provisions authored by my colleague and included in the conference report can be used by every state, and not just by Oregon and Washington. We thank Senator Wyden for his contribution and for making this a stronger and a better bill, and one that does maintain its sensitivity to the unique requirements and needs of people across this vast country of ours. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon for his contribution. I note as well--it is somewhat an irony--I recall vividly the day Senator McConnell and I had announced we had reached an agreement, at least on the Senate version of this bill, our colleague who is now presiding over the Senate was presiding over the Senate that very day. He would not have known on that day a year and a half ago he would be presiding today as well. I thank him. Mr. President, I wish to note because there are so many wonderful staff people and they do not get the credit they deserve--we get to stand here and give the speeches and our names go on the bills. There are literally dozens of people who work incredible hours to produce the kind of legislation we are endorsing today. I mentioned already the Members on the House side, my colleagues, Bob Ney and Steny Hoyer, the principal House advocates. There was a long list of conferees, by the way, in the House. A number of committees of jurisdiction touched on matters in this bill, from the Ways and Means Committee to the Armed Services Committee--I will forget some--a lot of committees. So there were a lot more conferees from the other body on the conference committee. I thank them. I extend my special appreciation for the invaluable expertise and contributions in negotiating this bill to final passage to Paul Vinovich, one of the principal staff people for Bob Ney, and Chet Kalis, who is a wonderful individual. Both of these men are remarkable people and did a fantastic job, not just for Bob Ney and the Republican side, but they always had the sense they wanted to get a bill done, and that is a big difference when you are in a conference. If you are looking across the table at people and if the negotiating is to stop something or to make something happen, what a difference it is when you talk to people who give you the sense they want something to happen. I thank them. I thank Roman Buhler, a tough negotiator; Matthew Petersen; and Pat Leahy. From the office of Steny Hoyer: Bill Cable--I have known Bill for all my years in Congress. When I served in the other body, Bill Cable was a terrific staff person then. He has a wonderful institutional memory about the Congress of the United States. Steny Hoyer is truly fortunate to have Bill Cable with him. I thank him for the long hours he put in on this legislation. Keith Abouchar and Lenny Shambon were wonderful. They are knowledgeable people and have been very helpful on this. They understand the laws, and have a wonderful expertise in motor voter registration and how these proposals work. I further thank John Conyers. I mentioned already my coauthor of this legislation initially, but I want to also thank his staff. I thank Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo, and Michone Johnson, who were just wonderful and tireless in their efforts. I thank them for their tremendous work. Along with John, they were a great source of information and guidance during some very delicate moments on how we ought to proceed. Tom Daschle, our leader in the Senate, has been tremendously helpful through all of this. He asked me how long the original bill would take on the floor of the Senate when it came up. We had gotten through this, worked out the agreement, and there were a lot of demands for time on the floor. He looked at me and said: How long do you think it will take to debate the election reform bill? I said: Mr. Leader, I think we can do it in 2 days. Mr. President, if you look around, you can see the smiles on the faces of some of the floor staff. I think we were on the floor 9 days, had 46 amendments, and there were a hundred more, at least, proposed. I took some very healthy ribbing from the majority leader and others on the staff when they would look at me day after day and say: How long did you say this bill would take? It took a lot longer than we anticipated. I thank Andrea LaRue, Jennifer Duck, Michelle Ballantyne, Mark Childress, and Mark Patterson from the majority leader's staff for their patience and assistance. With regard to Senator McConnell's staff, we spent a lot of time with Senator McConnell's staff. We spent more time with Senator McConnell's staff than with Senator McConnell, and he would be the first to say that. Tam Somerville, Brian Lewis, and Leon Sequeira are also very fine and hard-working staff members. Brian Lewis--poor Brian got saddled with more responsibilities. With all of this coming together, committee staff had to deal with campaign finance reform and election reform all at once. There were demands on their time, pulling them in two different directions, as we were trying to get this bill completed in the Senate so we could get to conference because we knew we had a long conference ahead of us. I express my gratitude to Brian. He is knowledgeable, worked hard, and made a significant contribution. I appreciate it very much. Senator Schumer's staff: Polly Trottenberg, Christine Parker, Cindy Bauerly, and Sharon Levin were very helpful. I thank them. Senator Bond: Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling. We had some real go- rounds with Senator Bond's staff on some of the provisions in this bill. I thank both of them for a lot of effort. Jack Bartling spent a lot of time during the Senate consideration, going back months and months ago, sitting