Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today I congratulate the First Baptist Church of Stratford, CT, on its 125th anniversary as a Christian congregation. Reaching this commendable benchmark is testimony to the deep level of faith and social commitment shared by this community throughout its long history. From its humble origins in 1877 as a small Sunday School for Stratford's growing African American population, the First Baptist Church has evolved into a vibrant spiritual congregation dedicated to Christian Fellowship and engaged in active social ministry. Since the middle of the 20th century, the congregants of First Baptist have willingly contributed to the advancement and well-being of their surrounding community by building and running a parsonage, establishing a Food Pantry ministry, and creating the First Baptist Church Federal Credit Union. First Baptist has also addressed the need of adequate and affordable housing through the First Baptist Church Development Corporation. Just recently, the Corporation completed construction and sale of its first affordable housing unit. I am impressed by First Baptist's commitment to Christian discipleship. Under the leadership of Reverend William B. Sutton, III, and former Pastor, Doctor William O. Johnson, it has provided growth and development to both congregants and the surrounding community. In these difficult times, I believe the services rendered by First Baptist serve as a positive example to all religious congregations. Once again, I congratulate the First Baptist Church of Stratford on its 125th anniversary. I hope that the congregation will keep up its important work and continue to make lasting contributions to the community of Stratford for many generations to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today with the deposit of the 66th instruments of ratification of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court is on track to enter into force on July 1. I rise to acknowledge and congratulate those who have labored to reach this moment--the creation of a permanent international forum to bring to justice heinous criminals who have committed crimes against humanity, the fulfillment of the legacy of Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Trial of the leading Nazi war criminals following World War II was a landmark in the struggle to deter and punish crimes of war and genocide, setting the stage for the Geneva and Genocide Conventions. It was also largely an American initiative. Justice Robert Jackson's team drove the process of drafting the indictments, gathering the evidence and conducting this extraordinary case. My father, Thomas J. Dodd, served as executive trial counsel at Nuremberg, it was among his proudest accomplishments. I believe that he would have been proud today to see the International Criminal Court, ICC, come into existence. He believed that America had a special role to help make the rule of law relevant in every corner of the globe. I believe that he would have endorsed President Clinton's decision to sign the Rome Statute in December of 2000 on behalf of the United States. President Clinton did so knowing full well that much work remains to be done before the United States can become a party to the U.N. convention establishing an International Criminal Court. Now that the establishment of the ICC is inevitable, the United States must now determine what its relationship with the Court will be. Rather than adopting a course that will pit us against our best friends and allies, I call for the United States to be actively engaged with the ICC in working to ensure that it demonstrates the highest standards of jurisprudence and integrity. Although the United States is not a party to the treaty, The United States should feel free to raise its voice and give its opinion on who should be selected to be the Court's judges and prosecutors. The United States should also use its seat on the U.N.'s Security Council to refer situations to the Court, such as the current conflict in Sudan that has already claimed over 2 million lives as a result of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. And above all, the United States should be a watchdog of the Court's integrity and keep it laser focused on its primary task, bringing to justice the worlds worst criminals. There are those in Congress and the Administration who would have the United States repudiate the ICC, and work to tear it down. They would have us take the unprecedented step of ``unsigning'' the Rome Statute. I have just cited a number of vital American interests that are wrapped up in the Court. Those interests are not going to be erased with the name of the United States from the Rome Statute. That is why I strenuously oppose such action: it is irresponsible, isolationist, and contrary to our vital national interests. Many of our closest allies have put their faith in the vision of this new legal instrument. We should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are committed to making the court work to strengthen international respect for the rule of law. I will include the list of the States that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute at the conclusion of my remarks. I call on the Bush administration to recognize that there is a constructive and useful role that the United States can perform without making a decision at this juncture concerning US ratification. We should be prepared to lend our expertise in grappling with the many issues that remain to be resolved before the court becomes fully functioning. That is what a global power with the stature of the United States should do. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of States to which I referred.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the passage of S. 565, the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3295, the House companion, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 565, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed; that the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, that the ratio be 3-2; and that this action occur with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, 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. Madam President, I speak with great reluctance in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. I misidentified his State last evening. I apologize. I appreciate the motivations behind this. Let me first say there is nothing in this bill that creates an unfunded mandate. One of the things we have provided for in this bill is that every requirement must be paid for by the Federal Government. That is very important to us. We realize if we asked otherwise, we would in fact be doing just what the Senator from Kansas has suggested. But that is simply not the case. We are saying with regard to provisional voters--these are some of the most disadvantaged voters in the sense of where they live and their circumstances, economic and otherwise--if you show up to vote and there is a question about whether or not you have the right to vote, this bill is going to give you the right to cast a provisional ballot. If at the end of that process it is discovered you don't have the right to vote, we are saying that the state and local officials must notify that voter so they don't come back and show up the next time as a provisional voter and their vote doesn't count again. The underlying bill already allows a state or locality to create an internet site or establish a 1-800 number, and I don't have a problem with that. But don't exclude the requirement that you must specifically notify a voter whose ballot was not counted. Registrars of voters notify voters on all sorts of things during the year. Saying to a provisional voter, your vote didn't count for the following reasons, this is what you need to do to correct it, is a minor request. This bill truly makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat. We urge the defeat of the Roberts amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today is an historic day in the Senate marked by passage of S. 565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act. It has been my great honor and privilege to have served as Chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee during the pendency of this legislative effort and to have served as floor manager during the Senate consideration. This is landmark legislation. By enacting this bipartisan bill, the Senate will have established the authority, and responsibility, of Congress to regulate the administration of Federal elections, both in terms of assuring that voting systems and procedures are uniform and nondiscriminatory for all Americans and in ensuring the integrity of federal election results. The House has already passed similar legislation and I am confident that a House-Senate conference can act expeditiously to send this measure to the White House. While we should not underestimate the significance of this action, we have been careful not to overstate the federal role in the administration of Federal elections. This legislation does not replace the historic role of state and local election officials, nor does it create a one-size-fits-all approach to balloting. It does establish minimum Federal requirements for the conduct of Federal elections to ensure that the most fundamental of rights in a democracy-- the right to vote and have that vote counted--is secure. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court condemned a recount process that was `` . . . inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter . . . '' The basic equal protection doctrine underlying the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore is consistent with the principle of equal weight accorded to each vote and equal dignity owed to each voter. The Court stated in pertinent part: The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. This legislation ensures that every eligible American voter is assured of such minimum procedures. Only then can we be sure that every eligible American citizen has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted, so that the integrity of the results of our Federal elections remains unchallenged. That is the minimum that a Federal legislature should do to ensure the vitality of its democracy. This journey to secure our democratic system of government began when the presidential November 2000 general election exposed to the citizens of this Nation, and the people of the entire world, the inadequacies of our Federal elections system. Throughout the last fifteen months of Congressional review, hearings, and legislative consideration, the efforts of this Senator have been guided by the words of Thomas Paine who described the right to vote as the ``primary right by which other rights are protected.'' I would suggest that those are the words that should guide the consideration and review of this legislative effort. The bipartisan compromise being adopted by the Senate today is the culmination of several months of work by a dedicated group of our colleagues with strongly held and diverse views on how best to improve our system of Federal elections. The compromise is just that--it is not everything that all of us wanted, but it is something that everyone wanted. And the more than 40 amendments adopted during the debate have further improved the measure. Clearly, in the case of this legislation, the ability of the Senate to freely work its will through amendment and debate has produced a superior product. This bill is the culmination of efforts begun by the distinguished ranking member, Senator McConnell, in the fall of 2000, as then- Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. Shortly after the November 2000 general election, then-Chairman McConnell announced a series of hearings on election reform. Under his leadership, the Committee held an initial hearing on March 14, 2001. After the leadership of the Senate changed on June 6, 2001, I announced that election reform would continue to be the primary legislative priority of the Committee. As a result, the Rules Committee held an additional three days of hearings last year on election reform, including an unprecedented, and enlightening, field hearing in Atlanta, Georgia on July 23. The Committee received testimony and written statements from a conglomeration of civil rights organizations, Congressional House members and caucuses, State and local election officials, study commissions, election associations, task forces, academics, and average voters. But it was the field hearing in Atlanta that underscored this Senator's belief that this issue is not about what happened in one State or in one election. Election reform is about the systemic flaws in our Federal election system that we have long neglected--flaws which the problems in Florida in November 2000 simply brought to our nation's attention. Prior to the Atlanta hearing, the chief election official of the State of Georgia, Cathy Cox, testified to her experience. In her words: As the presidential election drama unfolded in Florida last November, one thought was foremost in my mind: there but for the grace of God go I. Because the thought is, if the presidential margin had been razor thin in Georgia and if our election systems had undergone the same microscopic scrutiny that Florida endured, we would have fared no better. In many respects, we might have fared even worse. Ms. Cox testified before the Rules Committee at its field hearing in Atlanta, hosted by my good friend, the Senator from Georgia, Senator Max Cleland. Ms. Cox reflected what many of our state and local election officials believe--it could have been any State in the media spotlight that year--any state where the election was close. In fact, according to the Caltech-MIT report, other States, including Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina, and Wyoming, and other cities, such as Chicago and New York, had higher rates of spoiled and uncounted ballots than Florida. Nor were these problems limited to just the November presidential election. The shortcomings in our election process have existed in many elections in States across this Nation. The Caltech-MIT report found that there have been approximately 2 million uncounted, unmarked or spoiled ballots in each of the last four presidential elections. During hearings before the Senate Rules Committee last year, Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, President of the League of Women Voters, testified that: . . . [t]he kinds of problems that we saw in 2000 are not unusual. They represent the harvest from years of indifference that has been shown toward one of the most fundamental and important elements in our democratic system. This concern was confirmed by the General Accounting Office, GAO, which conducted several comprehensive studies on the administration of elections. GAO found that 57 percent of voting jurisdictions nationwide experienced major problems conducting the November 2000 elections. Following the Rules Committee hearings, the Committee met on August 2 and voted to order reported S. 565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act. Shortly thereafter, I approached Senator Bond and Senator McConnell and suggested that we attempt to find a bipartisan way to approach election reform. We were joined by Senator Schumer and Senator Torricelli and began meeting to craft a bipartisan compromise that could be enacted prior to the completion of this Congress. Each of my colleagues brought a unique perspective to the table. Senator McConnell has been steadfast in his pursuit of a new, bipartisan agency to ensure the continuing partnership between the Federal, State and local governments in Federal elections. Senator Bond's long-standing interest in ensuring the integrity of Federal elections is reflected in the anti-fraud provisions contained in this compromise. Senator Schumer and Senator Torricelli were among the first members of the Rules Committee to introduce bipartisan reform measures, and their commitment to the bipartisan process is evident throughout this compromise. I am grateful to all of them, and to their very talented staff, for the time and dedication that each one committed to ensuring that a bipartisan solution could be presented to the Senate. Throughout this process, all of us were committed to seeing meaningful reform enacted. All of us were convinced that real reform had to make it easier to vote but harder to defraud the system. These twin goals--making it easier to vote and harder to