Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2010

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation of the transitional government have created new political realities and realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The United States and other international stakeholders can seize those opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims to promote such a dynamic approach.

We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of voting.

I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.

And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for politically motivated violence.

At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. policy options.

With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in the transitional government have resisted any moves that would undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has changed in Zimbabwe.

Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic recovery.

I respect those who are cautious about changing the international posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those possibilities.

The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that are in violation of the GPA.

The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all landowners.

In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have demonstrated a commitment to reform.

Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous policies.

ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions against specific individuals and financial institutions that are directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it urges the

Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that process.

Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin engaging with international partners now toward developing such a strategy.

International actions alone will not determine whether real and lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach.

Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological developments have changed the way people manage everything from their bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can also give voters more power to control their involvement in the electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the security and integrity of elections.

As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now time to take that proven success to the national level.

An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail. In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996. That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.

Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines, malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide, Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70 percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections. The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle, meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by mail.

The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.

The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to Vote by Mail.

Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it easier for voters to participate in elections.

Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in 2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost- effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail replaced polling place elections.

One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower- profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.

Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter- intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day-- Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems, fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.

Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud. If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found, the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail was first adopted in Oregon.

Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, parts of the county

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.

It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in America.

I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots while having their privacy ensured.

That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.

I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.

Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well- suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration simply makes sense.

Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense, but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation costs.

I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail, including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry, Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause, the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.

I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an important step in that direction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objeciton, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological developments have changed the way people manage everything from their bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can also give voters more power to control their involvement in the electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the security and integrity of elections.

As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now time to take that proven success to the national level.

An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail. In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996. That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.

Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines, malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide, Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70 percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections. The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle, meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by mail.

The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.

The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to Vote by Mail.

Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it easier for voters to participate in elections.

Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in 2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost- effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail replaced polling place elections.

One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower- profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.

Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter- intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day-- Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems, fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.

Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud. If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found, the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail was first adopted in Oregon.

Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, parts of the county

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.

It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in America.

I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots while having their privacy ensured.

That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.

I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.

Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well- suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration simply makes sense.

Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense, but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation costs.

I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail, including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry, Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause, the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.

I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an important step in that direction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.