up late nights in my conference room and going through what we wanted to do and how it might work. I occasionally would run into Jack off the Hill. Even in off hours in restaurants, we would end up being seated next to each other unintentionally by the maitre d'. We spent all day working on this legislation, and when I went out for an evening with my wife and child, who ended up sitting next to me but Jack Bartling, and here we go again carrying on conversations. I thank Jack. I thank Jennifer Leach and Sara Wills on Senator Torricelli's staff. Senator Bob Torricelli offered some of the earliest versions of election reform. Early on he thought we ought to do something about election reform and worked with Senator McConnell and others to craft legislation. He agreed to work with us on our bill when we developed it. I thank Senator Torricelli for working very hard on campaign election reform. Senator McCain's staff: Ken LaSala. I offer a special appreciation for his invaluable expertise and contributions in negotiating and bringing this bill to final passage. Senator Durbin's staff: Bill Weber was tremendously helpful to us. I thank him. I thank Beth Stein and Caroline Fredrickson from Senator Cantwell's staff. I mentioned Oregon, Senator Wyden and his State, and the Senator from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, had similar circumstances and were concerned about how the provisions of this bill would work in a State where a significant number of the people vote by mail. They wanted to be sure we were not doing anything here that was going to prohibit them from conducting their elections in the way they have done successfully for some time. I mentioned Senator Wyden. I thank Carol Grunberg for her work as well. The floor staff, again, were tremendously patient with this Member. I tied up the cloakroom for hours one Friday trying to get holds lifted on this bill. The floor staff was tremendously helpful. Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Gary Myrick, members of the cloakroom staff, were tremendously supportive. I apologize for going through all of this and mentioning these names. I could just submit them for the Record, but I want to say their names because just putting their names in the Record does not do justice to the amount of time and effort people have put in. So I beg the indulgence of the Chair and others as I go through this. This may sound mundane or boring to those who are watching it, but I am someone who believes very strongly we ought to give more recognition to the people whose names never appear much around this place and yet who make incredible contributions to a product like this. I want to thank the Office of Legislative Counsel. Let me explain what legislative counsel does. These are the people who actually write these bills. We tell them what we are thinking, these grand ideas of ours. A Senator has a grand idea. The staff tries to put language around the grand idea and then they go to legislative counsel, who then has to write it in a legalistic way so it can actually mean something because words have specific meaning. So the legislative counsel's office was instrumental--we asked them to work around the clock on a few instances. Literally, they were up all night producing language because we were running up against the clock to get this bill done. So to Jim Scott and Jim Fransen of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, and Noah Wofsy, from the House legislative counsel, I want to express my deep sense of gratitude to them for their work. They sat down very objectively. Noah Wolfsy is on the House side under the Republican leadership in the House. Jim Scott and Jim Fransen are in the Senate under the Democratic leadership of the Senate, but neither side was partisan in any way. I can honestly say if I sat them in a room and asked them for their views on how this ought to be written, I would never know from which party they had been chosen to do the job. They are that objective and that professional in how they do it. Sometimes I wish America could watch this when they talk about laws. They could then see people such as these who are so dedicated and see to it that we can get it right. They did not bring political baggage to that discussion and debate. I mentioned some history earlier about the upper Midwest and these other places. The Congressional Research Service, CRS, was the organization that provided me with some historical framework and background in the conduct of elections and also provided side-by-side versions of bills along the way. And we thank them: Kevin Coleman, who is an analyst in the American National Government; Eric Fischer, senior specialist in Science and Technology; L. Paige Whitaker, legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service; David Huckabee, who is a specialist in American National Government; and Judith Fraizer, who is an information research specialist. They did a great job, and we are very grateful to them as well. I wish to thank my own staff. Obviously, in my own heart and mind they come first, as one might expect, but my mother raised me to be polite so I mentioned other people first. I am particularly grateful to my own staff who worked very hard on this. Through my bellowing and barking, and doing all the things we do and wondering why we could not reach agreements earlier--I hope I was not too impatient with them--I want to thank Shawn Maher, who is my legislative director. He was tremendously patient and did a great job. Kennie Gill, who is the staff director and chief counsel of the Rules Committee, is just one of the most knowledgeable people about this institution I have ever met in my 27 years in