corrupt our Federal elections system--underpin every provision of this compromise. These goals are fundamental to ensuring that not only does every eligible American have an equal opportunity to vote and have that vote counted, but that the integrity of the results is unquestioned. Nothing in this legislation, and no words spoken by this Senator in this debate, should be construed to call into question the results of the November 2000 elections. This effort is not about assessing whether a particular candidate was legitimately elected. The fact that Congress may ultimately enact minimum Federal requirements for the conduct of Federal elections should not imply that prior elections conducted inconsistently with such requirements are somehow less legitimate. But what we cannot fail to recognize is that the mere closeness of the presidential election in November 2000 tested our system of Federal elections to its limits and exposed both its strengths and its failures. To underscore the uniqueness of the November 2000 general election, the Carter-Ford National Commission on Federal Election Reform observed, and I quote in pertinent part: In 2000 the American electoral system was tested by a political ordeal unlike any in living memory. From November 7 until December 12 the outcome of the presidential election was fought out in bitter political and legal struggles that ranged throughout the state of Florida and ultimately extended to the Supreme Court of the United States. Not since 1876-77 has the outcome of a national election remained so unsettled, for so long. The nineteenth century political crisis brought the United States close to a renewal of civil war. Fortunately, no danger of armed conflict shadowed the country in this more recent crisis. The American political system proved its resilience. Nonetheless, the . . . election shook American faith in the legitimacy of the democratic process. . . . [I]n the electoral crisis of 2000 . . . the ordinary institutions of election administration in the United States, and specifically in Florida, just could not readily cope with an extremely close election. The legitimacy of our democratic process was called into question by a close election because some Americans--be they people of color, or language minority, or disability, or lesser economic condition-- believed that the voting system they used, or the administrative processes they encountered, did not provide them an equal opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote counted. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive study on voting irregularities that occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The Commission found that African-Americans were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected. The Commission found that poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. Additionally, an independent review of Florida's election systems conducted by members of the media found that, quoting from the New York Times and Washington Post: Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts in [the November 2000] presidential race in Florida, a disparity that persists even after accounting for the effects of income, education and bad ballot design . . . [s]imilar patterns were found in Hispanic precincts and places with large elderly populations. Again, this problem was not limited to Florida. The Committee also heard testimony at the Atlanta hearing that nearly half of all black voters in Georgia used the ``least reliable equipment,'' while less than 25 percent of white voters used that same equipment. Election reform is clearly the first civil rights battle of the 21st century. As Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Chairperson of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, has stated, ``there is no question, that the right to vote is the most important civil rights issue facing our Nation today.'' The Committee heard testimony to this effect at the Atlanta field hearing from Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, Chairman of the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda. Reverend Doctor Lowery testified that: No aspect of democracy is more sacred than the right to vote and to have those votes counted. In 1965, thousands of us marched from Selma to Montgomery to urge this nation to remove any and all barriers based on race and color and ethnicity related to the right to vote. . . . Dr. King could not have anticipated that once we secured the ballot in 1965, that we would be back here in 2001 demanding that our government now assure us that our votes are fairly and accurately counted. And we must ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to have their votes counted. That is why this Senate, and this Congress, and this President, cannot squander this opportunity to reinforce the strengths and correct the failures in our system of Federal elections. To fail to act would be nothing less than an abdication of our collective obligations. Luckily, unlike many other challenges that are presented to the U.S. Congress, the vast majority of flaws in our federal election system are eminently fixable. As the Carter-Ford Commission found, ``the weaknesses in election administration are, to a very great degree, problems that government can actually solve.'' Further, the Rules Committee found remarkable consensus regarding the problems that exist with our Federal election systems and the statutory changes that need to be made in response. The distinguished Ranking Member, Senator McConnell, noted during one of our hearings that the message to Congress was unanimous: ``Congress must act, and act soon, to come to the aid of states and localities.'' And such cannot be accomplished in a partisan manner. Only through a bipartisan effort to assess and support the strengths and identify and correct the failures can we achieve meaningful, and lasting, election reform. I submit to my colleagues that the provisions of the bipartisan substitute we are voting on today are intended to accomplish just that. The principle behind our approach is very simple. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide leadership, both in terms of establishing minimum Federal requirements for the conduct of Federal elections and in terms of providing financial resources to State and local governments to meet those minimum requirements. For too long leadership at the federal level has been lacking. After the elections of November 2000, Congress can no longer afford to ignore our obligation to the States to be an equal partner in the administration of the elections that choose our national leadership. The provisions of this bipartisan compromise attempt to meet our obligation by establishing minimum Federal requirements--not a-one- size-fits-all solution--but broad standards that can be met in different ways by every balloting system used in America today. And this bipartisan compromise provides the necessary resources to fully fund these requirements in every one of the 186,000 polling places across this Nation. Let me first give my colleagues a broad overview of what the bill we are about to adopt does and then go through each section to more fully explain how the provisions will work. The compromise bill, as improved by amendments adopted during Senate debate, establishes three Federal minimum requirements for Federal elections that will affect voting systems, including machines and ballots, and the administration of Federal elections. These three requirements touch the very voting systems and administrative procedures that alienated Americans across this Nation in November of 2000 and called into question the integrity of the final election results. The first requirement sets minimum Federal standards that voting systems and election technology must meet by the federal elections of 2006. Essentially, these common sense standards are designed to provide notice and a second-chance voting opportunity for all eligible voters, including the disabled, the blind and language minorities, in case the voter's ballot was incorrectly marked or spoiled. This requirement conforms to important recommendations from the Caltech-MIT and Carter-Ford Commission reports. As the Carter-Ford report stated, we must `` . . . seek to ensure that every qualified citizen has an equal opportunity to vote and that every individual's vote is equally effective.'' The Carter-Ford report specifically recommended that the Federal Government develop a comprehensive set of voting equipment system standards. The Commission also took great pains to encourage the use of technology and election systems that ensure the voting rights of all citizens, including language minorities. Similarly, the Caltech-MIT report emphasized the importance of equipment that allows voters to fix their mistakes, provides for an audit trail, and is accessible to the disabled and language minorities. The second requirement provides that all voters be given a chance to cast a provisional ballot if for some reason his or her name is not included on the registration list or the voter's eligibility to vote is otherwise challenged. Almost every organization that has examined election problems has recommended the adoption of provisional voting, including, but not limited to the: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Ford Commission); National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS); National Association of State Election Directors (NASED); National Task Force on Election Reform; Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform; Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project; Constitution Project; League of Women Voters (LWV); American Association of Persons with Disabilities (AAPD); Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); National Council of La Raza (NCLR); Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and Federal Election Commission. 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 the compromise. 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.'' According to a survey by the Congressional Research Service, at least 15 States and the District of Columbia have a provisional ballot statute; 17 States have statutes that provide for some aspects of a provisional balloting process; and 18 States have no provisional ballot statute but have related provisions. For example, five of these States have same-day voter registration procedures and at least one State, North Dakota, does not require any voter registration. Studies by GAO confirm that over three-quarters of the jurisdictions nationwide had at least one procedure in place to help resolve eligibility questions for voters whose name does not appear on the registration list at the polling place. However, the procedures and instructions developed to permit provisional voting differed across jurisdictions. Provisional voting, as defined under the bipartisan compromise, would avoid situations like the one recounted to the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform by two citizens living in Philadelphia, Juan Ramos and Petricio Morales. They testified that in Philadelphia, voters whose names did not appear on the precinct roster were forced to travel to police stations and go before a judge, who would then determine whether or not they had the right to vote. Not surprisingly, many voters whose names were missing from the list wound up not voting rather than face these intimidating logistical hurdles. If an individual is motivated enough to go to the polls and sign an affidavit that he or she is eligible to vote in that election, then the system ought to protect that individual's right to cast a ballot, even if only a provisional ballot. And 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. And that is what the compromise accomplished by ensuring that so long as the minimum standards were satisfied regarding the provisional voting process, it does not matter what that provisional balloting process is called so long as it is a way to ensure equal access to the ballot box. While all jurisdictions must meet this requirement, the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, further clarifies that those States which are currently exempt from the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor-Voter, can meet the requirements for provisional balloting through their current registration systems. The second requirement also provides that election officials post information in the polling place on election day, such as a sample ballot and voting instructions to inform voters of their rights. Provisional balloting must be available by the Federal elections of 2004, while the posting of voting information on election day must begin upon enactment of the legislation. GAO found that the two most common ways jurisdictions provided voter information were to make it available at the election office and to print it in the local newspapers. With respect to sample ballots, 91 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide made them available at the election office, and 71 percent printed them in the local newspaper. Nationwide, 82 percent of the jurisdictions printed a list of polling places in the local paper. In contrast, only 18 percent to 20 percent of jurisdictions nationwide placed public service ads on local media, performed community outreach programs, and put some voter information on the Internet. Mailing voter information to all registered voters was the least used approach, with 13 percent of the jurisdictions mailing voting instructions, 7 percent mailing sample ballots; and finally, 6 percent mailing voter information on polling locations. The third requirement is intended to facilitate the administration of elections, especially on election day, and to guard against possible corruption of the system. This requirement calls for the establishment, by Federal elections in 2004, of a statewide computerized registration list that will ensure all eligible voters can vote. It will also ensure that the names of ineligible voters will not appear on the rolls. 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 statewide computerized voter registration system that can be routinely updated and is accessible at polling places on election day. Additionally, this requirement establishes identification procedures for first-time voters who have registered by mail. In order to ensure against fraud and the possibility that mail-in registrants are not eligible to vote, first-time voters unless otherwise exempted will present verification of their identify at the polling place or submit such verification with their absentee ballot. The manager's amendment adopted last evening harmonizes this provision with the 2004 effective date for provisional balloting and the creation of computerized statewide registration lists. This is an important change that 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 about the new provision. This amendment 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. In order to fund these requirements and other election reforms by the States, the bipartisan compromise establishes three grant programs. The first grant program, the requirements grant program, provides funds to State and local governments to implement these three requirements. The compromise authorizes $3 billion over 4 years, with no matching requirement, for this purpose. Under the amendment offered by Senators Collins, Jeffords and others, as adopted by the Senate, each State will receive a minimum grant equal to one-half of 1 percent of the total appropriation. The second grant program is an incentive grant program designed to authorize $400 million in this fiscal year to allow State and local governments to begin improving their voting systems and administrative procedures, even before the requirements go into effect. These funds may also be used for reform measures, such as training poll workers and officials, voter education programs, same-day registration procedures, and programs to deter election fraud. Finally, in response to the GAO report that 84 percent of all polling places, from the parking lot to the voting booth, remain inaccessible to the disabled, the compromise creates a third grant program to provide funds to States and localities to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. This important initiative will help assure that no matter what the physical impediment, all eligible Americans will be able to not only reach and enter the polling place, but enter the voting booth to cast their ballot as well. While this bill does not eliminate curbside voting, the amendment offered by Senators McCain and Harkin, and incorporated into the bill, as well as provisions of the amendment by Senator Thomas adopted last night, expresses the sense of the Senate that curbside voting be the last alternative used to accommodate disabled voters. We are hopeful that these funds will make that a reality. The final provision of the compromise establishes a new, bipartisan Federal agency to administer the grant programs and provide on-going support to State and local election officials in the administration of Federal elections. This new entity reflects an appropriate continuing federal role in the administration of Federal elections. This bipartisan Federal election commission will be comprised of four presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, who will each serve a single, 6-year term. In order to ensure that all actions taken by the commission are strictly bipartisan, including the approval of any grants and the issuance of all guidelines, every action of the commission must be by majority vote. With that overview, let me go through the compromise and explain its provisions in greater detail. The first title of the bill lays out three uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements which shall be met. Although some have advocated instituting optional reforms, others have insisted that only minimum Federal requirements would ensure that every eligible voter can cast a vote and have that vote counted. The co-author of the ``Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act'' who serves as the ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers, cautioned in his testimony before the Rules Committee against adopting measures that would allow ``States to simply elect to opt out of any standards,'' noting that past landmark civil rights bills, including the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, also set minimum Federal standards. As the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform reported: We do not believe that funding, without some basic minimum standards, is sufficient to achieve meaningful reform. If states were allowed to opt out of the recommended changes in Federal elections, voters in those States would be denied the opportunity to participate in Federal elections on the same basis as voters in other States which adopt the reforms. In presidential elections, where the votes of citizens in one State are dependent on the votes of citizens in others, this discrepancy could diminish the impact of votes in those States that agree to implement these reforms. The requirements approach is also supported by six members of the Carter-Ford Commission, who wrote in an additional statement following the report that Congress should insist upon certain requirements, including voting systems and practices that produce low rates of uncounted ballots, accessible voting technologies, statewide provisional balloting, and voter education and information, including the provision of sample ballots. As Christopher Edley, Jr., a member of the Carter-Ford Commission and professor at Harvard Law School, wrote, ``At their core, their reforms are intended to vindicate our civil and constitutional rights. They are too fundamental to be framed as some intergovernmental fiscal deal, bargained out through an appropriations process.'' These requirements are not intended to produce a single uniform voting system or a single set of uniform administrative procedures. On the contrary, they are intended to ensure that any voting system and certain administrative practices meet uniform standards that result in an equal opportunity for all eligible Americans to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted. GAO found that both a jurisdiction's voting equipment and its demographic make-up had a statistically significant effect on the percentage of uncounted votes. As a result, GAO found that counties with higher percentage of minority voters had higher rates of uncounted votes. GAO also reported that the percentages of uncounted presidential votes were higher in minority areas than in others, regardless of voting equipment. These findings underscore the importance of instituting minimum Federal requirements that will ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted, regardless of their race, disability or ethnicity or the state in which they reside. The House Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform specifically recommended that Congress institute minimum national standards that require voting systems with error detection devices that are fully accessible to elderly voters, voters with physical disabilities, and visually impaired voters. Likewise, six members of the Carter-Ford Commission advised Congress to require states and localities to use voting technologies that produce low rates of uncounted ballots, are accessible to voters with disabilities, are adaptable to non-English speakers, and allow all voters to cast a secret ballot. The first requirement establishes standards that all voting systems must meet 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 requirements must be implemented will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending upon when the first Federal election occurs in 2006. A Federal election is intended to include a general, primary, special, or runoff election for Federal office. There are five basic standards that all voting systems shall meet under the first requirement: First, a notification procedure to inform a voter when he or she has over-voted, including the opportunity to verify and correct the ballot before it is cast and tabulated. This first standard is modified for voting systems in which the voter casts a paper or punch card ballot or votes are counted at a central location, as provided for in the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell and incorporated into the bill. Second, all voting systems must produce a record with an audit capacity, including a permanent paper record that will serve as an official record for recounts. 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. Third, all voting systems must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Fourth, all voting systems must provide for alternative language accessibility; and Fifth, all voting systems must meet a Federal error rate in counting ballots, which will be established by the new election administration commission. A few of these standards merit additional discussion. With regard to the first standard, which requires notification to the voter of an over-vote, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this provision. The compromise before us made significant changes in the original bill reported by the Rules Committee. The original bill required that voting systems notify a voter of both over-votes and under-votes. This compromise deletes the required notification of an under-vote. While the new commission is charged with studying the feasibility of notifying voters of under-votes, there is no under-vote notification requirement in the compromise. To further clarify the purpose of over-vote notification, there is no intent to have an adverse impact on any jurisdiction with election administration procedures for instant runoff or preferential voting. All jurisdictions, including Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico and Vermont are not prohibited from using such voting procedures to conduct instant runoff or preferential under this Act. Notification is an essential standard because it provides an eligible voter a ``second chance'' opportunity to correct his or her ballot before it is cast and tabulated. The Caltech-MIT report emphasized the need for voting equipment that ``. . . give[s] voters a chance to change their ballots to fix any mistakes . . .'' Similarly, the Carter-Ford Commission explicitly recommended that: ``Voters should have the opportunity to correct errors at the precinct or other polling place . . .'' 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 provides important checks on coercion and fraud in the form of widespread vote buying. This concern for preserving the sanctity of the ballot, as well as practical differences in paper ballots versus machines, led us to create an alternative notification standard for paper ballots, punch card systems, and central count systems. Paper ballot systems include those systems where the individual votes a paper ballot that is tabulated by hand. Central count systems includes mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in balloting, such as that used extensively in Oregon and Washington State, and to a lesser extent in Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, and 13 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. Under the bill as clarified by Senator Cantwell's amendment, 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 101 of this compromise, 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 which allow early voting or in-person absentee voting, for that voter, such system must actually notify the voter of the over- vote. In the case of punch cards and paper ballot and central count systems, including mail-in ballots and mail-in absentee ballots, the state or locality need only establish a voter education program specific to that voting system in use which tells the voter the effect of casting multiple votes for a single Federal office. Regardless of a punch card system or a paper ballot voting system, all mail-in ballots and mail-in absentee ballots must still meet the requirement of providing a voter with the opportunity to correct the ballot before it is cast and tabulated under section 101 of this compromise. I also want to note for the record that 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 this title or any law described in section 402 of this Act. In fact, Cook County, Illinois uses a punch card reader that can be programmed to notify the voter of both over-votes and under-votes. It is my understanding that this technology can provide an individual voter with such notification in a completely private and confidential manner. The system allows the voter to correct his or her ballot or override the notice if the voter so desires. 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 voting system must be programmed to 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. Again, it is important to understand that it is the machine itself, and not the poll worker or official, that notifies the voter. We believe that the bill as amended recognizes the inherent differences between paper ballot systems and mechanical or electronic voting systems, and is a reasonable accommodation which nonetheless ensures that all voters will have the information and the notice necessary to avoid spoiling their ballot due to an over-vote. Let me also take a minute to discuss the disabled accessibility standard. This is perhaps one of the most important provisions of this compromise. The fact is ten million blind voters did not vote in the 2000 elections in part because they cannot read the ballots used in their jurisdiction. In this age of technology that is simply unacceptable. The 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 respond to this ``crisis of access,'' this compromise requires 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. In order to assist the states and localities in meeting this standard, the bill adds an important new provision that allows jurisdictions to satisfy this standard through the use of at least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system in every polling place. Let me note that these voting systems are not just for the use of the disabled. According to GAO, approximately 12 percent of registered voters nationwide used DREs in the last Federal election. Obviously, anyone in the polling place can use the system. But these machines can be manipulated by not only the blind and vision-impaired, but by paraplegic and other individuals with motor skill disabilities. Furthermore, the Caltech-MIT study suggests that DREs have the potential to allow for more flexible user interfaces to accommodate many languages. This means that DRE voting systems can also be used to meet the accessibility requirements for language minorities as well. Moreover, the bill does not require that a jurisdiction purchase a DRE to meet the accessiblity requirements. Jurisdictions may also choose to modify existing systems to meet the needs of the disabled. Some of my colleagues have expressed concerns 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 vote, just as all other non-disabled Americans, with privacy and independence. It is simply not acceptable that the disabled should have to hide in their homes and not participate with other Americans on election day simply because no one knows that they exist. I have indicated my willingness to look at the impact of the each of the bill's provisions on small communities and rural areas in conference, and the amendment by Senator Thomas adopted last evening expresses that. With regard to the disability provisions, I will do so with the twin goals of ease of administration but equality of voting opportunity in mind. Finally, let me touch on the issue of alternative language accessibility. This standard generally follows the procedures for determining when a language minority must be accommodated under the Voting Rights Act, with an important difference. The Voting Rights Act recognizes only four general groups of language minorities: Asian Americans, people of Spanish heritage, Native Americans and native Alaskans. This compromise leaves in place the numerical triggers under the Voting Rights Act. It merely allows groups who otherwise do not meet the very narrow definition in the Voting Rights Act to nonetheless receive an alternative language ballot. So, if a Haitian or a Croatian population meets the numerical triggers, they, too, will have access to bilingual materials in their native language. With the addition of section 203 in 1975 to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress sought to increase voter turnout of language minorities by requiring bilingual voting assistance. In 1992, Congress amended, reauthorized and strengthened section 203 by passing the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act with an expiration date of 2007. This Act requires states and political subdivisions with significant numbers of non-English speaking citizens of voting age to improve language assistance at the polls for American voters. The required bilingual assistance includes bilingual ballots, voting materials, and oral translation services. These bilingual services are triggered when the Census Bureau determines that more than 5 percent of the voting age citizens are of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or more than 10,000 citizens of voting age are members of a single language minority who are limited in their English proficiency. Here we are in 2002 with the same concerns for our language minorities. Accordingly, our compromise follows the Congressional tradition of strengthening voting assistance to our language minority citizens by including language minority groups that were not included in earlier amendments to the Voting Rights Act. It merely widens the coverage of language minorities to ensure that a large number of limited-English speakers may participate in the elections process. This is accomplished by ensuring alternative language accessibility to voting systems, provisional balloting, and inclusion as a registered voter in the statewide voter registration lists. These safeguards provide an equal opportunity for all eligible language minorities to cast a vote and have that vote counted. In the spirit of minority language accessibility under the Voting Rights Act, the purpose of this bill is to establish uniform, nondiscriminatory standards for voting systems and administration of elections. To continue to recognize only four distinct language minority groups is neither uniform nor nondiscriminatory. This Act also provides for a Commission study to determine whether the voting systems are, in fact, capable of accommodating all voters with a limited proficiency in the English language and make necessary recommendations. This compromise includes provisions specifying how lever voting systems may meet the multilingual voting requirements if it is not practicable to add the alternative language to the lever voting system and the state or locality has filed a request for a waiver. Finally, the requirement that voting systems meet a uniform, national error rate standard is a particularly important reform. Requiring voting systems to conform to a nationwide error rate ensures the integrity of the results and greater uniformity and nondiscriminatory results in the casting and tabulating of ballots. It is important to note that error rates encompass more than just errors due to the mechanical failure of the equipment and can reflect design flaws that impede the ability of voters to accurately operate the voting system. Error rates should reflect the design, accuracy, and performance of systems under normal voting conditions. Similarly, operating failures of the voting system, or voter confusion about how to operate technology or use various types of ballots, may be the result of unclear instructions or poor ballot design. The Committee received information from the American Institute of Graphic Arts regarding the importance of design in the voting experience. AIGA has been working with the Federal Election Commission to educate the FEC on the importance of communication design. It would be appropriate for the new Election Administration Commission to study the issue of communication design criteria and consider incorporating such ideas into its guidelines. In order to ensure that states and localities have sufficient time to meet these requirements, the compromise directs that the Office of Election Administration--which is currently housed at the Federal Election Commission but will be transferred to the new Election Administration Commission--issue revised voting system standards by January 1, 2004, two years before the standards must be in place. This should give vendors sufficient time to modify and certify their products and allow State and local governments to procure DREs which are disable accessible for each polling place. Most importantly, the compromise states that nothing in the language of the voting system requirements shall require a jurisdiction to change their existing voting system for another. Unlike the H.R. 3295, the bill that passed the House, this compromise presumes, protects, and preserves, all methods of balloting. And while some systems may have to be enhanced or modified to some extent, or additional voter education conducted, no jurisdiction is required by this bill to exchange the current voting system used in that jurisdiction with a new system in order to be in compliance. However, the voting system that is in use must meet these standards in order to ensure that all eligible voters have access to a uniform, nondiscriminatory system. It is vitally important that the Congress institute these basic voting system standards. As Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus testified, ``All over the world, the United States is seen as the guarantor of democracy. This country has sent countless scores of observers to foreign lands to assure that the process of democracy is scrupulously maintained. We cannot do less for ourselves than we have done for others.'' The second Federal minimum requirement contained in the compromise provides for provisional balloting and the posting of voting information in the polling place on election day. For Federal elections beginning after January 1, 2004, State and local election officials shall make a provisional ballot available to voters whose names do not appear on the registration rolls or who are otherwise challenged as ineligible. In order to receive a provisional ballot, the voter must execute a written affirmation that he or she is a registered voter in that jurisdiction and is eligible to vote in that election. Once executed, the affidavit is handed over to the appropriate election official who must promptly verify the information and issue a ballot. The election official then makes a determination, under state law, as to whether the voter is eligible to vote in the jurisdiction, or not, and shall count the ballot accordingly. 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 the compromise, and the amendment adopted last evening, offered by the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, reflects that. The authors of the compromise have repeatedly said that we do not require a one-size-fits- all approach to elections in this bill. The same is true for the provisional balloting requirement which provides flexibility to states to meet the needs of their communities in slightly differing ways. In order to ensure that voters who cast provisional ballots are properly registered in time for the next election, within 30 days of the election the appropriate election official must notify, in writing, those voters whose ballots are not counted. A voter whose provisional ballot is counted does not have to be individually notified of such. This bipartisan compromise requires all 50 States and the District of Columbia to provide for provisional balloting in Federal elections, even if a State also permits same-day registration or requires no registration. In States without voter registration requirements, provisional balloting will protect the rights of voters whose eligibility to cast a ballot is officially challenged, for whatever reason, at the polling place. In States with same-day voter registration, the right to cast a provisional ballot will protect an eligible voter who pre-registers and whose name is not on the official list of eligible voters or whose eligibility is challenged by an election official, but who cannot re- register on Election Day. For example, a properly registered legal voter heading to the polls might not carry the identification required by the State for same-day voter registration. Under this compromise, if that voter's name does not appear on the list of eligible voters or the voter's eligibility is officially challenged, the voter could cast a provisional ballot. If the voter does have the identification required to register on Election Day, he or she would have the option of registering again and casting a ballot in accordance with state law. Same-day registration thus not only boosts voter turnout but also offers another way that states can guard against disenfranchising voters as the result of registration problems that arise on election day. This compromise further ensures that a voter will receive a provisional ballot if he or she needs one. The provisional ballot will be counted if the individual is eligible under State law to vote in the jurisdiction. It is our intent that the word ``jurisdiction,'' for the purpose of determining whether the provisional ballot is to be counted, has the same meaning as the term ``registrar's jurisdiction'' in section 8(j) of the National Voter Registration Act. However, the appropriate election official must also establish a free access system, such as a toll-free phone line or Internet website, through which any voter who casts a provisional ballot can find out whether his or her ballot was counted, and if it was not counted, why it was not counted. Voters casting a provisional ballot will be informed of this notification process at the time they vote. And the compromise requires that the security, confidentiality, and integrity of the information be maintained. In order to ensure that voters are aware of the provisional balloting process and are provided information about sample ballots and their voting rights, the compromise requires that certain election information be posted at the polling place on election day. This is a significant change from the original bill which required an actual mailing to each registered voter or the equivalent of such notice through publication and media distribution. Although some states already mail individual sample ballots to the homes of registered voters and post voting information in the polling place, the compromise will establish a national uniform standard with respect to voting information. Like provisional voting, increased voter education is widely endorsed. The Carter-Ford report recommends the use of sample ballots and other voter education tools. The report of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform also urged increased voter education efforts, especially targeted to new voters. The Caltech-MIT report advocates increased voter education, including the publication of sample ballots, providing instructional areas at polling places, and additional training for poll workers, as a way to reduce the number of lost votes. Other organizations support additional voter education, including the League of Women Voters, the Constitution Project, and the NAACP. Voter education is particularly important for communities disproportionately impacted by the current inadequacies in our voting systems. As Anil Lewis, President of the Atlanta metropolitan chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, testified to at the Committee hearing in Atlanta: Many of the disenfranchised, disabled voters do not have [a] record of knowing that the polls are now accessible. Many of them, out of frustration, have refused to go to the polls to vote. They have not taken advantage of the absentee opportunity to vote as an absentee ballot, but by educating them that these accommodations are now in place, we are going to increase the vote turnout for people with disabilities. Hilary O. Shelton, president of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the NAACP, testified before the Committee about poll workers who told African-American voters that they could not have another ballot after they had made a mistake on their first one, despite a State statutory requirement that voters be given another punch card if they needed one. The clear message the Committee received is that voters, particularly those with special needs, simply do not know what services and voting opportunities are available to them. This requirement will ensure that voting information will be provided. The specific information that must be posted in the polling place includes: a sample ballot with instructions, including instructions on how to cast a provisional ballot; information regarding the date and hours the polling place will be open; information on the additional verification required by voters who register by mail and are voting for the first time; and general information on voting rights under Federal and State law and instructions on how to contact the appropriate official if such rights are alleged to have been violated. The requirement for posting voting information in the polling place is effective for federal elections which occur after the date of enactment of the legislation. While it is not anticipated that extensive guidelines will be necessary to implement the provisional ballot requirement, any such guidelines must be issued by January 1, 2003, either by the Department of Justice, or the new Election Administration Commission if it is up and running. The third requirement calls for the creation of a statewide computerized voter registration list and new verification procedures for first-time voters who register by mail. This requirement will facilitate the administration of election day activities and addresses concerns about possible voter registration fraud. Although GAO found there is less than a 1 percent to 5 percent incident of fraud nationwide the reality is that even an insignificant potential for fraud can undermine the confidence of voters, election officials, political parties, etc., in the results of a close election. More specifically, GAO found as a general matter that most jurisdictions did not identify this type of fraud as a major concern, because state and local election officials have established procedures for preventing mail-in absentee fraud. GAO estimated that less than 1 percent to 5 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced special problems with absentee voting fraud during recent elections. However, the absentee voting fraud concerns tend to fall into three categories, including: one, someone other than the appropriate voter casting the mail-in absentee ballot; two, absentee voters voting more than once; and three, voters being intimidated or unduly influenced while voting the mail-in absentee ballot. GAO also reported that during the November 2000 elections, local election jurisdictions used several procedures to prevent fraud in the above three areas, including providing notice to such voters about the potential legal consequences of providing inaccurate or fraudulent information on the balloting materials. Finally, GAO reported that some of the local election officials commented that they had referred certain cases to the local District Attorney's office for possible prosecution. Specifically, the third requirement of the compromise provides that each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall establish an interactive computerized statewide voter registration list by the first Federal election in 2004. This computerized list must contain the name and registration information for every legally registered voter in the State. To ensure accurate list maintenance and to deter potential fraud, the list must assign a unique identifier to each voter, and the list must be accessible to State and local election officials in the State. Furthermore, the compromise permits the use of social security numbers for voter registration while ensuring that privacy guarantees are maintained. List maintenance must be performed regularly, and the purging of any name from the list must be accomplished in a fashion that is consistent with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, more commonly known as the Motor-Voter law. While this compromise reflects a belief that technology can provide an effective deterrent to fraud through the use of computerized registration lists, the amendment offered last evening by Senator Nickles also ensures that such technology is not subject to unauthorized use by hackers or others who wish to defraud the system by use of technology. Similarly, voting system error rates doe not include system security. A voting system with a computer modem, such as used in the DRE and optical scan technology, could be compromised through a computer network. Senator Nickles amendment requires that State and local officials address the security of voting systems technology. It would also be appropriate for the new commission to consider developing security protocols for voting systems as a part of its overall responsibility for overseeing the creation and updating of the voluntary voting system standards. Essentially, the compromise provides for the removal of individuals from official voter registration lists if such individuals are not eligible to vote. There are many reasons an individual might be ineligible to vote. The individual may have moved outside the State or may have died. Some may have been convicted of a felony or been adjudicated incompetent, either of which may under some State laws could end the individual's eligibility. The compromise provides a mechanism for removing the names of such individuals from the rolls. Under this mechanism there are three essential elements. First, the individual is to be notified that the State believes he or she is ineligible. Second, the individual is to have an opportunity to correct erroneous information or to confirm that his or her status has changed. And third, if the individual has not responded to the notice, the individual is to be given an opportunity to go to the polls and correct erroneous information and then vote. This third element is needed to ensure that the right to vote is not dependent on the mails. It allows an individual to correct erroneous information when that individual goes to the polls. These are the mechanisms outlined in the National Voter Registration Act, and these are the mechanisms that will be used under this compromise to remove any ineligible individuals from the voter registration rolls. In addition, under this compromise, a State or its subdivisions shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of an election, any program that systematically removes the names of ineligible voters from an official list of eligible voters. And, of course, any voter removal system must be uniform, nondiscriminatory and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The voter removal system shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote. The managers of this bill intend to ensure, and the legislation ensures, that only voters who are not registered or who are not eligible to vote are removed from the voter rolls. As a practical matter, once the computerized list is up and running, list maintenance will be almost automatic. While many of us have read of allegations of massive duplicate registrations, the truth is that even though 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 they 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. If there is no statewide system for sharing such information, voters can easily remain on lists long after they have moved. If the State or jurisdiction is not vigilant about conducting list maintenance, the number of so-called duplicate names can easily grow. The State of Michigan has a very good system which we used as a model for judging what was possible under this requirement. As I understand it, under the Michigan system, when a voter changes his or her address, the address change is entered into the system, and it automatically notifies both jurisdictions simultaneously. This results in an automatic update which precludes the possibility of duplicate registration. Moreover, while the compromise does not require it, many States will make this computerized list available to local officials at the polling place on election day. This tool can then be used to immediately verify registration information at the polling place, without the frustration of dialing into a toll-free number that always rings busy. Let me also address an issue that has been raised by local election officials. Some local officials are concerned that they will lose the ability to effectively manage their voter rolls if the primary responsibility for input and list maintenance is shifted to the State. This requirement does not specify who is responsible for the daily maintenance of the list--that is left to each State to decide as it best sees fit. However, in order to have an interactive statewide list, a central authority must have the ultimate responsibility for establishing such a computerized system. That responsibility falls clearly to the chief State election official. This proposal envisions close cooperation and consultation with local election officials who are interacting with new voters every day. Several States have already begun implementing such systems or have been running such systems for years. The Council of State Governments notes that the States of Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan have particularly good models for other States to follow. To further guard against potential fraud, the third requirement also establishes new verification procedures for first-time voters who register by mail. 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. The compromise does not specify any particular type of acceptable photo identification. Clearly, a driver's license, a student ID, or a work ID that has a photograph of the individual would be sufficient. If the voter does not have any of these forms of identification, he or she must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, following the procedures outlined in the second requirement of the compromise under Section 102. In the case of a voter who registers by mail and votes absentee for the first time in the jurisdiction, the voter must include a copy of one of these pieces of identification with their absentee ballot. It is important to note that it is the voter, and not the State or local election official, who determines which piece of identification is presented for the purposes of casting a provisional ballot. A first-time voter may avoid producing identification at the polling place or including it with an absentee ballot by mailing in a copy of any of the listed pieces of identification with his or her voter registration card. Additionally, as added by the amendment of the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, adopted last evening, the voter may choose to submit his or her driver's license number or the last four digits of his or her Social Security number which the State can then match against an existing database to see if the number submitted match the name, address, and number in the state file. In the event that a first-time mail-registrant voter cannot produce the required identification, he or she may cast a provisional ballot if voting in person. In the case of a mail-in ballot, if the required identification verification information is not included, the ballot will nonetheless be counted as a provisional ballot. This is an important and common sense change to the compromise which preserves the anti-fraud provisions while at the same time providing voters with more options for verifying their identity while increasing the flexibility of State and local administrators to verify such identity. Either way, it will be easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. I am greatly appreciative to all of my colleagues, and their staff, for working so diligently to achieve this modification. The compromise also preserves the existing exemptions under the Motor-Voter 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: one, entitled to vote by absentee ballot under section 1973ff-1 of title 42 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; two, 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 three, entitled to vote otherwise than in-person under any other Federal law. There is no question about the intent to this Senator. The exemptions under Motor-Voter are preserved under this compromise. There is no attempt to change current law with respect to preserving the long- standing practice of States permitting eligible uniform service voters and eligible American overseas voters to continue to vote by absentee ballot without this first-time voters requirement attaching. Similarly, there is no attempt to change current law with respect to preserving the States' practice of permitting disabled voters and senior voters to continue to vote by absentee ballot without this first-time voter requirement attaching. According to GAO, ``All states provide for one or more alternative voting methods or accommodations that may facilitate voting by people with disabilities whose assigned polling places are inaccessible.'' For example, all States have provisions allowing voters with disabilities to vote absentee without requiring notary or medical certification requirements, although the procedures for absentee voting vary among States. The GAO State survey demonstrates that all States permit absentee voting for voters with disabilities. There is no intent to change the underlying law for any of these covered individuals since covered individuals are not subject to the requirements for first-time voters under Section 103. Finally, the compromise adds two new questions to the mail-in registration form under the Motor-Voter law. These questions are designed to assist voters in determining whether or not they are eligible to register to vote in the first place and thus reduce the number of ineligible applications. When a non-citizen fills out a voter registration form while waiting to renew a driver's license, or a 16 year-old high school senior applies to vote along with his or her classmates during the voter registration drive at the high school, it does not mean that these individuals are attempting to defraud the system. They may actually be very civic-minded individuals who are just misinformed about whether or not they are eligible to register. These two additional questions will help alert such voters to the fact that they are not yet eligible to vote. First, the mail-in registration card must include the question with a box for checking ``yes'' or ``no'': ``Are you a citizen of the United States of America?'' Second, the mail-in registration card must include the question with a box for indicating ``yes'' or ``no'': ``Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?'' If a voter answers ``no'' to either question, the registration card must instruct the voter not to fill out the form. There has been an issue raised with regard to those States that allow for early registration and the impact of this provision on that. However, this bill only applies to Federal elections and a voter must be 18 years of age to vote in a Federal election. This requirement does not affect State law with regard to the minimum age for registration. To the extent that guidelines are required to implement the statewide computerized voter list requirement or the first-time voter provision, the Department of Justice, or the new commission if it has been constituted, must issue these guidelines by October 1, 2003. As with any such law, enforcement of the three requirements in Title I will fall to the Department of Justice, and the rights and remedies established under this bill are in addition to all others provided by law. Title II of the measure before us contains three grant programs to assist states in meeting the minimum Federal requirements and to fund other election reform initiatives. From the beginning of this debate it has been clear to this Senator that the Federal Government has not lived up to its responsibility to ensure adequate funding for the administration of Federal elections. The fundamental principle of this bipartisan compromise is that if the Federal Government is going to establish minimum requirements for the conduct of Federal elections, then we must provide the resources to State and local governments to meet those requirements. Of equal importance is the principle that there should not be a one- size-fits-all approach to meeting the Federal minimum requirements. Consequently, the compromise provides broad latitude to States and localities on how they meet the minimum requirements and what specific activities they fund with the Federal grants. The first grant program authorizes $3 billion over 4 years for grants to State and local governments to be used to meet the three minimum Federal requirements of the bill. The only limitation on the use of these funds is that they be used to ``implement'' these requirements. The compromise envisions that implementation activities may vary widely both between States and across jurisdictions within a State. Clearly, funds may be used to purchase new voting systems or enhance or modify existing ones. Obviously, specific grant approvals will necessarily have to be made by the Department of Justice or the new Election Administration Commission once it becomes effective, in light of the overall funding requests. However, it is the intent of this Senator that States and localities be given broad latitude in making the case that the reforms they seek to fund are in direct support of the implementation of these requirements. For example, a State may decide to upgrade an entire State from a lever voting system to an electronic system in order to meet the accessibility standard for the disabled. Clearly, the purchase of a new, statewide system would be an authorized activity used to implement the voting system standards of the first minimum requirement. But to meet the same requirement, another State might use these funds to lease one DRE machine for each polling place. That would be equally allowable and in compliance with this compromise. Similarly, if some jurisdictions within a State use a central count punch card system, funds may be used to implement the voter education program required to notify voters of the effect of an over-vote, while other jurisdictions within that same State might use the funds to purchase precinct-based optical scan systems. If a State or jurisdiction appears to already meet the requirements of the bill, but wishes to upgrade old equipment to newer models or add improvements to ensure that it will continue to be in compliance, such would also be an allowable use of funding. The compromise also authorizes retroactive payments for those jurisdictions which incurred expenses on or after January 1, 2001 for costs that would otherwise have been incurred to implement the minimum requirements. An amendment offered by Senators Chafee and Reed, which was adopted by the Senator, clarifies that multi-year contract for the purchase of voting systems can also qualify for retroactive payments. There is no matching requirement for these grants. If we are going to require that States and localities meet certain minimum Federal standards with regard to Federal elections, then we should provide them with the Federal resources to do so. The requirements of the grant application process are designed specifically to allow both States and localities to apply for funds without creating either overlapping funding or inconsistencies within States. To apply for funds to implement the requirements, States must submit an application to the attorney general with a State plan. The State plan contains four basic components. First, a description of how the state will use the funds to meet the three minimum requirements, including a description of how State and local election officials will ensure the accuracy of voter registration lists; and the precautions the State will take to prevent eligible voters from being removed from the list. Second, an assessment of the susceptibility of Federal elections in the State to voting fraud and a description of how the State intends to address such. Third, assurances that the State will comply with existing Federal laws, specifically: Voting Rights Act; Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; National Voter Registration Act (or Motor-Voter); and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Fourth, and finally, the State plan must include a timetable for meeting the elements of the plan. In order to ensure the broadest support for the State plan, it must be developed in consultation with State and local election officials and made available for public review and comment prior to submission with any grant application. In addition to the State plan, each application must include a statement of how the State will use the Federal funds to implement the State plan. Localities may also submit a separate application for funds, but the use of funds must be consistent with the State plan. The application must also contain any additional information required by the attorney general or the new commission once it is effective. Grant recipients must keep such records as the attorney general determines and, as is usually the case for Federal grant programs, any grant recipient may be audited by the attorney general or comptroller general. Grantees may be required to submit reports, and the attorney general must report to Congress and the President annually on the activities funded under this program. One of the goals of this legislation is to encourage states and localities to move forward with election reform initiatives and apply for Federal grants, even before the effective dates established for meeting those requirements. This is reflected in the larger appropriations in the early years and the fact that the appropriations remain available until expended. This is one of the provisions of the committee-reported bill which has been retained in the compromise. The requirements under this compromise are so simple and so self-explanatory, that we do not believe that complicated guidelines, much less full-blown regulations, are going to be necessary to implement the requirements. Consequently, the original bill, and this compromise, encourages States and localities to move expeditiously by essentially providing for a grandfathering of early action. The compromise allows jurisdictions that apply for Federal grants prior to the issuance of any guidelines or standards to nonetheless receive funding to implement the requirements of the bill. If the attorney general approves the grant, then that approval acts as a determination that the State plan, and the activities in the State plan which will be funded with the grant, are deemed to otherwise comply with the minimum requirements of the bill. However, in encouraging quick action we did not want to deter State and local governments, much less penalize them if the early action they took turns out to be somehow inconsistent with subsequently issued guidelines. The most obvious instance in which this might occur would be with regard to the voting system standards and the not-yet-issued voting system error rate. In order to avoid placing a State or locality at risk of non- compliance, the compromise essentially grandfathers the action that the State takes pursuant to an approved State plan and grant application and provides a safe harbor from enforcement actions on that basis. Without such a provision, the Federal Government might end up literally funding a State or locality twice for essentially the same reform--once when the State took early action and a second time when any subsequent guidelines or standards were finally issued. Moreover, in promoting early action, the safe harbor provision attempts to give jurisdictions a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with any subsequently issued guidelines or standards by extending the grandfather period to 2010, except for the requirements for disability access. Although the effective dates for most of the requirements are 2004 and 2006, this additional time period provided by the grandfather provision will minimize the otherwise disruptive effect to both voters and election officials of repeated changes to systems and procedures. It will also provide those States poised to act with the assurance that the decision to take early action will not end up in an enforcement action. With regard to the disability accessibility standard under the voting system requirement, because the bill provides for a specific compliance mechanism in the requirement of one DRE machine in every polling place, it was believed that the extended safe harbor period was unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the disabled community. Consequently, in taking early action jurisdictions will still have to meet the disability access standards by 2006. Similarly, with this same goal of encouraging States to take early action, the compromise creates a second incentive grant program designed to fund other election reform initiatives not necessarily funded under the requirements grant program. The incentive grant program authorizes $400 million in this fiscal year to fund such activities as: poll worker and volunteer training; voter education; same-day registration procedures; procedures to deter and investigate voting fraud; improvements to voting systems; and action to bring the jurisdiction into compliance with existing civil rights laws. The compromise also establishes a program to recruit and train college students to serve as poll workers. The incentive grant programs has a matching requirement of 80 percent Federal to 20 percent State or local funding. The attorney general, however, can reduce the 20 percent matching requirement for States or localities that lack resources. Although grants cannot be used to implement reforms that are inconsistent with the minimum Federal requirements, these grants can be used to take interim action to bring voting systems into compliance. As with the requirements grant program, early action under the incentive grant program to implement the three minimum requirements is similarly grandfathered to 2010, with the exception of the disability requirements. To apply for incentive grant funds, a State or locality submits an application to the attorney general or the new commission upon its enactment. Patterned after the requirements of the legislation introduced by Senators McConnell and Schumer as S. 953, applications for incentive grant funds must contain a specific showing that the jurisdiction is in compliance with a number of existing civil rights laws, including: Voting Rights Act; Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; National Voter Registration Act; Americans with Disabilities Act; and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Before a grant application can be approved, the assistant attorney general for civil rights must certify that the jurisdiction is either in compliance, or has demonstrated that it will be using the grant funds to come into compliance, with these laws. Entities which receive funds to come into compliance with these laws are subject to audit. The purpose of this provision is not to penalize or place in jeopardy those jurisdictions which are attempting to overcome compliance issues. Instead, it is intended to provide a source of funds for States or localities to address compliance issues under existing civil rights laws before facing the effective dates for minimum Federal standards under this new civil rights law. To ensure that jurisdictions are not penalized by this process, the compromise prohibits action being brought against a State or local government on the basis of any information contained in the application. In order to ensure that these funds are available this year, the attorney general must establish any general policies or criteria for the application process so that grant applications can be approved no later than October 1, 2002. The final grant program contained in Title II of the compromise provides funds to make polling places physically accessible to the disabled. GAO found that 84 percent of all polling places in the United States are not physically accessible from the parking area to the voting room. Moreover, not one of the 496 polling places visited by GAO on election day 2000 had voting equipment adapted for blind voters. This is a modest grant program which authorizes $100 million beginning in fiscal year 2002, with such funds to remain available until expended. States or localities may use these funds to ensure accessibility of polling places, including entrances, exits, paths of travel and voting areas of the polling facility. Funds may also be used for education and outreach programs for those with disabilities to inform voters about the accessibility of polling places. Education programs to train election officials, poll workers and volunteers on how best to promote access and participation of individuals with disabilities can also be funded under this program. This grant program will also be administered initially by the Department of Justice, and then by new Election Administration Commission. However, the general policies and criteria for the approval of applications for the accessibility grant program will be established by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, also known as the Access Board, which was established under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is uniquely qualified to determine what physical modifications would be appropriate to make polling facilities accessible to disabled voters. The Board must establish such policies in time to ensure that applications can be approved by October 1, 2002. Grants under the accessibility grant program are funded at an 80 percent Federal share, although the Attorney General can provide a greater share to jurisdictions which lack resources. Grantees must keep appropriate records and are subject to audit. The final title of the compromise establishes a new independent agency within the executive branch for administering the three grant programs and providing on-going assistance to State and local governments in the administration of Federal elections. The Election Administration Commission will be composed of four members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To reflect the need for a continuing nonpartisan approach to election administration, no more than two commissioners may be members of the same political party. In recognition of the national significance of these appointments and to ensure the broadest bipartisan support for the President's nominees, the four respective leaders of the House and Senate, including the Speaker and the House Minority Leader and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, shall each submit a candidate recommendation to the President before the initial appointment of nominees and prior to the appointment of a vacancy. The qualifications for appointment to the new commission reflect the desire to create a diverse and experienced commission that will bring more to the job than just experience in election administration or loyalty and service to a particular party. We would hope to also attract scholars and historians who appreciate and understand the broadest experience of voters of all backgrounds, abilities, and party affiliations. It would be this Senator's hope that we would attract candidates who have an appreciation of the fundamental importance of the citizen vote to a democracy and are committed to ensuring both the inclusiveness and the integrity of Federal elections. Specifically, commissioners are to be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and experience with election law, election technology, and Federal, State or local election administration, as well as their knowledge of the Constitution and the history of the United States. Appropriately, a commissioner at the time of appointment cannot be an elected or appointed officer or employee of the Federal Government. Unlike the House bill, this is a permanent, full-time commission. Consequently, commissioners cannot engage in any other business or employment while serving on the commission. To ensure that the best talent that America has to offer will be continually reflected in appointees, we limit each commissioner to one 6-year term. Similarly, to ensure the broadest participation in the work of the commission, the compromise provides that a chair and vice- chair must be of different parties and serve for a term of 1 year, and an individual may serve as chair only twice during his or her 6-year term. The duties of the commission reflect the fundamental approach of this compromise--that of forming a partnership between the Federal Government and State and local election officials. The purpose of this bill is not to replace or minimize the authority or responsibilities of State and local election officials in administering Federal elections. It is, however, an attempt to provide leadership at the Federal level, in the form of both financial resources and minimum Federal requirements, to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory participation in those elections. Consequently, the duties of the commission augment, but do not replace, those of State and local election officials. The commission can best be viewed as a resource for election officials rather than as a regulatory or enforcement body. Primarily, the commission shall serve as a clearinghouse on Federal election administration and technology by gathering information, conducting studies and issuing reports on Federal elections. What became evident in the Rules Committee hearings and discussions with election officials across this Nation was the apparent lack of unbiased information regarding election technology. Today, the primary source of information about the efficiency and effectiveness of voting systems and machines is often the manufacturer of the voting system or its vendor. The commission can provide a much needed role as an unbiased clearinghouse for technology assessments. The compromise envisions that the current authority of the office of election administration, at the Federal Election Commission, to develop voluntary voting system standards would continue once this office is transferred to the new commission. While the compromise does not mandate what types of machines must be used in Federal elections, the fact that it establishes minimum requirements for voting systems, specifically acceptable error rates, necessitates that procedures for testing and assessing voting technology will be required. Such would be an appropriate activity for the new commission. To ensure that the commission has the best advice on technical and accessibility matters as it develops standards, the compromise directs the commission to consult with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Compliance Board in developing the standards. The commission will also serve an important role in communicating information regarding Federal elections to the public and the media. Specifically, the compromise provides that the commission compile and make available to the public the official results of elections for Federal office and statistics regarding national voter registration and turnout. The compromise also requires that the commission establish an Internet website to facilitate public access, comment, and participation in the activities of the commission. The compromise does not go as far as the Carter-Ford Commission recommended in this regard. As my colleagues may remember, the Carter- Ford Commission recommended that `` . . . news organizations should not project any presidential election results in any State so long as polls remain open elsewhere in the 48 contiguous States . . .'' and that Congress should consider appropriate legislation, consistent with the first amendment to encourage the media to withhold early results. While the commission is in no way intended to replace the appropriate role of responsible media in informing the public of the outcome of Federal elections, the 2000 presidential election highlighted the need for a national clearinghouse for election results. Over time, the new commission may come to be accepted as the most authoritative source of election results. The commission will conduct on-going studies regarding election technology and administration in addition to other subjects impacting Federal elections. Over the course of the last year, a number of excellent election reform proposals have been made that simply require more study and review before they can be enacted. Specifically, the commission is charged with making periodic studies of the following: election technology, including both over-vote and under-vote notification capabilities of such technology; ballots designs for Federal elections; methods of ensuring accessibility to all voters; nationwide statistics on voting fraud in Federal elections and methods of identifying, deterring and investigating any such corruption; methods of voter intimidation; the recruitment and training of poll workers; the feasibility of conducting elections on different days, or for extended hours, including the advisability of establishing a uniform poll closing time or a federal holiday; Internet voting; Media reporting of election related information; Overseas voters issues; ways in which the Federal Government can assist in the administration of Federal elections; and any other matters which the commission deems appropriate. The commission will be providing reports and recommendations for administrative and legislative action. Through the oversight process, I would anticipate that the Rules Committee will be reviewing those recommendations and acting to bring additional reform proposals to the floor in subsequent Congresses. In addition to the study and clearinghouse authorities, the commission is empowered to hold hearings, take testimony, and administer such oaths as are necessary to carry out its responsibilities. However, since the commission is not an enforcement agency, it does not have the authority to issue subpoenas. Most importantly, the commission will ultimately assume the ongoing responsibility for administering the three minimum Federal requirements and the three grant programs under the bill. But so as not to discourage immediate election reform or delay the flow of Federal funds to support reform, the compromise does not tie the effective dates of the minimum requirements and the grant programs to the establishment of the commission. The compromise attempts to expedite the appointment of the commissioners by requiring that the President act within ninety days of the date of enactment. As Chairman of the Rules Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over such nominations, it is my intent to move expeditiously to consider the nominations if they occur this year. But realistically, the President may require additional time to appoint nominees and the committee cannot act until those nominations are made. Because the compromise requires the commission to appoint both the executive director and the general counsel by majority vote, even once confirmed, it will take some time for the commissioners to create a new agency and hire staff to administer over three billion dollars in grant programs. Consequently, the compromise initially places the administration of both the Federal minimum requirements and the three grant programs at the Department of Justice and provides for a transition of most, but not all, of those authorities to the new commission upon its establishment. Specifically, the compromise transfers to the commission the authority to issue standards or guidelines for the three minimum Federal requirements, to issue policies and criteria for the three grant programs, and to approve by majority vote all grant applications. The Department of Justice retains the authority to approve State plans submitted under the requirements grant program and the certification authority under the incentive grant program. In order to ensure that the transfer of authority does not impede the continuity of the requirements or the expeditious review of grant applications, the compromise sets specific dates by which the commission must act to overturn or modify any action of the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice has issued standards or guidelines pursuant to the Federal minimum requirements, the commission must act by majority vote within 30 days of the transition date to either affirm that action or to issue revised standards or guidelines. If the Department of Justice has not acted as of the transition date, then the commission must act by majority vote by the later of the effective date provided for in Title I or within 30 days of the transition date. Similarly, if the Department of Justice has issued policies and criteria for the approval of grant applications, the commission must act by majority vote within thirty days of the transition date to either affirm or modify such. If the Department of Justice has not acted, the commission must similarly issue policies and criteria by the later of the date specified in Title II or within 30 days of the transition date. The compromise defines the effective date of the transition as the earlier of sixty days after all of the commissioners have been appointed, or the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of the act. While the compromise attempts to coordinate the transition dates for transfer of responsibilities to the new agency with a reasonable time frame for appointing and confirming commissioners, it remains the prerogative of the President as to when he appoints and the will of the Senate as to when it confirms. And until those two actions occur, the commission will exist in name only and the Department of Justice will be left to administer the act. In addition to assuming certain authorities of the Department of Justice under the bill, the new Election Administration Commission will also assume certain functions of the Federal Election Commission. First, all functions of the director of the Office of Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission are transferred to the new commission. Beginning on the transition date, the director of the Office of Election Administration is named as the interim executive director of the new commission and serves until an executive director is appointed by a majority vote of the commission. The executive director is appointed for a term of 6 years and may be reappointed by majority vote of the commission for a second term. Second, all functions of the Federal Election Commission under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the so-called Motor-Voter Act, are transferred to the new Election Administration Commission. Section 9 of the act provides that the Federal Election Commission shall prescribe appropriate regulations necessary to carry out the act with respect to developing a mail voter registration application form for Federal elections and submit reports. The compromise also provides for the transfer of Federal Election Commission personnel employed in connection with the offices and functions which are transferred by the act. Finally, Title IV of the compromise clarifies the relationship of this bill to other existing civil rights laws, and makes improvements in voting procedures for members of the military. With respect to criminal penalties, this compromise includes two provisions that track existing laws and do not constitute new law. Both provisions merely are restatements of the existing underlying laws and do not alter the specific intent element described in sections 401(a) or 401(b) of this compromise. In the amendment which I offered and was adopted by the Senate, I inserted the existing specific intent of ``knowingly and willfully'' and ``knowingly'' in the respective provisions to ensure that those standards are the explicit legal standards of review for section 1973(i)(c) of title 42 and section 1015 of title 18 and therefore are the same standards to be applied under this act. The first provision recognizes that the criminal penalties established under the National Voter Registration Act, specifically section 1973(i)(c) of title 42 and means in plain language that it is unlawful for any individual who knowingly and willfully gives false information as to his or her name, address, or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his or her eligibility to register or vote in an election for Federal office, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his or her false registration to vote in an election for Federal office. The second provision clarifies that any individual who commits fraud or makes a false statement with regard to citizenship, such as in the context of the new citizenship question on registration forms as provided for under section 103 of the compromise, is in violation of section 1015 of title 18 and means in plain language that it is unlawful for any individual who knowingly makes a false statement relating to naturalization, citizenship or registry of aliens, for the purpose of establishing his or her eligibility to register or vote in an election for Federal office. With regard to the effect of the bill on existing civil rights laws, the compromise is specifically not intended to impair any right guaranteed, nor require any conduct which is prohibited under the various civil rights laws, nor are the provisions of the compromise intended to supercede, restrict, or limit such other laws, including: Voting Rights Act; Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; National Voter Registration Act of 1993; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This Senator intents that nothing in this compromise should be interpreted in any manner other than to protect and preserve any and all rights guaranteed by these existing civil rights and voting laws. For example, the approval of the Attorney General of any state plan under the provisions of the requirements grant in Title II of the compromise, or any other action taken by the Attorney General or a state under the grant programs in Title II, specifically shall not have any effect on requirements for pre-clearance under section five of the Voting Rights Act. We do not profess to have all the answers or even the best solution for reforming our system of Federal elections. But we do present a compromise that reflects an incremental step, but not a sea change, in the role of the Federal Government in our Nation's system of Federal elections. This compromise has been developed with a true sense of the historical importance of the work and a fundamental belief that only a bipartisan effort will be acceptable to the American people. Let me address a final concern--and that is the constitutional question of whether this bipartisan legislation is on its face, constitutional. In the opinion of this Senator, this compromise is entirely consistent with the scope of Congress's authority to enact statutes regulating Federal elections. According to the GAO study on the scope of congressional authority in election administration, Congress has constitutional authority over both congressional and Presidential elections. This report concludes that there is a role for both the State and the Federal Government. States are responsible for the administration of Federal, State and local elections. But, notwithstanding the traditional State role in elections, Congress has the authority to affect the administration of elections in certain ways. While the Constitution does not explicitly provide the right to vote, many amendments to the Constitution protect the right to vote. Congress has previously acted under this explicit grant of constitutional power to protect the voting rights of eligible Americans. Congress passed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. More recently, Congress enacted federal legislation to remove barriers to voting for persons with disabilities, facilitate voting by those in the military and Americans living overseas, and standardize voter registration procedures under the Motor-Voter legislation. When Congress enacted these Federal statutes, Congress legislated in the subject matter of election administration in such areas as voting rights, voter registration, absentee voting requirements, timing of Federal elections, and accessibility for elderly and disabled voters. Similarly, Congress also legislated to enforce prohibitions against specific discriminatory practices in all elections, including Federal, State, and local elections. Congress's scope of power is derived from a number of constitutional sources, including the 15th amendment's prohibition on voting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; the 19th amendment's prohibition on the basis of sex; and the 26th amendment's prohibition on the basis of age. These three amendments do not grant the right to vote, but all three prohibit States from denying the franchise to individuals who are racial or ethnic minorities, women, or citizens aged 18 or older. The Carter-Ford Task Force on Constitutional Law and Federal Election Law also concluded that Congress has great power to regulate elections. The task force makes the point that the Constitution grants to Congress broad power to directly regulate Congressional elections, less power to directly regulate Presidential elections, and less power still to directly regulate state and local elections. But as a practical matter, Congress has great power to collaterally regulate all elections through its power over the ``time, place and manner'' of Congressional elections and through its power to determine how Federal funds are made available to States for expenditures. That same authority derives from its enforcement powers of constitutional safeguards, such as the equal protection clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Opponents of this legislation might argue that it goes too far by providing Federal requirements in the areas of voting system standards, provisional voting and statewide voter registration lists. This Senator does not believe that will prove to be the case. While the precise parameters of Congressional authority in election administration relating to presidential elections are unsettled and have not been clearly established, the Supreme Court has recently recognized that certain measures protecting voting rights are within Congress's power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, despite administrative burdens placed on the States. In Bush v. Gore which was decided following the November 2000 Presidential election, the Supreme Court held that differing definitions of a vote within the state of Florida during the recount violated the equal protection clause and were therefore unconstitutional. The enforcement powers from the 14th amendment alone provide adequate support for all three of the minimum Federal requirements in the bipartisan compromise bill. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore suggests that there may be a compelling governmental interest and constitutional authority for Congress to act in light of extensive evidence that African American or Asian American voters, for example, are being treated unequally with respect to their right to vote. It should also be noted that while we take a different approach, the Carter-Ford Commission's recommendations also include voting system standards, provisional voting and a statewide voter registration system. Many other commissions and study groups also consistently recommended provisional voting. We believe that the Constitution provides ample authority for these minimum Federal requirements and all the other provisions in this bipartisan compromise. Except in one instance, this legislation applies only to elections for Federal office, putting this urgently needed legislation beyond constitutional dispute. I applaud the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for his commitment to make this measure a priority of this session of Congress and for his unfailing commitment to bring it to the floor for debate. I also commend the distinguished Republican Leader, Senator Lott, for his assistance in facilitating consideration of this bipartisan compromise. Our distinguished colleagues in the House, Chairman Bob Ney and Congressman Steny Hoyer of the House Administration Committee have already shepherded a bipartisan reform proposal through that body. The differences between the approach in the House and our bipartisan compromise are not irreconcilable. Both recognize that there are minimum standards that every voting system should meet. Both bills strive to ensure the greatest possible access to the polling place for disabled Americans and the blind. Both bills ensure that all eligible voters may cast a vote and have that vote counted. Both bills establish a new Federal agency to provide on- going support to State and local governments. And both approaches provide significant resources to the States and localities to underwrite the Federal share of administering Federal elections. Not insignificantly, President Bush has also indicated his support for providing assistance to the States for election reform. Included in his fiscal year 2003 budget submission is a request for $1.2 billion over the next three fiscal years, including $400 million for fiscal year 2003, to fund an election reform initiative. There appears to be a uniform desire in both houses of Congress to see that the Federal Government meets its obligation to be a partner with State and local election officials in the conduct of Federal elections. But time is running short and state budgets are growing thin. It is time for the Senate to enact election reform. It is time for the Senate to meet with the House to produce a bipartisan bill that is worthy of the signature of the President and the support of all the American people, regardless of color or class, gender or age, disability or native language, and party or precinct. As this debate draws to a close, it is appropriate to recognize the significant contributions of both individuals and organizations which have provided input and expertise to the committee, and to me personally, in the course of this legislative matter. I have already expressed my gratitude to my colleagues on and off the committee and to my distinguished coauthor in the House, Congressman John Conyers, and to many other House Members who truly have made this effort their cause. As we all know, no such effort can be undertaken without the considerable effort of our staff. In addition to those already mentioned, I want to thank Sheryl Cohen, Marvin Fast, Alex Swartsel and Tom Lenard of my personal staff, and two former Rules Committee staff members, Candace Chin and Laura Roubicek. We have also received considerable assistance from the support offices of the Senate, including from James Fransen and Jim Scott in the Office of Legislative Counsel and from attorneys and analysts at the Congressional Research Service including Kevin Coleman, Eric Fischer, L. Paige Whitaker, and Judith Fraizer, and finally from the Government Accounting Office. The list of organizations which have provided invaluable assistance to this effort over the last 18 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 inadvertently leaving someone out, I want to recognize and thank the following organizations which have provided their expertise to this effort: American Association of People With Disabilities; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; 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; Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund; National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.; National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Ford Commission); National Association of Secretaries of State; National Association of State Election Directors; National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; National Congress of American Indians; National Conference of State Legislatures; National Council of La Raza; National Federation of the Blind; Paralyzed Veterans of America; People for the American Way; Public Citizen; U.S. PIRG. It is the fervent view of this Senator that at the end of this historic process, the Senate 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 in the United States. My thanks to all who have been involved. I urge the adoption of this bill and yield back whatever time remains on this side.

Mr. DODD. Almost 4 minutes. Mr. President, why don't I yield myself 5 minutes, and then the Senator from Kentucky may want to speak for 1 minute, and then we will just move on to the amendments. Mr. President, first of all, I explained the order of the votes that will occur. I express my thanks to Senator Daschle and his staff and to Senator Lott and his staff. I know I probably tried the patience of all the staffs of both sides over the last number of weeks as we moved this product forward to get to the point where we are today. I would not want to leave this debate without expressing publicly my sincere gratitude to both the Democratic and Republican floor staffs and the cloakroom staffs for their expression of patience--I say that diplomatically--over the last number of weeks. Secondly, I express my gratitude to my colleagues in the other body who have worked very hard on this as well. John Conyers from Michigan is my principal co-author, if you will, of this proposal on the House side, along with my colleagues here, although Congressman Ney and Congressman Hoyer also have a very important bill they passed in the House, and we will be working with them. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Silvestre Reyes, the respective heads of the Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus, as well as friends from the AFL-CIO, worked hard on this. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights--I will have printed in the Record the respective members of the Leadership Conference; it is a lengthy list--but I express my gratitude to them as well for their efforts. I join my colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell, in expressing our gratitude to the members of our committee, Senator Schumer and Senator Torricelli, who worked diligently to bring us to this point. I also want to join the Ranking Member in thanking our colleagues who are not part of the committee. I say to Senator Bond, I really meant what I said last evening. I think--I say to my colleague through the Chair-- but for the provisions you added, which are the antifraud provisions, I think this bill would be a far weaker bill, and I am not sure we would even have gotten a bill. So while not a member of the Rules Committee, I know Senator McConnell and I are deeply appreciative of your contribution to this effort. Senator Wyden and Senator Cantwell worked through the Oregon and Washington issue with their respective colleagues. Gordon Smith was very concerned about this; Patty Murray as well. We thank them for their efforts. The staffs of our respective offices--Shawn Maher, Kennie Gill and Ronnie Gilliespie, and Carole Blessington, Sue Wright, and Jennifer Cusick who supported them as well--I thank them for their work. I also thank Tam Somerville, Brian Lewis, and Leon Sequeira of Senator McConnell's staff; Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's staff; Sharon Levin and Polly Trottenberg of Senator Schumer's staff; Sara Wills of Senator Torricelli's staff; Carol Grunberg of Senator Wyden's staff; and Beth Stein of Senator Cantwell's staff. I thank them for their terrific work. If I have left anyone out, I will add their names before the Record is closed today. I said this before, but Senator McConnell and I are of different political parties. We share the distinction of having gone to the same law school. We represent the alumni association of the University of Louisville. We share that point in common. I wish to tell him how much I appreciate his efforts. I know he has a lot of things going on. He has had a huge battle on campaign finance reform that occurred in the middle of all of this. The fact that he and his staff would find time to help us work through this election reform bill is something for which I will always be grateful to him. I know I was hounding him. I know I bothered Brian and Jack and others to get this done. And they showed patience, as well, to me and my staff. I am really grateful to them for their help on that. Lastly--it has been said by others--I know we have a lot of important bills we deal with. We have the energy bill we are considering. We have appropriations bills. And we are dealing with homeland security and terrorism issues. I do not minimize at all the importance of that. But this bill goes beyond any specific current issue--it goes to the heart of who and what we are as Americans. Aside from the obvious results of the 2000 elections which provoked, I suppose, this discussion and this bill-- this effort is not about addressing a single issue or event. We are dealing with the underlying structure of our very Government. Patrick Henry once said that: The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. The idea that by this legislation we make it easier to vote in this country and more difficult to scam the system is not an insignificant contribution. It may not get the notoriety of other provisions, but the fact that we are proposing to spend $3.5 billion of taxpayer money on our elections system to allow States to improve equipment, to allow people who are disabled, blind to be able to cast a ballot in private and independently--the idea that we are going to have statewide voter registration lists, provisional balloting, these are major, major changes in the law. In addition this bill provides for the establishment of the independent commission on elections, as well as, of course, the antifraud provisions. I have been proud of a lot of things with which I have been involved in my 22 years. Nothing exceeds the sense of pride I have this morning, as we close out the debate, on this bill and this Senate accomplishment.

Mr. DODD. How much on the Republican side?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As the Senator has indicated, the managers' amendment includes a provision to ensure that each state will be guaranteed a minimum of one half of one percent of the grant money available under the act, which is approximately $17.5 million dollars over five years. I am glad this act will help address the concerns of small, rural States like Wyoming, and I look forward to working with the Senator form Wyoming to address any further concerns or questions he may have on to how this act will impact rural states. Deterring Voter Fraud and Promoting Voter Participation

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his question. The grants to be awarded to states under this act would include construction of these types of infrastructure improvements, and are intended to include things like disabled parking spaces, sidewalks, ramps, and similar access ways.

Mr. DODD. Yes, I certainly agree with the Senator from California. We do not want to disenfranchise anyone, accidentally or otherwise, who is eligible to vote, and we need to address the unique set of circumstances surrounding our fellow citizens who have chosen not to live in one particular location, but rather to travel year round across our great nation. The right to vote of all full-time RVers needs to be safeguarded. Certainly this is an issue the Commission could study.

Mr. DODD. As the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, I am pleased to reassure the Senator from Arkansas that State and local election officials would not have to place an interactive computer containing voter registration information at each polling place to meet the requirements of this legislation. As my colleague from Arkansas indicated, States could met this particular requirement if they had an interactive computer containing the States' voter registration list at each county clerk's office. I and others who crafted this language were aware that polling places in Arkansas and in many other States lack phone service and therefore it would be impractical to set up a computer network or the like at each polling location during every Federal election.

Mr. DODD. I agree with Senator Cantwell that very serious concerns remain about voting by internet. As she knows, this legislation specifically requests that the new organization, the Election Administration Commission, study internet voting. I am looking forward to seeing what it learns. However, I hope very much that States will think very carefully before moving to internet voting, and will make sure that the security concerns are fully addressed. That said, the Senator is correct that nothing in this bill prohibits states from implementing voting on a remote electronic system like the internet, as long as the system is certified by the new Election Administration Commission, and complies with the other standards in the legislation. I agree with the Senator that it is important to welcome the development of new election technologies and it was my intent, and my cosponsors' intent to provide the states as much flexibility as possible to accommodate innovation while still implementing necessary minimum standards that will ensure that all our citizens' right to vote is protected.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from California. electronic voting

Mr. DODD. I share the Senator from California's interest in moving forward with such a study as soon as is possible.

Mr. DODD. I say to my friend from California that I did consider including a provision to that effect in the bill. We looked into the ramifications such a provision would have and, with time running short, ultimately concluded that there were too many variables and that we simply did not have enough information to include it as a requirement in the bill. We did, however, instruct the Election Administration Committee--the new election oversight body created by the bill--to conduct a study on conducting elections on different days, at different places, and during different hours, including the possibility of creating an election day holiday.

Mr. DODD. I agree with the Senator from California, and I would tell her that is the idea behind the entire legislation. We want to make sure that all eligible voters have an opportunity to cast their ballot and have it counted fairly and accurately.

Mr. DODD. I certainly agree with my good friend from California, and hope that this bill will help achieve that goal by improving accessibility, offering ballot materials in alternative languages and by addressing some of the things that can make the voting process intimidating or confusing.

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.

Mr. DODD. I would agree with the Senator from Vermont. In mine and my staff's review of different States' election procedures, Vermont's system of affidavit voting would satisfy the provisional balloting requirements of this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. For the information of Members, at the conclusion of that, depending on the time left of my friend from Kentucky, we will close debate, and there will be a vote on the Roberts amendment, then a vote on the Clinton amendment, and then a vote on final passage. That is how this will play out over the next 45 minutes or an hour. So with that, let me turn to my colleague from Oregon and thank him and the Senator from New York for their tremendous support and tireless effort on behalf of this piece of legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3107, previously agreed to, be modified with the technical correction that I now send to the desk.