Congress. I have met Members who have great respect for the institution, its history, its traditions, what these buildings mean, and what membership means in the other body or this body. I have never met anybody, Member or non-Member, who has as much reverence for this institution as Kennie Gill, and I thank her. Ronnie Gillespie, who is a terrific individual as well, is our counsel on the Rules Committee. She did a terrific job and I am very grateful to her, as well as my own staff, Sheryl Cohen, Marvin Fast, Alex Swartsel and Tom Lenard. Sheryl Cohen is my staff director, chief of staff of my office, and has to manage all of these things going around. She does a wonderful job, and I am very grateful to her. From the Rules Committee, Carole Blessington, Beth Meagher, Hasan Mansori, and Sue Wright also deserve some very special recognition. Chris Shunk, Jennifer Cusick, and Sam Young are non-designated staff on the Rules Committee staff, who kept the vouchers going during this time and they do wonderful work. There are some former members who were part of this effort who had to leave for various reasons before the completion of this bill, but the fact they are not here does not mean they should not be recognized. Stacy Beck, Candace Chin, and Laura Roubicek are three people I want to thank. That is 60 individuals I have mentioned. There may be others I have missed. If I have missed them, I apologize, but I want them to know that all of us, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, thank them, and millions of Americans ought to as well because we never would have achieved this conference report, been able to write this bill, had it not been for these 60 individuals and many more like them. I have not mentioned the individuals on the outside that worked on this, the NAACP, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the AFL-CIO, the various disability groups. There are literally hundreds of people who are involved in this journey over the last year and a half to produce this conference report. I know normally we do not take as much time to talk about all of this, but I think Senator McConnell and I--and not because it is a pride of authorship, but we think we have done something very historically significant. We are changing America. We are changing the way America is going to be choosing its leadership. We want everyone to participate in this country. It is a source of significant embarrassment to me that there are individuals who cannot participate. I served in the Peace Corps in Latin America back in the 1960s. So I am asked periodically to go and observe elections, particularly in Latin America, because I know the language and have knowledge of the area. I cannot say how moving it is to watch some of these desperately poor countries where the people who lack any formal education, or have very little of it, will literally stand in line all day, walk miles through blistering and difficult weather, intimidation, fear of literally being killed if they show up, and they vote. They look to us as a beacon of what it means as a free people to be able to choose who represents us, from the most insignificant office on the municipal or town level to the Presidency of the United States. The idea that each and every one of us can be a part of making those choices, and the fact that only 50 percent of our eligible population does so, ought to be a source of collective shame. While this bill is not going to eradicate all of that, when we consider how hard some people fight to be free, how blessed we are as a people and how little is asked of us to participate in the process which has historically distinguished us as a people, our sincere hope today, as we vote tomorrow on this bill, is we have made it easier for people to meet that obligation and made it more difficult for those who would like to scam it in some way. But the most important thing this legislation does is to make it easier for people to make that choice. So all of those who have been involved in this have my profound sense of gratitude, and I am very confident that sense of gratitude is going to be expressed by millions of people for years to come because of what we have done in the wake of a tragedy in the year 2000, on November 7. We have responded to it with this legislation. Not in every sense, but on some of the core questions, this Congress has stepped up to the plate and responded to those issues. The leadership and Members of the other body, as well as the leadership here, can rightfully claim a proud moment when this bill passes the Senate tomorrow and President Bush signs this legislation as the permanent law of our land.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct. The conferees intended that the new Election Administration Commission consider all options for election day, including the Senator's interesting proposal to move elections to the weekend. There was also no intent to limit the Election Administration Commission to considering just one day as an election day. It is my hope that the commission will examine all options, including the possibility of holding elections over two days as suggested in Senator Kohl's proposal.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I also would like to mention the tremendous assistance provided by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the League of Women Voters, and People for the American Way. Before I turn to my colleagues who wish to be heard, I would be remiss if I did not publicly express my gratitude to my fellow conferees. I already mentioned Senator McConnell, Senator Bond, Senator Durbin, and Senator Schumer. I thank their staffs as well. I want to take a moment as well to thank an individual I had never really met before--I may have met him before, but I did not certainly know him--and that is the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Bob Ney, from the State of Ohio, who serves in a tough job as chairman of that committee. He has been in the Congress, I think, about 8 or 10 years. He worked very hard on this legislation. And I developed a great deal of respect and affection for Bob Ney. We are of different parties and, obviously, different States, not serving together in the House of Representatives. But Bob Ney and his staff were tenacious, hard working, and determined to get a bill. I commend them for that. We were not sure we were going to be able to get it done in the end, as it appeared at several points this may not work. And because Bob Ney felt strongly that we had an obligation to try, we are here today with this product on which they had a successful vote in the other body. So I commend Bob Ney for his tremendous efforts and that of his staff. Steny Hoyer is the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee. I have known Steny for years. Unlike Bob Ney, Steny and I have been good friends for a long time. Steny Hoyer has been as committed to election reform issues as anyone, as well as his commitment to the disabled. He was one of the prime architects of legislation affecting the disabled. So while we talked about that a lot in this body during the consideration of our bill, we certainly need to extend credit to Steny Hoyer for his commitment to those issues as well. So the team of Bob Ney and Steny Hoyer, putting together the product they did, deserves a great deal of credit and recognition for what we hope will be the adoption of this conference report tomorrow and the signing by the President of this, we think, historic piece of legislation. On more occasions than I can recall, the three of us--Steny Hoyer, Bob Ney, and myself--along with staffs, spent a lot of late nights. I am looking around the Chamber at faces who were with me in those rooms in the wee hours of the morning, and long weekends, going back and forth. And I appreciate all of their efforts. We had some tough moments, but in any good piece of legislation there will be tension. And if people are committed to try to work things out, you can produce results such as we have in this legislation. So without their persistence and the patience of all involved, we would not be here. And I thank them. Last but far from least, I thank John Conyers, the dean of the Congressional Back Caucus, for his stalwart support. The day we introduced a bill, that is not unlike what we are asking our colleagues to support here, I stood in a room with two people, in front of a bank of cameras, as we laid out this particular idea. And the two individuals with me in that room were John Conyers and John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO. And I thank both of them. But John Conyers has been tireless. He has never given up on this. He knew that compromises would have to be struck, and he insisted we reach those compromises even though he would prefer, in some instances, that provisions of the bill not be included. But a great legislator, a good legislator, understands that when people gather for a conference, unfortunately, they arrive with their opinions, and you are not going to be able to get your own way all the time. So John Conyers was tremendously helpful. I began this journey with him a long time ago. And I could not end these remarks without extending my deep sense of appreciation to him and to his staff for their tremendous help. In closing, I would like to add only this: Of all the many important issues considered by this Senate in this Congress, I do not think any-- others may argue this--but I do not think any are going to exceed this one in significance. I know we have had important debates on Iraq and other such questions, but I think what Mitch McConnell, Kit Bond, and my other conferees, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and others who were involved in this--what we have achieved certainly ranks in the top echelons of accomplishments, I would say the best thing we have done in this Congress. We have not achieved a lot in this Congress, but I think this is one of the most significant things. I think this is the kind of legislation you can talk to your grandchildren about or they will read about and say that even if we did not do anything else in this Congress, this is a significant accomplishment for the American people. Thomas Paine, as I have quoted him over and over again over the last year and a half or so of this discussion, said 207 years ago: The right to vote . . . is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote . . . is in this case. So, Mr. President, I thank again my colleagues; for the bedrock principle in our Republic is simply this: the consent of the governed. We are a nation where the people rule, and they rule not with a bullet but with a ballot. That sacred, central premise of our Republic is given new power by this conference agreement. It can make America a more free and democratic Nation. That kind of opportunity comes our way only rarely, at most maybe once in a generation, on average. It is an opportunity that has emerged out of adverse circumstances--a close and controversial election for the Presidency of the United States. By seizing that opportunity and passing this conference agreement, we in this body can transform a national moment of adversity into the promise of a future with the right to vote that will have new resonance for every citizen of America. I urge adoption of this conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor.