[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S797-S830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 565, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 565) to establish the Commission on Voting 
     Rights and Procedures to study and make recommendations 
     regarding election technology, voting, and election 
     administration, to establish a grant program under which the 
     Office of Justice Programs and the Civil Rights Division of 
     the Department of Justice shall provide assistance to States 
     and localities in improving election technology and the 
     administration of Federal elections, to require States to 
     meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and 
     administration requirements for the 2004 Federal elections, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to offer one shortly.
  Mr. President, as Senator Dodd mentioned, he managed the bill that 
allowed us to send the campaign finance reform bill to the other body. 
I spent a lot of time with him on the floor during that period of time. 
I have to say, as I said after that debate and vote took place, it was 
a masterful display of managing legislation.
  As a result, a bill was sent over there that I think they had to 
accept. I say publicly that I look forward to the bill coming back over 
here. I know that with the guidance of the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, Senator Dodd, we will pass the legislation. There may be 
some efforts to slow it down, but this is a steamroller.
  I must say that that steam was generated over here in this Chamber. 
There were many efforts to weaken or kill this legislation. I have to 
give credit to Senator Dodd for managing it at that time.
  Also present today is the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend, someone 
who has lived campaign reform legislation. I can't say enough about the 
moral aspect of this legislation. I remind people here that, in 1998, 
Senator Feingold was behind in his reelection efforts in Wisconsin. 
Everyone told him that he likely could win that election if he would 
allow the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to come to the State 
of Wisconsin and put money in that State and spend money on soft money 
issue ads. Senator Feingold is not an independently wealthy man. He, of 
course, is a fine lawyer, with a great educational background. But he 
had nothing else to fall back on. He could not just go to a bank 
account and write big checks. He stared his morality in the face during 
that short period of time and said, ``No, I don't want that money. I 
would rather lose the election than depend on something that I don't 
believe in.''

  I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, not only did he not take the 
soft money, he won the election. Not only did he win the election, he 
came back with added vigor to work on this campaign finance bill. So I 
extend to the Senator the congratulations of the people of the State of 
Nevada, and the people of this country, for being a person who stands 
for what we all believe in, and that is good government. I think every 
person in the U.S. Senate believes in good government. But it is not 
often that a book is written that will stand the test of time in the 
sense of the morality the Senator lends to this issue. I am very 
grateful to the Senator from Wisconsin for what he has done on this 
legislation.


                           Amendment No. 2879

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S798]]


       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2879.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment is dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To secure the Federal voting rights of certain qualified 
                persons who have served their sentences)

       At the end, add the following:

                      TITLE V--CIVIC PARTICIPATION

     SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of 
     citizenship and regaining the right to vote reintegrates 
     offenders into free society. The right to vote may not be 
     abridged or denied by the United States or by any State on 
     account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of 
     servitude. Basic constitutional principles of fairness and 
     equal protection require an equal opportunity for United 
     States citizens to vote in Federal elections.
       (2) Congress has ultimate supervisory power over Federal 
     elections, an authority that has repeatedly been upheld by 
     the Supreme Court.
       (3) Although State laws determine the qualifications for 
     voting in Federal elections, Congress must ensure that those 
     laws are in accordance with the Constitution. Currently, 
     those laws vary throughout the Nation, resulting in 
     discrepancies regarding which citizens may vote in Federal 
     elections.
       (4) An estimated 3,900,000 individuals in the United 
     States, or 1 in 50 adults, currently cannot vote as a result 
     of a felony conviction. Women represent about 500,000 of 
     those 3,900,000.
       (5) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact 
     ethnic minorities.
       (6) Fourteen States disenfranchise ex-offenders who have 
     fully served their sentences, regardless of the nature or 
     seriousness of the offense.
       (7) In those States that disenfranchise ex-offenders who 
     have fully served their sentences, the right to vote can be 
     regained in theory, but in practice this possibility is often 
     illusory.
       (8) In 8 States, a pardon or order from the Governor is 
     required for an ex-offender to regain the right to vote. In 2 
     States, ex-offenders must obtain action by the parole or 
     pardon board to regain that right.
       (9) Offenders convicted of a Federal offense often have 
     additional barriers to regaining voting rights. In at least 
     16 States, Federal ex-offenders cannot use the State 
     procedure for restoring their voting rights. The only method 
     provided by Federal law for restoring voting rights to ex-
     offenders is a Presidential pardon.
       (10) Few persons who seek to have their right to vote 
     restored have the financial and political resources needed to 
     succeed.
       (11) Thirteen percent of the African-American adult male 
     population, or 1,400,000 African-American men, are 
     disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 
     10 African-American men in the next generation will be 
     disenfranchised at some point during their lifetimes. 
     Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately 
     disenfranchised, since those citizens are disproportionately 
     represented in the criminal justice system.
       (12) The discrepancies described in this subsection should 
     be addressed by Congress, in the name of fundamental fairness 
     and equal protection.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to restore 
     fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-
     offenders who have fully served their sentences are not 
     denied the right to vote.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Correctional institution or facility.--The term 
     ``correctional institution or facility'' means any prison, 
     penitentiary, jail, or other institution or facility for the 
     confinement of individuals convicted of criminal offenses, 
     whether publicly or privately operated, except that such term 
     does not include any residential community treatment center 
     (or similar public or private facility).
       (2) Election.--The term ``election'' means--
       (A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
       (B) a convention or caucus of a political party held to 
     nominate a candidate;
       (C) a primary election held for the selection of delegates 
     to a national nominating convention of a political party; or
       (D) a primary election held for the expression of a 
     preference for the nomination of persons for election to the 
     office of President.
       (3) Federal office.--The term ``Federal office'' means the 
     office of President or Vice President, or of Senator or 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     Congress.
       (4) Parole.--The term ``parole'' means parole (including 
     mandatory parole), or conditional or supervised release 
     (including mandatory supervised release), imposed by a 
     Federal, State, or local court.
       (5) Probation.--The term ``probation'' means probation, 
     imposed by a Federal, State, or local court, with or without 
     a condition on the individual involved concerning--
       (A) the individual's freedom of movement;
       (B) the payment of damages by the individual;
       (C) periodic reporting by the individual to an officer of 
     the court; or
       (D) supervision of the individual by an officer of the 
     court.

     SEC. 503. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

       The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United 
     States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not 
     be denied or abridged because that individual has been 
     convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the 
     election, such individual--
       (1) is serving a felony sentence in a correctional 
     institution or facility; or
       (2) is on parole or probation for a felony offense.

     SEC. 504. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may bring a 
     civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain 
     such declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to 
     remedy a violation of this title.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) Notice.--A person who is aggrieved by a violation of 
     this title may provide written notice of the violation to the 
     chief election official of the State involved.
       (2) Action.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the 
     violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a 
     notice provided under paragraph (1), or within 20 days after 
     receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 120 
     days before the date of an election for Federal office, the 
     aggrieved person may bring a civil action in such a court to 
     obtain the declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to 
     the violation.
       (3) Action for violation shortly before a federal 
     election.--If the violation occurred within 30 days before 
     the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved 
     person shall not be required to provide notice to the chief 
     election official of the State under paragraph (1) before 
     bringing a civil action in such a court to obtain the 
     declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to the 
     violation.

     SEC. 505. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

       (a) No Prohibition on Less Restrictive Laws.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed to prohibit a State from 
     enacting any State law that affords the right to vote in any 
     election for Federal office on terms less restrictive than 
     those terms established by this title.
       (b) No Limitation on Other Laws.--The rights and remedies 
     established by this title shall be in addition to all other 
     rights and remedies provided by law, and shall not supersede, 
     restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) or the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.).

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before we turn to our colleague, I am going 
to propound a unanimous consent request.
  Let me pose this--I will not make the unanimous consent request so 
staff can check with Members--I would like to get time boiled down, if 
we can. I know my colleague from Nevada wants to accommodate this. I 
suggest 45 minutes equally divided. Why don't we try that? If Members 
believe they can do it in a half hour, that would be even better.
  We have a series of amendments, and the hope is--I will state it 
again--I have been told; I am not going to speak for the leader; I will 
let my colleague from Nevada speak for the leader or the leader can 
speak for himself--I am told if we can get this bill done this evening, 
there is a great possibility there will be no votes tomorrow and 
Members can head for their States. Particularly Western Senators who 
may have amendments, I urge you to offer your amendments so we can 
complete this bill today.
  With that, I turn to my colleague from Nevada to see if we can 
constrain time, and then the Senator from Wisconsin can speak.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I have moved on this 
legislation. We have been wanting to do this for a long time. I 
personally would like 20 minutes. I want to make sure Senator Specter, 
who has not spoken, has all the time he wants. I certainly cannot speak 
for Senator Specter. So I say to my friends, the two managers of the 
bill, I will be happy to agree to any time limitation, but I have to 
speak to Senator Specter before I do that.
  If it is in keeping with Senator McConnell's wishes, I yield to my 
friend from Wisconsin for a period of 5 minutes without losing my right 
to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wisconsin.


                    PASSAGE OF THE SHAYS-MEEHAN BILL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first in light of Senator Reid's 
comments about my personal financing, which were accurate, he is buying 
me dinner tonight. I thank him for the lovely remarks.
  Senator Dodd and Senator Reid were absolutely critical to the McCain-
Feingold bill getting through this body.

[[Page S799]]

 They were the two Senators out here every day during those 2 weeks 
doing an absolutely masterful job managing the bill. It was very 
tricky. I thank them again. We need your help one more time now that it 
is coming back to this body. I am grateful.
  As we know, in light of the papers and the comments this morning, 
early this morning the House of Representatives passed campaign finance 
reform. Thanks to the courageous leadership of Chris Shays, Marty 
Meehan, and Dick Gephardt, the House voted firmly in favor of reform. 
The House had to weather a great storm--a storm of lobbying that rained 
down from the opponents of reform.
  Frankly, they tried every trick in the book to kill the Shays-Meehan 
bill. They tried everything. Mr. President, you saw similar attempts in 
this House, and you helped us fight them every day.
  The proponents of reform tried to love Shays-Meehan to death, they 
tried to make Members swallow poison pill amendments, and when all else 
failed, they tried old-fashioned arm twisting to get supporters to back 
down. But reform supporters did not back down. Instead, they were 
courageous and they brought about a historic moment for campaign 
finance reform. This was the time in the House when, as we all know, it 
really counted. A lot of people said it would not happen because this 
time, as some said, they were shooting with real bullets. But the House 
came through, as they have done twice before.

  This really was--and I think many Americans feel this way--a soaring 
moment for democracy. Reform has now prevailed in both Houses of 
Congress. That is something for which all of us can be proud. With the 
passage of the Shays-Meehan bill in the House, both bodies have finally 
acknowledged the will of the American people, and that is that the 
campaign finance system must be reformed. But passage in the House, 
however great an achievement, does not quite get the bill to the finish 
line, as we know. We need to pass the Shays-Meehan bill in this body, 
and to do that, we need to receive the Shays-Meehan bill from the House 
of Representatives.
  It sounds like a mechanical thing, Mr. President, but as you may 
recall, we had a little problem in this House with the McCain-Feingold 
bill being sent over to the House after it was passed. A majority in 
this body is eager to take up Shays-Meehan, but we cannot pass the bill 
until we have it in hand.
  I urge the House to send the legislation to us today without delay. 
We cannot get this bill to the President's desk unless we can take it 
up and pass the legislation in this body. I urge the House to send us 
the bill so we can get it to the President for his signature.
  I also add--and I am grateful for this--I welcome the President's 
remarks yesterday morning through his spokesperson that the Shays-
Meehan bill would ``make progress and improve the system.'' That is 
what the President's spokesman said. The President seeks a bill that 
improves the system, and that is exactly what our bill does. I am 
pleased and delighted the President has signaled his support for our 
legislation which will finally end the corrupt soft money system once 
and for all.
  I, of course, look forward to working with my friend and partner on 
this, John McCain, to pass Shays-Meehan in this body and send it to the 
President. The American people will be watching, as they watched us 
last year and as they watched the House this week. They want to know 
whether we can finally do what is right. Can we finally close the door 
on the soft money system that leaves us so vulnerable to an appearance 
of corruption? Can we finally say together as legislators, as 
representatives of our people, the soft money system simply is not 
worth the risk?
  It is time for us to show that we can live up to our role as stewards 
of this cherished democracy. We have the power to seize this moment for 
reform, and I really believe we will. We have had a decisive victory 
this week, just as we had a decisive victory last year in the Senate. 
Now we have to get this legislation across the finish line so we can 
ban soft money and begin to restore the people's faith in us and the 
work we do.
  I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues to do that. I 
am grateful for the time. I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from New York has indicated he 
wishes to speak. I will yield to Senator Schumer from New York for a 
period up to 5 minutes without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada for 
yielding. I first wish to give kudos and accolades to my friend from 
Wisconsin for the great job he has done on this issue. It took a 
particular kind of strength, a particular kind of courage to get this 
to happen, and he did. He had all of that, and he did. I salute him. 
The Nation salutes him this morning as we saw what happened on the 
floor of the House late last night.
  I salute my House colleagues, not only, of course, Mr. Shays and Mr. 
Meehan and their band, and not only Minority Leader Gephardt, but also 
the new whip, Nancy Pelosi, did a great job in making this happen.
  I wish to make two other points. First, is this a cure-all? No. But 
does it get rid of something that has grown like Topsy and has made the 
system far worse than what was envisioned when it passed in 1974? 
Absolutely. To not move forward would have been a mistake.
  I join my colleague from Wisconsin in urging that the House send us 
the bill quickly and that we pass the bill quickly without further 
debate in the Senate. We all know how this bill has a unique and 
peculiar way of getting bogged down, for some reasons stated and some 
unstated. To send the House bill back to us and then we pass it is the 
way to proceed.
  We are really close. We are on the 1-yard line. It has been a long 
game, and we can declare victory if the House sends us the bill and we 
just pass it.
  I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 2879

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I recognize the work of Senators Dodd and 
McConnell, and others. Certainly they are the ones who run this 
committee and are responsible for bringing forward the legislation that 
is before the Senate and for crafting bipartisan legislation.
  The most fundamental premise of democracy--and that is one of the 
reasons we have this legislation before the Senate--is that every vote 
counts.
  The reality is that votes cast in wealthier parts of the country 
frequently count more than votes cast in poorer areas because wealthier 
districts have better, more accurate, more modern, and less error-prone 
counting machines than poorer precincts and districts. One can see in 
looking at a State, those counties within a State that have more money 
have more resources; they have better voting machines, more modern 
voting machines. The same is true in Nevada.
  Reality was thrust upon us, of course, during the 2000 Presidential 
election after which many Americans justly questioned the 
trustworthiness of our Nation's electoral process. But even though 
Florida was beaten up very badly, if that same light had been shone on 
other States, the same problems would have been seen, as far as I am 
concerned.
  In the last election I was involved in Washoe County, which is the 
second most populous county in the State of Nevada, a very good, well-
intentioned worker in the county in the election department thought she 
would save a little money and print their own ballots. They did that 
and saved some money. They did not go to the professional, the same 
company that sold them the voting machines.
  Well, come election time, some of the votes were not counted. They 
were off one-sixteenth of an inch or less, but the voting machine would 
not pick up that paper. So thousands of votes had to be hand counted 
once, twice, sometimes three times.
  In that same county, I can remember very clearly, it was a close 
election. I

[[Page S800]]

had won the election, and I get a call a week or two after the 
election--there is a recount going on. They found 3,000 ballots they 
had not counted. When the election is going to be decided by a few 
hundred votes, that gets your attention.
  The attention was focused on Florida, but it could have happened, I 
believe, in any of the 50 States. Florida may not have handled what 
they came up with very well after the fact, but I think we have to be 
considerate and understand that election problems have been around in 
this country for a long time. What this legislation will do is allow 
more fair elections, and I think that is so important.
  The United States is the oldest democracy in the world, but we can do 
better. We are an imperfect nation as I have said hundreds of times, 
imperfect but the best country, with the best of rules, by this little 
Constitution, best set of rules ever devised to rule the affairs of men 
and women.
  The bipartisan legislation that Senators Dodd and McConnell have 
crafted, while unable to address every single issue and every single 
problem that was exposed in 2000, takes a giant step in that direction. 
So I support the efforts of my colleagues from Connecticut and Kentucky 
and look forward to swift passage of this legislation, hopefully today.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk, and I am pleased to recognize 
that this is bipartisan legislation--I am very honored Senator Specter 
has joined with me in this legislation--and this is an issue that has 
not received the attention it deserves. Basically what this amendment 
does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their 
sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, 
should not be denied their right to vote.
  When I am doing my morning run, I always listen to public radio. On 
public radio this morning, they had something called Heart to Heart. It 
is Valentine's Day and they had examples of different organizations 
doing nice things for people. I listened to these two law students, two 
women, who were counseling and trying to teach women who were in prison 
about the law. They went through the Constitution and taught about the 
First Amendment rights and such things. Interestingly, during that 
interview I heard this morning, the women said the one thing they 
wanted to talk about and the one thing that bothered them so much is 
they did not know they would not be able to vote when they got out of 
prison, and they focused on that. That means so much to an American to 
be able to vote.

  We do not have the voter turnout that we should have, but still it is 
a right that must be protected.
  My parents were uneducated. They knew how important it was to vote. I 
can remember my mother especially, there would be somebody on the 
ballot and she would say: I know him; Glen Jones.
  But she did not know Glen Jones. She had met Glen Jones at some 
political rally. But I thought she knew Glen Jones and she thought she 
knew Glen Jones. He was sheriff of Clark County.
  Mr. President, I want to tell my colleagues . . . how I became 
involved in this issue. Some will say there are a lot more important 
things to do, and maybe that is true. In Las Vegas, we have a radio 
station KCEP, in a predominantly, African American part of Las Vegas. I 
went there 1 day to spend an hour taking phone calls, and I made a very 
brief statement. I took my first call and a woman said:

       My brother committed a crime when he was a teenager. He 
     completed his probation and he is now a man in his fifties 
     and he cannot vote. He has never done anything wrong in his 
     life other than when he was a teenager. But, he cannot vote. 
     He supports his family. He pays his taxes. Why should he not 
     be able to vote?

  And that one phone call started for an hour people calling in saying: 
Senator Reid, can't you do something about that? They would give 
example after example.
  I could give scores of examples. I cannot remember everybody who 
called me on that radio station, but I have an e-mail that was sent to 
me that perhaps illustrates what these radio callers were talking 
about.

       Dear Senator Reid: I heard on the news this morning that 
     you are working on some legislation regarding the voting 
     rights of convicted felons. I have a felony conviction from 
     the sixties. I did my time, learned my lesson, and have been 
     a responsible citizen since then. I moved to Las Vegas in 
     1982 and have lived here since that time. I have been 
     employed all that time. I currently make over $60,000 per 
     year. I own two houses in Las Vegas and 40 acres of land in 
     Utah. I pay my fair share of taxes, both local and Federal, 
     and yet I have no say in my government. I suppose I could 
     hire a lawyer and try to get my civil rights back, but it is 
     very confusing. I would first have to petition California 
     where the offenses occurred, and then petition Nevada.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator Reid: I heard on the news this morning that 
     you are working on some legislation regarding the voting 
     rights of convicted felons. I have a felony conviction from 
     the sixties. I did my time, learned my lesson, and have been 
     a responsible citizen since then. I moved to Las Vegas in 
     1982 and have lived here since that time. I have been 
     employed all that time, currently I gross over $60,000 per 
     year. I own two houses in Las Vegas and forty acres of land 
     in Utah. I pay my fair share of taxes, both local and federal 
     and yet I have no say in my government.
       I suppose I could hire a lawyer and try to get my civil 
     rights back. But it's very confusing. I would first have to 
     petition California where the offenses occurred and then 
     petition Nevada.
       I registered here when I first came to Nevada and got my 
     ex-felon card. I also registered to vote. In California I was 
     allowed to vote and I though it would be the same here. I did 
     vote for over ten years here and then a few years ago out of 
     the blue I received notice that I no longer could vote. I was 
     devastated. First off I could not see where it even made 
     sense, I was a working property owner who payed taxes and 
     obeyed the laws. (In the past thirty years I have two traffic 
     tickets and that's all). I still feel that I should have the 
     right to vote. I hope that you can accomplish something that 
     will allow me to have some say about the future of this great 
     country.
       I feel that it is not only the right of every American to 
     vote. It is also their duty.
       Thank you
                                         Melvin Douglas Miner, Jr.

  Mr. REID. He closes by saying he has paid all his taxes and obeyed 
all the laws. The past 30 years he had two traffic tickets which he 
paid. He still believes he should have the right to vote. He says:

       I hope that you can accomplish something that will allow me 
     to have some say about the future of this great country. I 
     feel that it is not only the right of every American to vote, 
     it is also their duty.

  My constituent's name is Melvin Douglas Miner, Jr., and he is not 
embarrassed by the fact he has done this. He is rendering a service to 
the people of this country by allowing me to use his letter to me.
  There are examples after examples. A man came to me who is almost 80 
years old, a successful businessman in Las Vegas, with tears in his 
eyes, and said: I am going to close up my business and turn it over to 
my children.
  He said: I cannot vote. Every time the election time rolls around I 
make excuses to my children. I got married late in life. My children 
are asking me questions even today. I have been able to hide from them 
the fact that I do not vote is because I cannot vote. Could you do 
something about it?
  There are stories such as there all over. I don't condone people who 
commit felonies, but I recognize that when people pay their debt to 
society we should make them part of society. I am not saying the day a 
person gets out of prison they should be able to vote. But when he gets 
out of prison and has completed his parole and probation, let him vote.
  The right to vote in a democracy is the most basic right of 
citizenship. It is a right that may not be abridged or denied, by any 
State, race, color, gender, or position of servitude. It is a 
fundamental right. It is a glaring example of what our free society 
represents.
  Think about Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. 
Nelson Mandela as a young man spent his best years in prison. One would 
think for a man who spent 27 years in prison, many of those years in 
very squalid conditions, that the most important day of his life would 
have been walking out of that prison after 27 years, or maybe it was 
the day he became president of a post-apartheid South Africa. But that 
is not what he said. The great Nelson Mandela said the most important 
day of his life was the day he voted for the first time. Think about 
that.

[[Page S801]]

  Millions of people in America cannot vote. They have completed their 
debt to society. As elected officials who have been given the privilege 
to serve, we need to recognize the strength of a democracy depends on 
voluntary participation of its citizens. Low voter turnout is not 
something we should be proud of; certainly we should not compound that 
by having people who have fulfilled their debt to society not be 
allowed to vote.
  States have different rules as to when a person can vote if a person 
committed a felony. In 14 States, ex-felons who have served their 
sentence, including parole on probation, are denied a right to vote; 
the 36 other States have various rules. But it adds up to hundreds of 
thousands and millions of people. Fundamental fairness dictates this 
policy is wrong.
  The amendment that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have 
introduced today aims to correct this injustice. In these 14 States and 
other States, the process by which individuals who have fully served 
their sentences and wish to regain their right to vote is often 
difficult and cumbersome. Some may have to petition a board and get a 
pardon. For others, Governors can give them the right to vote. In some 
States, ex-felons who have completed their sentences must obtain a 
Presidential pardon. As every Member knows, very few people have the 
financial or political resources needed.
  This disproportionally affects ethnic minorities. According to the 
Sentencing Project, an estimated 13 percent of adult African Americans 
throughout the United States are unable to vote as a result of varying 
State disenfranchisement laws. The rate is, unbelievably, seven times 
the national average.
  In some States, the numbers are more extraordinary. In Florida and 
Alabama, more than 31 percent of all African American men are 
permanently barred from ever voting in those States again. In six other 
States, the percentage of African American men permanently 
disfranchised is over 20 percent. Given current rates of incarceration, 
the Sentencing Project estimates that up to 40 percent of African 
American men may permanently lose their right to vote.
  I want to make sure that not lost in this debate is the fact that 
criminal activity is wrong and must be punished and punished severely. 
I am for the death penalty. I introduced, in the State of Nevada, 
legislation that said if you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to 
life without possibility of parole, that is what it should mean. It 
should not mean a person gets out in 20 or 30 years. If a jury, with 
the approval of a judge, sentences somebody to life without the 
possibility of parole, that is what it should mean.
  I believe in strict enforcement of the law. However, I also believe a 
sentence is a sentence, and when a judge gives somebody 10 years and 
they get out in 5 years, after 5 years of parole and any probation time 
they should be able to be voters in the State of Nevada and the rest of 
this country. Sufficient and appropriate sentences should be imposed 
upon those who violate our laws. We should not, however, disenfranchise 
those who have fully completed their prescribed sentences.
  We have a saying in this country: If you do the crime, you have to do 
the time. I agree with that. But if you do the time, and do it 
completely, why should you have to do more time?
  I have a number of editorials, one from October 3, 2000, in the York 
Daily Record, ``Voting Rights Too long Denied''; Philadelphia Inquirer, 
September 21, ``A Vote for Fairness, Disenfranchising Ex-felons Was 
Unnecessary.'' I have an editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal, 
``Felons and Voting Rights, Extended 'Second-class Citizenship' Is 
Counterproductive.'' I ask unanimous consent these editorials be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the York Daily Record, Oct. 3, 2000]

                     Voting Rights Too Long Denied

       Pennsylvania last week plucked some feathers from a Jim 
     Crow-like law that denied the vote to a disproportionate 
     number of voting-age black men.
       Once common in the South, Jim Crow laws were designed to 
     deny blacks the vote. Jim Crow was a demeaning minstrel show 
     character, and it is in his dishonor the laws were named.
       Pennsylvania's rules denying recent ex-felons the vote may 
     not have been written with racial intentions, but it had that 
     effect. And because of that effect, the Philadelphia NAACP 
     successfully sued to have the law set aside.
       Commonwealth Court President Judge Joseph T. Doyle said he 
     found ``no rational basis'' for Pennsylvania's law. The 
     statute barred convicts from registering to vote for five 
     years after leaving prison with one major exception. Felons 
     who were registered before entering prison were allowed to 
     vote.
       Strangely, the law even allowed them to run for office 
     while still serving their sentence. Former Republican state 
     senator Bill Slocum, fresh from a federal pen and on house 
     arrest, is campaigning for his old job on ``work release'' 
     while still wearing an electronic monitoring device. Mr. 
     Slocum has not yet finished his term, and voters should cast 
     their ballots accordingly.
       But someone who has paid his debt to society should not be 
     stripped of a right of citizenship for five years, as was the 
     case in Pennsylvania.
       Judge Doyle was right to issue a temporary order allowing 
     ex-felons to register to vote in the upcoming election. The 
     law itself should be struck down, and other states have 
     statutes even more in need of change. Those with felony 
     records face a lifetime disenfranchisement in Florida, 
     Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New 
     Mexico and Wyoming--that's 2 percent of all Americans and 13 
     percent of adult black men.
       The nation's war on drugs has claimed a disproportionate 
     number of people of color. Based on current rates of 
     incarceration, 28.5 percent of black males will likely serve 
     time in a state or federal prison for a felony conviction, a 
     rate seven times than for whites.
       That doesn't mean African-Americans commit a 
     disproportionate number of crimes. It is necessary to look 
     beyond the surface statistics. Although blacks and whites 
     have about the same rate of drug use, for example, about a 
     third of those arrested for drug offenses are African-
     Americans. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted are black, 
     and their sentences are almost 50 percent longer than for 
     whites.
       Not being able to vote is among the least of the problems 
     in a system so fraught with injustice. But it needs to be 
     addressed.
       About 14 million African-Americans had lost their right to 
     vote because of felony convictions. But those statistics will 
     have to be adjusted downward now that 40,000 black 
     Pennsylvanians have regained their right to vote.
       State Attorney General Mike Fisher said he will not appeal 
     the court's decision. The newly enfranchised, as everyone 
     else, have until Oct. 10 to register to vote in the November 
     election.


                         it's easy to register

       If you didn't vote during the past two federal elections, 
     don't plan to vote on Nov. 4--unless you register to vote.
       It's easy to register, there's no fee; and you still have 
     time. But not much.
       Forms are available at the Voter Registration Office at 1 
     Marketway West, at post offices, municipal buildings, from 
     political activists and at libraries. Or pick up your phone 
     and call the Voter Registration office at 771-9604. They'll 
     mail a form to you.
       Just make sure the completed form reaches the Voter 
     Registration office by 4:30 p.m. Oct. 10. That's one week 
     from today.
                                  ____


            [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 21, 2000]

                          A Vote for Fairness


               disenfranchising ex-felons was unnecessary

       Goodness, what perils must lie in permitting convicted 
     felons to vote after their release from jail. After all, two-
     thirds of the 50 states limit or even ban felons for life 
     from the voting booth.
       Why, convicts might shed their prison blues and rush out to 
     the polls with all manner of wild ideas--like voting for any 
     candidate (should one ever appear) who opposes inhumane 
     prison conditions.
       Just imagine the deplorable state of democracy if the 
     nearly 4 million people banned from voting now were allowed 
     to fulfill this duty of citizenship, while rebuilding their 
     lives.
       Yeah, right
       Disenfranchising felons who served their time is purely a 
     punitive measure. It's surely no deterrent to crime, imagine 
     a thug declining to stick up a convenience store because it 
     might jeopardize his voting rights.
       One thing a voting ban might deter, though, is a 
     rehabilitated convict from feeling like part of the community 
     of the law-abiding and feeling a greater personal stake in 
     staying part of it.
       Yet tough-on-crime state lawmakers love to mix voting bans 
     in with their mandatory sentencing statutes and the like. The 
     35 states that prohibit former inmates from voting include 
     Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with Delaware among the 14 with 
     lifetime voting bans.
       Sadly, the message society conveys with such measure is 
     that we don't much believe in second chances, much less 
     redemption. That's why it's a relief--if likely temporary--to 
     see a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge talk some sense 
     on this subject.
       In a ruling filed Monday, Judge Joseph T. Doyle ruled 
     unconstitutional the 1995 Pennsylvania law that prohibits 
     convicted felons

[[Page S802]]

     from voting for five years after their release from jail.
       The ban had ``no rational basis,'' Judge Doyle wrote, since 
     it applied only to felons not registered to vote when jailed. 
     For now, the law is dead. And good riddance.
       While it might be irresistible for state Attorney General 
     Mike Fisher to appeal, or for Harrisburg lawmakers to attempt 
     constitutional repairs on the law, the best course would be 
     to let the ruling stand. And who knows? Other states might 
     follow that lead.
       That's the hope of the Philadelphia NAACP, which aided ex-
     felons suing over the Pennsylvania law. With African 
     Americans comprising a third of those disenfranchised, the 
     voting bans hit black communities especially hard.
       Losing the right to vote while behind bars is an entirely 
     reasonable punishment, since voting is one hallmark of 
     freedom in a democracy. Once convicts have done their time, 
     though, it's in society's interest that they resume the 
     habits of responsible citizenship--such as voting--as soon as 
     possible.
                                  ____


           [From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Apr. 13, 2001]

                        Felons and Voting Rights

       Few would expect to find a photograph of Nevada Sen. Harry 
     Reid in the dictionary of slang next to the phrase ``pretty 
     fly for a white guy.'' Thus, there was some laughter in the 
     audience as Sen. Reid introduced NAACP President Kewisi 
     Mufume to a new conference at the MGM Grand on Monday, 
     asserting, ``He and I are soul brothers.''
       Both gentlemen spoke of their ongoing efforts to restore 
     voting rights in federal elections to convicted felons after 
     they have served their sentences. Mr. Mfume said felon re-
     enfranchisement is currently one of the NAACP's top five 
     priorities. Sen. Reid said he was inspired to push for the 
     reform after a Las Vegas mother told Sen. Reid her son can't 
     vote because of a crime committed 30 years ago.
       The NAACP's involvement with this issue comes as no 
     surprise. Thanks to the drug war, a whopping percentage of 
     young black and Hispanic men will have some kind of serious 
     run-in with the law before they turn 30. The Sentencing 
     Project and Human Rights Watch reveals that 13 percent of all 
     African-American males are prohibited from voting.
       Even a nonviolent offense can cripple a person's ability to 
     participate in his or her own government for the rest of his 
     or her life--hardly an incentive for good citizenship or 
     involvement in the community.
       What is the justification for denying people who have paid 
     their debt to society the right to vote? After all, the 
     rights guaranteed by the Constitution are equal, inseparable 
     and take precedence over any subsequent enactments; they are 
     the highest law on the land. Would anyone assert a felon, 
     once released from prison and having successfully completed 
     parole or probation, has no right to attend a church or 
     temple--to exercise his freedom of religion--until those 
     specific rights are restored in writing by some executive 
     order? Of course not.
       Likewise, no one would consider barring former prisoners 
     from writing books or letters-to-the-editor after their 
     release pending issuance of some document formally 
     ``restoring'' this First Amendment right.
       This notion that Americans become second class citizens--
     some of their constitutional rights selectively and 
     permanently impaired--even after they have ``done their 
     time,'' is anathema in a free country, because it accustoms 
     us to a dangerous precedent under which government 
     bureaucrats are empowered to decide which rights shall be 
     ``restored,'' and when.
       If Sen. Reid and Mr. Mfume can succeed in restoring these 
     federal voting rights . . . more power to them.

  Mr. REID. As I am sure the manager of the bill knows well, the State 
of Connecticut recently voted to guarantee all ex-felons on probation 
the right to vote.
  Nonetheless, the amendment Senator Specter and I have crafted is 
narrow in scope. It does not extend voting rights to prisoners. Some 
States do that. I don't believe in that. It does not extend voting 
rights to ex-felons on parole, even though 18 States do that. It does 
not extend voting rights to ex-felons on probation, even though some 
States do that. This legislation simply restores the right to vote to 
those individuals who have completely served their sentences, including 
probation and parole.
  Finally, this legislation would only apply to Federal elections, but 
it would set an example for the rest of the States to follow what we do 
in Federal elections.
  Even though we have delegated to the States time, place, and 
authority, Congress has retained the ultimate authority with ample 
precedent to set qualifications for Federal elections. We did that with 
motor-voter registration and others.
  The revolutionary patriot, Thomas Paine, said: The right of voting 
for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are 
protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for 
slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he also 
has not a vote in the election of representatives in this case.
  We must do away with Thomas Paine's definition of slavery. People 
should be able to vote when they have done their time. When Mr. Miner 
of Las Vegas wrote to me about the fact that he could no longer vote 
even though he has been a model citizen for 30 years, I am sure he felt 
and still feels as did Thomas Paine. Those people who called me at KCEP 
radio, know in their heart that something is wrong. They and their 
relatives and friends have done their time. They have done enough. They 
should be able to vote.
  This bipartisan amendment, in many ways is similar to the bipartisan 
compromise reached by Senators Dodd and McConnell. It does not go as 
far as some people would like, but it is certainly a giant step in the 
right direction. I hope the Members of this Senate would rally around 
this amendment and allow it to become law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague 
from Nevada, this is an issue for the States, not the Federal 
Government. Voter qualification is generally a power the Constitution 
leaves within the prerogative of the States. The Constitution grants 
States broad power to determine voter qualification. It is highly 
doubtful that Congress has constitutional authority to pass legislation 
preempting the states with regard to this issue.

  The Ford/Carter Commission agrees with this assessment. The 
Commission concluded, ``we doubt that Congress has the constitutional 
power to legislate a federal prescription'' on States prohibiting 
felons from voting.
  In 1974 the Supreme Court held that convicted felons do not have a 
fundamental right to vote, and that excluding convicted felons from 
voting does not violate the Constitution. Federal courts have 
consistently dismissed lawsuits aimed at letting prisoners vote. One 
court even concluded that the facial validity of felon voting 
restrictions may be ``absolute.''
  Only two States do not impose restrictions on the voting rights of 
felons. In fourteen States, felons convicted of a crime may lose the 
right to vote for life. Congress should not interpose itself between 
the States and their people. As the Ford/Carter Commission said in 
their report:

       [W]e believe the question of whether felons should lose 
     their right to vote is one that requires a moral judgement by 
     the citizens of each state.

  This proposed amendment frankly, should fail on the merits. When a 
person is convicted of a felony, that person should lose their right to 
vote. Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to 
other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece.
  Voting is a privilege; a privilege properly exercised at the voting 
booth, not from a prison cell. States have a significant interest in 
reserving the vote for those who have abided by the social contract 
that forms the foundation of a representative democracy. We are talking 
about rapists, murderers, robbers, and even terrorists or spies. Do we 
want to see convicted terrorists who seek to destroy this country 
voting in elections? Do we want to see convicted spies who cause great 
damage to this country voting in elections? Do we want to see 
``jailhouse blocs'' banding together to oust sheriffs and government 
officials who are tough on crime?
  Those who break our laws should not have a voice in electing those 
who make and enforce our laws. Those who break our laws should not 
dilute the vote of law-abiding citizens. Fundamentally, Mr. President, 
as a former Governor yourself, this is a decision made in each State by 
the Governor, as to whether or not to restore the rights of convicted 
felons. But in any event, it seems to me a Federal prescription in this 
area, just as the Ford/Carter Commission concluded, is not appropriate. 
So I hope we will not seek to preempt this area of State law in the 
course of our action on election reform legislation.

  Mr. President, I know also Senator Sessions wishes to speak on this 
issue. I think he will be here shortly. I yield the floor and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S803]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from Kentucky 
is very typical of what happens in instances such as this. We have a 
situation where we have now 36 States that allow felons the right to 
vote in various but limited ways. I went over some of them. This 
legislation simply is to correct what I believe are some problems in 
the law.
  In Federal elections, people who have the same qualifications should 
be able to vote. As I have said, 36 States already allow ex-felons to 
vote.
  It is easy to talk about terrorists and rapists and all that. But the 
point is that people who are convicted of crimes serve time. Sometimes 
they serve a lifetime. Those people can't vote. Sometimes people serve 
30, 40 years. Sometimes they serve 10 years. Sometimes they are on 
parole for many years. Sometimes they are convicted and they never go 
to jail; they are on probation. Whatever the sentence, they should 
serve it completely. But when they have done so, these people should be 
able to vote.
  It is easy to incite people, saying this is so terrible. Thirty-six 
States allow ex-felons to vote right now. Is this such a wave-breaking 
issue?
  I think it would be a terrible shame if we sent a message to millions 
of people in America today--people such as Mr. Miner, who in the 1960s 
did something wrong, but has since been a good citizen. We have a lot 
of people who would be better citizens if they could vote.
  Categories of felons disenfranchised under State law--some States 
even allow people in prison who are felons the right to vote. That is 
the way it is today. Some States allow people to vote when they are on 
probation. Some States allow people to vote when they are on parole.
  I am not doing that. I am saying a person who has completed his 
sentence and has completed his probation and parole should be able to 
vote. So I think it is really out of line for my friend from Kentucky 
to raise all these irrelevant issues, suggesting this is some big new 
deal that is going to cause problems. My amendment will allow millions 
of people to vote who deserve to vote.
  It goes without saying that one reason this legislation has not been 
embraced much earlier is that some people are afraid--afraid of unfair 
and irrational statements made such as those by the Senator from 
Kentucky. But the fact is all these bad people who are sentenced and 
jailed shouldn't be able to vote. I said that. But let us not confuse 
the issue. Once somebody is out of prison and they have completely 
finished their parole and probation, let them vote. It's the right 
thing to do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on 
an issue of some importance, both as it relates to the traditional role 
between the States and the Federal Government and with regard to the 
constitutional role between the Federal and State governments, and then 
some personal insight into the idea that people who have been convicted 
of felonies in this country should be mandated the right to vote by the 
Federal Government in States that may not agree with that idea.
  Frankly, people who violate felony laws--this does not include 
juvenile crimes, it does not include traffic offenses, it doesn't 
include DUIs, and it doesn't include petty theft and small drug 
offenses. It deals with people who have felony convictions, many of 
whom have served time in jail. Historically, we have referred to those 
people as being outside the law or, in short, outlaws. All the way 
through the beginning of the United States of America, we have believed 
that a person who violates serious laws of a State or the Federal 
Government forfeits their right to participate in those activities of 
that government, that their judgement and character is such that they 
ought not to be making decisions on the most important issues facing 
our country. Virtually every State in this country takes that position 
to one degree or another.

  As a prosecutor for 15 years, I wonder about how those people I 
helped put in the slammer feel about me. I do not care about them 
voting on my election. Would it intimidate or discourage or diminish 
the ability of judges who run for election? Or would a prosecutor who 
runs for election in some way not be as aggressive? Would it be a 
concern to them? Would it allow votes to occur against a strong law-
and-order candidate that might not otherwise occur? I do not know.
  But, for a lot of reasons, our States have decided they do not want 
to give felons, people who have committed serious offenses in this 
Nation, the right to vote. That is a common practice in virtually every 
State in America where they have some restrictions on it.
  Sometimes what we do in this Chamber is argue about what we have the 
power to do. But the other question is, What ought we to do? I think 
this Congress, with this little debate we are having on this bill, 
ought not to step in and, with a big sledge hammer, smash something we 
have had from the beginning of this country's foundation--a set of 
election laws in every State in America--and change those laws. To just 
up and do that is disrespectful to them.
  At this very moment, in States throughout America, legislatures are 
discussing under what circumstances felons should or should not be 
allowed to vote. Some are allowing them to vote in any number of 
different ways, under certain circumstances, based on what crimes they 
may have committed, how long they served in jail, how long they have 
been out of jail, whether or not they seek a pardon and get it, whether 
or not they have been rearrested. Whatever they decide to do, it is 
going on in those legislatures.
  We have not had hearings, to my knowledge, on this subject.
  I am on the Judiciary Committee, which normally deals with those 
issues. We have not had hearings. We have not had anything but an 
amendment appear in this Chamber on this subject. It would be unwise 
for us to presume, after such a short debate, that we ought to just 
override the laws in every State in America. We should not do that out 
of respect for them.
  Most Americans are familiar with President Ford's and President 
Carter's work together on any number of issues--a Republican President 
and a Democratic President. They have had some discussion about these 
issues. They had a commission that dealt with voting issues. They 
concluded--I will quote from their report--``we doubt that Congress has 
the Constitutional power to legislate a federal prescription'' on 
States prohibiting felons from voting.
  In other words, they doubt that this Congress has the constitutional 
power--not a question of deference or propriety--to do this.
  That was a bipartisan commission with two of our elder statesmen for 
whom people in this country have great respect.
  The Supreme Court, in 1974, specifically held that felons do not have 
a fundamental right to vote and that excluding felons from voting does 
not violate the U.S. Constitution. That is clear law from the Supreme 
Court of the United States in 1974, and it has not been altered since.
  Another Federal court has even concluded that the facial validity of 
felon voting restrictions may be ``absolute.''
  So there may be one or two States that impose no restrictions on 
voting, but the overwhelming majority do. And they have given thought 
to it. Each State has different standards based on their moral 
evaluation, their legal evaluation, their public interest in what they 
think is important in their States. That is what I believe we should 
do. We should follow that.
  When we allow a brief moment of debate to alter State historic 
principles on issues of complexity such as this, we are really stepping 
beyond our bounds.
  I want to stay on the point a little bit about the propriety, about 
the deference, about the respect this Congress

[[Page S804]]

should give to States. Yes, there are certain steps we take when we 
believe it is in the overwhelming national interest--particularly when 
there is a need to have uniformity in rules and regulations--to pass 
some regulation for health or safety, such as for railroad width or 
whatever we decide to do. Those things are justified.
  But it ought not to come up with some last-minute vote without in-
depth hearings, without hearing from secretaries of States around the 
country, without hearing from State legislators who may have voted on 
it last month or may have voted on it last year and discussed these 
very issues and debated them within their States. And we come in now, 
and we are going to tell them: We do not care what you think. We do not 
care about your debates. We have not had debate here, but we are going 
to change our mind. We are going to change the law of America. And 
anybody who committed acts of murder, burglaries--whatever they did--
serious drug offenses, drug dealing, they can all vote now in America.
  I am not for that. Somebody else may be. That is a good matter to 
debate. The question is, Where should it be debated? I say it should be 
debated where it has always been debated: In the States of America. 
They have set the voting qualifications for our voters, except for 
certain major requirements that the Constitution places on them and 
Federal law requires. But this should not be an expansion now into this 
category of voting. I strongly oppose it. I think it is a big-time 
mistake. It is a rush job. It is disrespectful to the hundreds, 
thousands of State legislators who deal with these issues regularly.
  We have not had any serious suggestion, to my knowledge, that the 
voting process is being gummed up over this rule. It seems to be 
working well. Each State has its own system for identifying felons and 
informing them that they are not qualified to vote. To change that now 
on this bill would be a terrible step. It is something we would regret. 
If you believe President Ford and President Carter in the commission 
they established, it would be reversed by the Supreme Court of the 
United States as being unconstitutional.
  When we pass legislation in this Chamber, we have sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. If we have evidence that it is unconstitutional, we ought 
not to pass it on that basis, also. So as a matter of policy, respect, 
and constitutional law, it ought not to be voted for.
  Frankly, I do not think the American debate and American policy is 
going to be better informed if we have a bunch of felons in this 
process as opposed to them not being in this process. That is my 2 
cents' worth.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in 
support of legislation which has been offered by the Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Reid, and myself. Carefully and narrowly crafted, it would 
authorize ex-felons who have served any prison sentence--for 
misdemeanors as well--who have fully served their prison sentence, and 
any parole or probation, to have the right to vote in Federal 
elections.
  The statistics are that there are only 15 States, and the District of 
Columbia, that have a prohibition limiting all felons from voting. The 
balance of the 50 States have various provisions that allow ex-convicts 
to vote in a variety of circumstances. Four States--Utah, Vermont, 
Massachusetts, and Maine--even allow felons to vote while they are in 
prison; 14 States, and the District of Columbia, only prohibit felons 
from voting when in prison; 32 States prohibit felons from voting while 
on probation and/or on parole.
  This amendment would authorize ex-convicts who have fully paid their 
debt to society to vote in Federal elections, leaving the matter for 
State elections to be determined by the State.
  It is my view that this provision would aid ex-convicts in being 
reintegrated into society and would be a fair provision on the basic 
proposition that these people have fully paid their debt to society. I 
say this with some experience in the field, having been in the 
prosecution line for some 12 years--8 years as district attorney of 
Philadelphia, and 4 years before that as an assistant district 
attorney. In those positions--especially in my early days as an 
assistant district attorney--having had the opportunity to interview 
many individuals incarcerated in jail, the first job I received as 
chief of the appeals, pardons, and parole section of the Philadelphia 
district attorney's office was interviewing inmates who were under the 
death penalty, where an application had been made for commutation.
  Candidly, it was quite an experience to go to death row and talk to 
men and women who were under the death penalty--to talk about the 
offenses for which they had been convicted, talk about what they had 
done in prison, what they had done by way of trying to rehabilitate 
themselves, their reasons for believing they were worthy of having the 
judgment of sentence of death changed.
  In the prosecutor's office, it seemed to me that our criminal justice 
system was not directed in the most efficient way at protecting the 
public, and that would be to provide for life sentences for career 
criminals. If you found somebody who was a career criminal--by that, I 
mean someone convicted of three or more serious offenses--then they get 
a life sentence. If, on the other hand, you deal with everybody else 
who is going to be released from jail--and that would be especially 
juveniles, but anybody else who is released from jail and comes back 
into society--there, with the rates of recidivism, repeat offenders, 
society is at risk.
  It seemed to me--and I worked on this while being district attorney 
of Philadelphia, and since in the Senate--we needed to provide what I 
call realistic rehabilitation. By that, I mean literacy training and 
job training. If we had this division between career criminals, who 
commit about 70 percent of the crimes, and the other individuals who 
are going to be released into society, and made a real effort at 
rehabilitation with job training and literacy training so they can 
reenter the community, my professional judgment is that we could reduce 
violent crime in America by some 50 percent.
  I think giving an ex-convict who has paid his or her debt to society 
the right to vote would be of significant and material assistance to 
reintegrating that person into society. When somebody comes out of 
jail, it is obviously a tough line to make it on the outside, and there 
is a matter of self-worth. There is a matter of where the person stands 
in society, if society says to that individual, You have paid your 
debt; we want you to come back and be a law-abiding citizen, and one 
facet of recognition of your having paid your debt to society is that 
you are restored in your citizenship the right to vote.

  Some have said: What if you are dealing with a rapist? Or what if you 
are dealing with a terrorist? Or what if you are dealing with a 
murderer? What if you are dealing with somebody who has had a bad 
record of violence?
  The criminal justice system has evaluated that person. That person 
has gone through a trial, and that person has been adjudicated guilty. 
That is the verdict. Then there has been a sentence. Sometimes the 
sentence is the death penalty. We are seeing more and more people who 
have been sentenced to death or for long periods of imprisonment being 
exonerated through DNA tests.
  Whatever the procedure is, however the person has been adjudicated by 
the criminal justice system, once that person has served the sentence 
and is out of jail, once that person has served probation or parole, as 
far as the criminal justice system is concerned, that individual has 
paid his or her debt to society.
  Having paid the debt to society, which is the common parlance term, 
that individual owes nothing more to society. That person, I believe, 
ought to have the right to vote.
  The amendment has been crafted so that it covers only Federal 
elections, and I think that is a sensible distinction because the 
Congress of the United States controls voting procedures in Federal 
elections.

[[Page S805]]

  The election reform bill we have before us today is a very 
significant bill. It will address the concerns we had after the 
elections in the year 2000 when we had the question of the chads and 
what were people's intent to vote, and try to produce an electoral 
system which is calibrated and calculated to reflect the intent of the 
voters when they do vote.
  The bill also seeks to deal with widespread problems of fraud where 
some people vote in more than one polling place; some people are not 
entitled to vote. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, that 
was a particular problem I had. Philadelphia is a rough, tough city, 
probably challenged only by Chicago, IL--that might attract the 
attention of the Presiding Officer. Chicago and Philadelphia have had, 
I think, unique problems with voter fraud. As DA, I worked on that a 
great deal, and I am glad to see this bill seeks to address that 
problem.
  The amendment I am addressing has a specific focus on people who have 
paid their debt to society. It makes sense. I think they are entitled 
to vote, to have their civil rights restored, and it could be very 
significant in reintegrating that person into society, saying to that 
person: You have paid your debt; we recognize you as a law-abiding 
citizen; you have a duty to remain a law-abiding citizen; we will try 
to assist on the rehabilitation, try to avoid your repeating a crime, a 
recidivist, and this is reintegration into society.
  I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Nevada as being a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can from this place in the Chamber, I 
extend my appreciation to my friend from Pennsylvania and also 
recognize the fact that a good part of his professional life was spent 
putting people in jail. He was a very successful prosecutor who sent 
scores of people to prison for long periods of time.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may interrupt my distinguished colleague, scores is 
a vast understatement. We had 500 homicides a year in Philadelphia. We 
had some 30,000 cases a year. When I left the DA's position in January 
of 1974, I had 165 assistant DAs. We put people in jail in enormous 
numbers--robbers, rapists, murderers. I tried a good many of those 
cases myself, 4 years as an assistant DA. I was in the trial courts and 
appellate courts while DA. I prosecuted murder cases and rape cases.
  The problem of violence in America today is overwhelming. In a city 
like Philadelphia, it is an overwhelming problem. It is also an 
overwhelming problem in a city like Chicago. I know Las Vegas is a more 
law-abiding town, and Reno, NV.
  We have to tackle head on this problem of violent crime. I would like 
to see us address more of our attention between dividing career 
criminals, who commit 70 percent of the crimes, and throw away the 
book--they ought to be in jail for life; I wrote the armed career 
criminal bill which passed the Senate providing for life sentences for 
career criminals caught in possession of a firearm--and the balance of 
realistic rehabilitation, job training, literacy training, and 
recognizing them as citizens.
  I thank my colleague from Nevada for being the originator of this 
idea of giving them the right to vote, to help them be reintegrated.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, the 
reason I mentioned this, historically he is one of the prosecutors we 
know about in this country. I say that because the two sponsors of this 
legislation are not people who are soft on crime. I, personally, as I 
stated earlier today, when I was in the State legislature, introduced 
legislation to make life without the possibility of parole mean what it 
says; that if you are sentenced to life without the possibility of 
parole, that is what it should be.
  I want the record to be spread with the fact that Reid and Specter 
are for tough sentencing. We will do everything we can to put people in 
prison and jail who deserve to be in prison and jail. They should 
complete their sentences, but after that has been done and they have 
paid their debt to society, shouldn't they have the right to vote? That 
is what it is all about.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for those 
kind remarks. It surprised me. When I complimented him earlier, I did 
not know he was in the Chamber. I would have been just as effusive in 
my compliments, but to have him on the Republican side and to find him 
on the back bench is a surprise.
  I will be glad to work with Senator Reid on this amendment. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2858

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, we are now debating the issue of voting 
rights. Let's put it in perspective. Yesterday evening, an amendment 
offered by Senator Allard of Colorado, which I cosponsored, was 
adopted. It is a very good amendment. It improves and clarifies the 
laws surrounding voting by those who serve in the military.
  Senator Allard's amendment is certainly needed. We saw in the 2000 
election that some voters in our armed services were not able to 
participate or have their votes counted; in effect, not being able to 
vote for their prospective Commander in Chief.
  The issues we are discussing today are very important, but one of the 
more important improvements was addressing the needs of our military 
voters. These are people who honorably serve our country, and we want 
to make sure the votes they cast for their elected officials are 
counted. Indeed, their service to protect our freedoms should not 
diminish their rights to participate in representative democracy.
  Senator Allard's amendment is an effort to make sure those votes are 
cast. Some of the postmark problems make no sense when people are 
overseas and on ships. It also makes sure State and local jurisdictions 
are better informed of performing their important duties in 
administering elections fairly.
  All of this recognizes the important role of the localities and the 
States in making sure the elections are administered fairly and, 
indeed, making sure those who serve overseas can exercise their 
constitutional right to vote in Federal elections.
  Who does the Allard amendment apply to? It applies to over 2.7 
million members of the military and their families who are stationed 
away from their home today in service to the people and the principles 
of our Republic.
  Many of these men and women are residents of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, the birthplace of American liberty and indeed home of the 
first legislative body in the western hemisphere which was formed in 
1619, long before this body was formed.
  I was proud to lend my name and my voice to Senator Allard's 
amendment because it ensures that those who serve our country honorably 
and with distinction have their voices heard, not just in Virginia but 
in every State of the Union.
  We go from protecting those who honorably serve to a debate on this 
pending amendment, which advocates undesirable Federal meddling into 
the so-called voting rights of convicted felons. Indeed, throughout the 
Senate, our colleagues care about people across the spectrum of 
responsibility, from those citizens who are more responsible to even 
those who are less responsible.
  I refer my colleagues to an article recently published in the 
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star on February 5 of this year which deals 
with the issue of voting rights for felons in Virginia and has been 
mentioned by both its proponents and its opponents. The various States 
have differing approaches to the restoration of voting rights or any 
rights to those who have been convicted of felonies.
  Now I will say that in Virginia--before I get to this article--having 
been Governor of Virginia, I took the responsibility very seriously 
when reviewing the petitions of those who had been convicted of 
felonies. It struck me in a very interesting way. In the midst of a 
campaign, I was down in Buchanan County, which is far southwestern 
Virginia. It is on the Kentucky/West Virginia border. It is a coal 
county. I was campaigning early in my campaign for Governor at this 
country store called Pentley's, which, sadly, has since closed down. At 
any rate, I went in there shaking hands, handing out cards. It was such 
a memorable event in that Mrs. Pentley, the lady who ran the store, 
thought it was wonderful

[[Page S806]]

that a candidate for statewide office actually came to her store, in 
Buchanan County. She said: You are the most famous person who has come 
here since the guy who invented 10,000 flushes came here, because he 
was on TV and we did not have enough money at the time to be on TV.
  As I left that store all charged up because she put my little card 
up, there was a fellow leaning up against the drink machine where the 
ice is kept, and he said: I like you. You are a good guy.
  I said: Well, thank you. I hope you will vote for me.
  He said: Well, I cannot.
  I said: Well, why not? Are you not registered?
  No, I am not registered.
  I said: Why not?
  He said: I cannot get registered.
  I said: Of course you can. What is your excuse? What are you, a 
convicted felon?
  He said: Yes.
  I said: Okay. Well, talk to your friends and neighbors and folks you 
might influence.
  With this, I left and I told this story all around Virginia.
  Fortunately, I was elected by the good people of Virginia to serve as 
Governor, and I thought it was always important to take the Governor's 
office to the people, so I said: Let's go back to Pentley's Store and 
thank Mrs. Pentley for all her inspiration. Mrs. Pentley does not know 
how much I would talk about her.
  We were in an RV. As we got out of the RV--this was 2 or 3 years 
later--there was this same fellow who looked as if he had grown some 
teeth and had a nicer shirt, one that did not have a hole in it. He 
said: Do you remember me?
  I said: I sure do. I do remember you. You are looking good today.
  He said: I voted for you.
  When you win an election, everyone says they voted for you.
  I said: I do remember you. You told me you were a convicted felon. I 
know you could not have voted for me.
  He said: But I did.
  I said: What happened? Did Governor Wilder restore your voting 
rights?
  He said: Yes, he did, and I voted for you.
  That is a personal story about treating everyone with dignity and 
respect. Who would have known that Governor Wilder, who is not in the 
same party I am, would have restored this gentleman's right to vote 
before the election and he voted for me?
  In Virginia, I would look at these situations very seriously, not 
just because of this gentleman in Buchanan County but because those who 
petitioned me would talk about their sacred right to vote.
  Let's look at how Virginia is compared to other States. Virginia is 1 
of 10 States that permanently prevent--and this is according to the 
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg--ex-felons from 
voting. Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming are others. Maryland cuts it off for 
second-time felons. That does not mean their rights can never be 
restored. Their rights can be restored.
  In Virginia, this is not an issue of first impression. It is being 
debated now as it has been for many years. In fact, in 1982, in 
Virginia, there was a referendum asking voters to let the State 
legislature, rather than the Governor, restore the voting rights of 
felons. The people of Virginia voted on whether or not to ease this 
process, which I will say is fairly cumbersome and it failed by nearly 
300,000 votes.
  This amendment, if it were to become law, would abrogate the express 
will of the people of Virginia and also the will of many other States, 
whether it is by a referendum or by their elected State legislatures.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legislature recommended 
streamlining the petition process for nonviolent felons who did their 
time, finished probation, and waited another 5 years. It would have 
allowed the local circuit court to restore those rights, taking that 
burden off the Governor.
  Of course, many ex-felons did get their rights back. There is the 
record of my successor, he restored the rights of 210 people during his 
4-year term. That is less than half of what was restored during the 
previous three administrations. While I was Governor, I restored 459 
ex-felons' rights to vote.
  The understanding of who is best in a position to administer these 
laws and determine when ex-felons ought to have their rights restored, 
clearly lies with the States. This amendment, if passed, would preempt 
the States with regard to this important function.
  The Ford-Carter Commission agrees with this assessment. The 
Commission concluded: We doubt Congress has the constitutional power to 
legislate a Federal prescription on States prohibiting felons from 
voting.
  Virginia allows ex-felons to petition for restoration of voting 
rights 5 years after they have completed all of their probation or all 
of their parole. If they have been convicted of a drug offense, it is 7 
years, because there are people who not only commit crimes, but they 
repeat crimes. Also, if the offense is related to drugs, you want to 
make sure they are completely off their addiction to drugs.
  The things most Governors would look at, regardless of party, is what 
kind of life has the ex-felon led since serving their time? I would 
consider whether or not they were involved in wholesome community-based 
activities, or just leading the life of a law-abiding citizen and not 
committing any crimes.
  Governors will want to see what kind of a positive life the person 
has led since leaving prison. The petitioner would oftentimes write to 
me explaining why they wanted their rights restored. As Governor I 
considered that in my assessment of each individual case as well.
  Another thing missing from this amendment is the issue of restitution 
and court costs. I always looked at restitution and court costs in my 
assessment.
  In Virginia, I cared a great deal about restitution and court costs. 
With regard to some of these folks, you would say, well, these are not 
important crimes. But embezzlement, to the extent there can be 
restitution, that is usually ordered by a judge in sentencing. You 
would want to see if restitution has been made. You would want to see 
if they have paid back their court costs. If it were a robbery or a 
burglary, you would want to see if restitution has been made. There are 
certain situations where, as a condition of probation or suspension of 
a sentence, they want medical costs associated with the rape or 
malicious wounding to be paid.
  None of that is in this amendment. It is only probation and the 
parole. But restitution and the payment of court costs ought to be 
considered. At least I considered it as Governor.
  The reason why people want rights restored is interesting. Generally, 
there are three categories. One is they want to feel like a full-
fledged citizen again. They have led a good life. They want to be part 
of the community. Some of it was job-related. They have not had their 
rights restored. They wanted their kids to feel better about 
themselves.
  A second reason they want to vote is to participate in elections. The 
third reason, as often as the rest, is to go hunting. When you lose 
your rights, you lose your right to carry a firearm. I suppose you 
could throw rocks at deer, but usually people want a shotgun or a rifle 
to go deer or duck hunting.
  Now the Federal Government in this amendment is saying that the 
States will have to restore rights, notwithstanding the will of the 
people, notwithstanding the prerogatives of their duly elected 
representatives in the legislature. For Federal elections only, you 
will have to allow them to vote.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and 
maybe a few other States, our State elections are different than 
Federal elections. You will need two sets of registration for the State 
elections and local elections. To keep the laws in place in Virginia or 
any other State, there are dual roles for registered voters that would 
be a cost to the States and localities.
  In Virginia, where Federal elections do not run at the same time as 
State elections, this is probably not too big of an issue. But imagine 
in the States where Federal elections and State elections are conducted 
at the same time. That is undoubtedly true in over 40 States. There 
will be two sets of ballots for people to use when they vote. If

[[Page S807]]

they want to keep their rights and prerogatives and reflect the desires 
of the people of their State, two ballots will be needed. When you have 
Federal and State elections, there are names of Presidential 
candidates, candidates for Congress, maybe the Senate, along with State 
legislators, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, whoever else is being 
elected. We will need a separate ballot for those who have the right to 
vote in State and Federal, and a separate ballot for those only in 
Federal elections. In effect, what we would need at the polling place 
is a separate voting booth.
  I guess we would have an ex-felon voting booth where they would only 
vote in Federal elections, while the vast majority of the other voters 
would vote in the others.
  This causes a great deal of unnecessary cost and imposes many 
impractical problems on the State. The goal of the bill is to help 
voting fairness in the States, respecting the rights of States, not 
putting on unfounded mandates as has been done previously. This 
amendment will cause consternation and confusion.
  Most importantly, understanding the basic jurisdiction, I object to 
this amendment in that it usurps the rights of the States. It usurps 
and preempts and dictates contrary to the will of the people not only 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia but it exceeds the scope and breadth of 
what the Federal Government should be involved in.
  I hope my colleagues will allow this issue to be properly debated in 
the way the framers of our Constitution thought it should be debated 
and decided. That is, in the State legislatures, as opposed to meddling 
from the Federal Government.
  We care about the voting of military personnel overseas. I don't see 
where we have any business meddling in trying to get ex-felons the 
right to vote.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I missed part of the Senator's remarks. 
I ask the Senator from Virginia, I believe he raised the issue, how 
this would work in a year in which there were both Federal candidates 
on the ballot and State candidates on the ballot. Did the Senator from 
Virginia discuss that issue?
  I am having a hard time figuring out how it could possibly work. Does 
the Senator from Virginia have any thought about that?
  Mr. ALLEN. I say to the Senator from Kentucky, my good friend from 
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, born in Virginia, formerly a part of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia and voluntarily seceded, as well as the 
President's State of Indiana, regardless, the States, for a variety of 
reasons, have State elections different from Federal elections. So not 
to have undue Federal influence or national issues affecting issues 
that matter most to people in those communities and localities, you 
would still have a problem. Over 40 States run Federal elections at the 
same time as they run State and local or perhaps even municipal 
elections.
  In the event that the people in the States who are perfectly capable 
of debating and deciding this issue as they see fit for people who have 
raped, murdered, robbed, or maliciously wounded individuals in their 
States and been convicted in their State courts. In the event they want 
to keep their law in effect, what will have to happen is you will have 
to have a role of registered voters for Federal elections only and a 
role of voters who are registered for all elections.
  Then when you go into that election, assuming the States--once you 
actually conduct the election on election day--want to keep their rules 
where restitution is important, in a period of years to show they are 
leading a good life. Whatever the reasons, they want to do what they 
think is right, as opposed to what people in Washington think is right 
for them. Assuming they want to do it, you have to have a separate 
voting booth. The ballots in those States, where you have Federal and 
State elections the same year, all the names on there--Members of 
Congress, a President in Presidential year, as well as, the Governor, 
State representatives, and so forth--so you will need a separate voting 
booth.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So it will be a voting booth for felons?
  Mr. ALLEN. Ex-felons. I don't think the proponents want to go so far 
as felons but ex-felons, which would be, I think, a nightmare and 
insulting, as well.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Whereas under the current system, is it not true, I 
ask the Senator and former Governor, there is a procedure for getting 
the rights restored, which many people who have served their time go 
through, and is it not typically the case that Governors review those 
and restore rights from time to time based upon the record?
  Mr. ALLEN. I say to my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, and I 
expect the President may have done this, as well when he served as 
Governor of Indiana, as Governor, at least in our State, you get many 
petitions. Some are to restore rights, and also some to say that they 
never committed a crime and they want an absolute pardon.
  Every Governor has a conscience to do his or her duty properly. Those 
governors have the record of the individual telling what he or she has 
done since the time of serving.

  Mr. McCONNELL. It is true in every State there is an opportunity for 
someone who has served their time to get those rights restored?
  Mr. ALLEN. Correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Through a petition.
  Mr. ALLEN. In some States, it is not by the Governor. In Virginia, 
they amended the laws, and nonviolent felons can go to the circuit 
court for petitioning to have their rights restored.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is a procedure, so it is not hopeless.
  Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely, there is a procedure.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is not a hopeless situation.
  Mr. ALLEN. It is not a hopeless situation. Sometimes it can be 
cumbersome, and it is time consuming for the Governor as well as those 
in the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office, the attorney general's 
office, the Governor's staff and others to assemble this information, 
and also for the petitioner, as well.
  That is part of the price one pays when they commit a felony and they 
are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge and a jury of that 
crime. This is one of the many rights one gives up. I heard this being 
compared to slavery. It is not like slavery. Slavery is wrong and the 
worst thing that has ever occurred in this country. It is a willful 
act. Many of the felony cases were vile, premeditated, deliberate acts 
to commit a felony--not a misdemeanor, a felony--and this is one of the 
prices and penalties that one pays. A person loses their liberty, 
obviously, while incarcerated. To get all of their liberties and rights 
back, they have to demonstrate good behavior. In each State, that 
demonstration may be slightly different.
  But these are State laws being violated. It is a proper role of the 
people in the States to determine when these rights should be restored, 
as well as, under what conditions and circumstances the rights are 
restored.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, as a former Governor, for adding his unique perspective on 
that. I say unique; there are other Governors who have had similar 
experiences, but I think that does help us understand what I hope will 
be the conclusion on this amendment. I know it is well intentioned, but 
it seems to me it should be defeated. I thank the Senator from Virginia 
for his support and contribution to this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we are about to vote on this 
amendment. I believe the Senator from Nevada is going to ask for a 
recorded vote.
  I happen to agree with the thrust of the amendment of my dear friend, 
offered with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. When people 
have paid their dues to society, they have completed their probation 
and whatever else is required of them, the restoration of their rights 
is something we ought to embrace and encourage. I think it may 
contribute, in fact, to the rehabilitation of people who may otherwise 
become recidivists and rejoin the criminal element.
  The fact that 36 States have already, to one degree or another, 
embraced that concept, some more so than others, is an indication of 
the direction in which the country is clearly heading

[[Page S808]]

when it comes to how we treat former felons, even those who commit 
crimes that are highly objectionable, to put it mildly, to any average 
citizen of the country.
  I have made an appeal to my good friend from Nevada. We have worked 
very hard on this bill. One of the features of this bill that I like, 
offered by my friend and colleague from Kentucky, is the establishment 
of a permanent commission on elections. We do not attempt to resolve 
every issue in the election lexicon in this bill. I know there are, 
among my colleagues, some who feel strongly about having a holiday for 
election day. Others would like to see election day occur on a weekend. 
There are good arguments. Some would like to just keep it as it is. We 
do not attempt, in this bill, to deal with that.
  It seems to me we have taken on a lot with this bill. To try to move 
the process forward I am, therefore, going to urge colleagues, under 
this circumstance, to put this issue aside for another day.
  I urge that the commission itself take a look at the very provisions 
the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Pennsylvania have raised; 
that is, how we might do a better job of restoring the rights of people 
who have paid their dues to society.
  I will be very blunt with my colleagues. My fear is that the adoption 
of this amendment would provide those who do not like what we have done 
on all the other parts of the bill a justification for undermining the 
significant improvements in the election laws of our country. Again, 36 
States are moving in that direction; 14 are not doing anything. Some 
States still make it rather difficult. But it seems to me the trend 
lines are pretty good for moving in that direction.
  My fear is, as I say, from a purely rhetorical standpoint, that I can 
hear the arguments of people who do not like the minimum standards on 
provisional voting, statewide voter registration, dealing with access 
for the disabled community, the right to review your ballot when 
overvotes occur, establishment of the commission, dealing with some of 
these other broad provisions. These are major accomplishments and ones 
I know my friend from Nevada thoroughly endorses.
  So I am in a very awkward position because I am attracted to the 
thrust of what he wants to do, with Senator Specter. But my fear is, if 
this were to be adopted on this bill it would make it very difficult 
for my friend from Kentucky and I and others to convince people who 
might otherwise vote for the bill to do so.
  With that expression of my thoughts, I will oppose the Reid 
amendment--not because I disagree with what he is trying to do, but I 
think this is not the right place for us to be dealing with that idea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the felony voter 
re-enfranchisement amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Reid.
  The American people have long recognized voting and participating in 
elections as one of our greatest rights and responsibilities as 
citizens. Over the course of our Nation's history many Americans have 
struggled for this right. African Americans, women, the uneducated, and 
the poor have all, at some time or another, been excluded from the 
voting population. Our Nation looks back at these dark times in our 
history with great embarrassment. All of these groups are now included 
in our country's great democratic process. But we continue to exclude 
one other group of American citizens--rehabilitated felons.
  In 13 States, a felony conviction can result in disenfranchisement 
for life. Other States have procedures by which a rehabilitated felon 
can regain his right to vote. Those procedures, however, often have 
many hurdles. Several States require a pardon before a person who has 
served his or her sentence is able to regain the right to vote. Many 
former felons do not have the financial, legal, or educational 
abilities to pursue the restoration of their rights.
  It is time to eliminate this disparity and to ensure equality in 
felony voter laws. It is time to create a level playing field so that 
people who serve their time for felony convictions can regain their 
right to vote in Federal elections. Senator Reid's amendment would re-
establish this fundamental right for persons who have fully served 
their time in prison, and who have completed their probation or parole. 
Senator Reid's amendment would appropriately restore this basic right 
of citizenship to those who have paid their debt to society.
  According to the Americans for Democratic Action Education Fund, an 
estimated 4.2 million Americans, or 1 in 50 adults, have currently or 
permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony 
conviction. A majority of these Americans are no longer incarcerated. 
One million four hundred thousand Americans are ex-offenders who have 
fully completed their sentences. Another 1.5 million of the 
disenfranchised are on parole or probation. Only 1.2 million of the 
disenfranchised are actually still serving their sentences. With the 
increasing number of persons who are entering our criminal justice 
system, the number of disenfranchised voters is growing as well.
  There are many reasons why this amendment makes sense. Over 95 
percent of prisoners will return to our communities after serving their 
sentences. We return rehabilitated felons to our communities because 
Americans expect that they will reintegrate themselves as productive 
citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are 
already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and 
commitment to their communities. If we want rehabilitated felons to 
succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act 
as responsible individuals, then our country needs to restore this most 
fundamental right.
  State disenfranchisement laws also disproportionately impact ethnic 
minorities. Approximately 13 percent of the African-American adult male 
population is disenfranchised. This reflects a rate of 
disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. More then 
one-third, 36 percent, of the total disenfranchised population are 
African-American males. In 10 States, more than 1 in 5 black men are 
currently disenfranchised. As a result of the current rates of felony 
convictions and incarceration, it is estimated that in the next 
generation of black men, 30 to 40 percent will lose the right to vote 
for some or all of their adult lives. Thirty to forty percent. That is 
both an astonishing and deeply troubling figure. Constitutional 
principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection require us to 
address this discrepancy.
  Denying the right to vote should not be a continued punishment for 
people who have served their sentences. When people are convicted and 
sentenced for felony crimes, they are expected to serve their time. The 
disenfranchisement of felons who have completed their court-imposed 
sentence serves only as a continuing punitive measure.
  Given the importance to our democracy of an actively participating 
citizenry, it should be of great concern to our country that so many 
citizens are losing one of their most basic rights as Americans: the 
right to participate in our political process. Rehabilitated felons, 
who have served their sentences to completion and have paid their debt 
to society, should be able to exercise this right. Basic constitutional 
principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection require an 
equal opportunity for United States citizens to vote in Federal 
elections. Felony disenfranchisement laws that deny the right to vote 
to people who have served their sentences run counter to these 
principles. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Reid's amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no one in the Chamber--not only in 
the Chamber, in the Senate--for whom I have more respect than the 
Senator from Connecticut, but I must disagree with my friend. We are 
asking people who deserve the right to vote to wait. They have been 
waiting for too long.
  As Thomas Paine said:

       The right of voting for representatives is a primary right 
     by which all other rights are protected. To take away this 
     right is to reduce this man to slavery for slavery consists 
     of being subject to the will of another, and he who has not a 
     vote in the election of representatives is in this case.

  Sure, 36 States have done something. But how many of the people who 
called me on KCEP radio can go to a circuit judge and get their right 
to vote? How many can obtain a pardon from the Governor or the 
President? Very, very

[[Page S809]]

few. Does this mean that everything that is not in this bill is going 
to kill the bill? I think it is really a shame that someone who has 
been convicted of a crime, who has served the sentence, whether 1 year 
or 100 years, after that person gets out he can't vote.
  This affects millions of people. Who is affected more than anyone 
else? Minorities. Unfair practices have been established in many 
States, most of the time, making it extremely difficult if not 
impossible for these people to vote. In a Federal election in the 
greatest country in the world, what are we trying to prove?
  I had a letter printed in the Record earlier today, and I could enter 
in the Record scores of these letters. This is a communication from a 
man in Las Vegas who was convicted of a crime in the 1960s. He makes a 
lot of money now. He wants to be able to vote. He can't vote because he 
was convicted of a crime when he was a young man.
  With all due respect to my friend from Connecticut, he is going to 
oppose this legislation because it is going to affect this bill? This 
will improve the bill.
  I have been approached by several people today, and in the past--
members of my staff, other Senators--saying: Don't have us vote on 
this. It is a tough vote.
  Sure it is a tough vote. We vote easy all the time around here. We 
have very few tough votes. Let's have a tough vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2879. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Hatch) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--63

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                            NOT VOTING --- 6

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Hatch
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
  The amendment (No. 2879) was rejected.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I will request of Members who have 
amendments to come and talk to staff. I understand the Senator from 
Arizona has an amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe the junior Senator from 
Arizona is here and he has an amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment be the one 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me urge Members to come over and to 
please speak with the staffs, Senator McConnell's and mine. Many of the 
amendments are just technical in nature, and we can move this bill 
along. Some will require votes. But if we can at least get the numbers 
down pretty quickly, there is no reason we can't deal with the 
overwhelming majority of the amendments that look to be fairly 
straightforward and acceptable. Some are actually duplicates, where 
they have offered the same idea with slight variations. Perhaps we can 
combine them and reduce the number.
  Hope springs eternal, Mr. President, that we might actually get this 
bill done. I realize that may get harder as the afternoon wears on. I 
urge Members, if they have amendments, don't wait until 5 or 6 o'clock 
to come over. Bring them over and we will try to clear them or work 
them out and accept them. If we can't, we will try to arrange for a 
time for you to consider the amendment and vote on it.
  My colleague from Arizona is ready.


                           Amendment No. 2891

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2891.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permit the use of social security numbers for the purposes 
           of voter registration and election administration)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR VOTER 
                   REGISTRATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(I)(i) It is the policy of the United States that any 
     State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the 
     administration of any voter registration or other election 
     law, use the social security account numbers issued by the 
     Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of 
     establishing the identification of individuals affected by 
     such law, and may require any individual who is, or appears 
     to be, so affected to furnish to such State (or political 
     subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having 
     administrative responsibility for the law involved, the 
     social security account number (or numbers, if such 
     individual has more than one such number) issued to such 
     individual by the Commissioner of Social Security.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an agency of a State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) charged with the 
     administration of any voter registration or other election 
     law that did not use the social security account number for 
     identification under a law or regulation adopted before 
     January 1, 2002, may require an individual to disclose his or 
     her social security number to such agency solely for the 
     purpose of administering the laws referred to in such clause.
       ``(iii) If, and to the extent that, any provision of 
     Federal law enacted before the date of enactment of the Equal 
     Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2002 is inconsistent with 
     the policy set forth in clause (i), such provision shall, on 
     and after the date of the enactment of such Act, be null, 
     void, and of no effect.''.


                Amendment No. 2892 to Amendment No. 2891

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
Kyl amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2892 to amendment No. 2891.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permit the use of social security numbers for the purposes 
           of voter registration and election administration)

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to supersede any privacy guarantee under any Federal or State 
     law that applies with respect to a social security number.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am aware of the second-degree amendment. I 
will speak to it in a moment. I want to describe this amendment. It is 
very

[[Page S810]]

straightforward. It authorizes--it does not mandate--that Social 
Security numbers may be used by States to validate voter registration. 
I believe that there are currently seven States that do this. Because 
of the way the Privacy Act was enacted several years ago, those States 
were grandfathered. Other States don't have that ability. This would 
provide that ability. It can prevent duplication and fraud.
  Current law allows State officials access to a person's Social 
Security number for a variety of identification-related purposes. We 
are all familiar with that. This would simply add to that list of items 
verification for voter registration purposes.
  The amendment is important to resolving a widespread problem in 
election administration which is, of course, the problem of verifying 
the identity of the person registered to vote. While the Social 
Security number is not an absolute guarantee, it is deemed to be good 
enough for a variety of other purposes for which we need 
identification, and it would provide a much more accurate voter 
identification, which, of course, is key to an honest and fair 
election.
  We all know that the rationale for that most sacred of our democratic 
rights, the right to vote, is that our vote counts 100 percent, that it 
is not diluted by virtue of other people's votes that were cast 
fraudulently, diluting that 100 percent vote that we have. So we want 
to make sure there is not fraud in the election process--that people 
who should not be voting, in fact, are not permitted to vote. That is 
why validating the registration with the Social Security number is 
important.
  This is a unique number that is issued by the U.S. Government, which 
is precisely why the Federal, State, and local governments use the 
Social Security number to identify individuals for a variety of 
programs and services. I will remind my colleagues of what some of 
these are. While they are all important, I submit that none is more 
important than our sacred right to vote. If you want to check into a 
Veterans Administration hospital, you have to show your Social Security 
number. If you want to receive food stamps, you must show it. In many 
States, you need to show it to apply for a driver's license and 
register a motor vehicle. Certainly, you need your Social Security 
number to register for the draft and to register for Medicaid. You need 
it to apply for a student loan and to donate blood. You need it to 
receive unemployment compensation. You need it to apply for a passport 
or a green card. You need it to purchase certain U.S. savings bonds. 
You need it to apply for Federal crop insurance. Many States require 
this to apply for professional licenses. One that I found interesting 
is, if you are a boxer seeking to register with the State boxing 
commission, you have to show your Social Security number. These are 
some of the countless ways in which governments have ensured the 
identity of people by requiring validation through their Social 
Security number.
  As I said, while the integrity of these processes is very important, 
I don't think we would argue that any is more important than 
maintaining the integrity of our sacred right to vote. If the election 
officials can positively identify the voter with a Social Security 
number, then two protections are codified: First, the integrity of the 
election is protected because duplicate registrations can be removed. 
Secondly, full access to the election by all of those registered is 
ensured.

  I will repeat that because this will be very important to my friends 
on the other side. Social Security number verification will help 
prevent the wrong person from being removed from voter lists when those 
lists are checked against felony citizenship records.
  Without the certainty Social Security numbers provide, election 
officials have no foolproof way to differentiate among voters with same 
or similar numbers.
  As a means of voter identification, this has been approved by Federal 
courts. Current law provides an element of protection against the 
public disclosure of those Social Security numbers. The second-degree 
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is a further guarantee of that 
privacy protection. Frankly, I support the Senator's amendment because 
we don't want there to be any doubt that privacy is protected here, 
that those numbers cannot be disclosed other than for this purpose. 
This amendment restates those guarantees. The second-degree amendment 
will restate it a second time in a more specific way.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield for a question, this is not a 
mandate. States could use Social Security numbers as a means of 
identification. Could a State, under the ambit of this amendment, 
require that it be a Social Security number? In other words, I don't 
know about the privacy parts of it yet. But the crux of it is I want to 
make the right to vote as broad as possible, as unencumbered as 
possible. So adding another way that people could choose to identify 
themselves is fine but if some State, under the ambit of this law, said 
you must have a Social Security number, or if you have one, only these 
three ways of identification are allowed, that might be restrictive.
  I guess the question is--I understand it is voluntary within the 
State; the State doesn't have to use the Social Security number--but 
what about the other side? Could the State require the Social Security 
number as a means of identification?

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the answer to that question is yes. There are 
seven States that currently do this. This would simply authorize other 
States to do the same.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I may elaborate so I get this clear, so under this 
amendment a State could say you must identify yourself by a Social 
Security number; other means of identification would not work?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York, that is 
correct. This is for voter registration, I want to reiterate that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I understand. I thank the Senator for his direct and 
candid insight.
  Mr. KYL. I point out there are cases--in fact, one case in the 
Virginia system was invalidated because it did not provide adequate 
protection in the use of these Social Security numbers. Clearly, our 
authorization of this does not put a stamp of approval on any 
particular system. It is going to have to withstand any kind of 
judicial or legal attack that it is too restrictive, that it does not 
contain adequate protections, the number itself or any other number of 
challenges that might be issued.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me continue. Incidentally, if there are 
any concerns along those lines my colleagues would like to address, I 
am happy to work with them on it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Certainly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was listening to what he said. I do 
not know if the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has left the 
Chamber or not. I think the Senator said also it prevents people from 
being wrongfully removed from a list. I hope the Senator from New York, 
who obviously is concerned about the broader franchise, listened 
carefully to what the Senator from Arizona had to say: that it would 
also prevent wrongful removal. Did I hear that correctly?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to the Senator from Kentucky, that is exactly 
correct. I tried to repeat myself. I noticed there was conversation 
going on, so I am not sure my colleagues did pick up on that. 
Obviously, that can be used for any of the legitimate purposes for 
registration, including preventing wrongful removal. It is a good voter 
protection. I am not sure we need to talk a lot more about it. I am 
happy to do that if my colleagues would like.
  To reiterate, it is voluntary, not mandatory. It allows for use of 
Social Security numbers as one additional element of which the States 
could take advantage. It does have a privacy protection, but with the 
second-degree amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, it provides an 
additional element of privacy protection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we will take a further look at the amendment 
and discuss this with the Senator from Arizona.
  Let me raise the concern my colleague from New York has already 
expressed. Senator Bond said it; he really gets credit for coining this 
phrase. Others of us have repeated this over the

[[Page S811]]

last number of months. And that is, what we are trying to achieve with 
this bill is to make it as easy as possible for people to cast a ballot 
in America, to exercise their most fundamental right, and 
simultaneously make it hard to cheat the system.

  My concern with the amendment of the Senator from Arizona is that it 
could set up a situation where, while it is protecting a voter, to some 
degree, from being unceremoniously denied the right to vote, it could 
make it much harder for that individual to actually register to vote 
because a State may decide that this is the only way you can register 
to vote.
  There are literally millions of people in this country who do not 
have a Social Security card. If that were the case, they could be 
denied in that State the opportunity to register. I do not think any of 
us want to do that.
  I understand if they make this one of the criteria, but we could have 
other criteria. That would be one set of circumstances. But as the 
Senator from Arizona very candidly--and I appreciate it--said in 
response to the Senator from New York when asked the question, Could a 
State then mandate this is the only criterion? we would then create a 
hurdle while we are trying to diminish the hurdles as much as possible.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if the Senator understood me to say a State 
could mandate this as the only method of identification, that is not 
correct. If I said that, I certainly did not mean to say it. It is not 
correct.
  Let me again read the language because it is very important. If you 
do not have a Social Security number, they cannot force you to present 
a Social Security number as the means of identification. The language 
of the amendment that ``the Social Security account number issued to 
such individual by the Commissioner of Social Security. . . .''
  If you do not have a Social Security number issued, there is nothing 
in the amendment that authorizes the State to require you to have one, 
and there is nothing in the amendment that authorizes the State to 
mandate as the only method of identification the presentation of a 
Social Security number.
  If I may reiterate what I thought the Senator from New York was 
asking--perhaps I misunderstood--it was, Can a State mandate that an 
individual must present a Social Security number for his registration 
validation? And the answer to that is, a State could pass a law that 
used the Social Security requirement for voter registration. But would 
that mean they could require somebody who does not have a Social 
Security card to present one? Not under the wording in the amendment.
  Does it say it is the only way you can validate your identification? 
Absolutely not; that is not what this says.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator--I guess the Senator from Connecticut 
has the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. May I ask the Senator from Arizona a question. I am 
personally reading the amendment for the first time. It does not seem 
to say actually yes or no. I understand what the Senator from Arizona 
pointed out, but that just talks about presenting the Social Security 
card if you have it.
  If the intent of the Senator from Arizona is not to allow a Social 
Security number to be considered the only way to identify yourself but, 
rather, be an additional way then maybe we can make sure the language 
is clear about that, and that will help the amendment.
  If that is acceptable to the Senator from Arizona, I will be happy to 
work with him, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from 
Kentucky to try to make that happen.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has the 
floor. I am happy to sit down and work out additional language right 
now, discuss it further, or go on to other business. I am not sure what 
the pleasure of the bill managers is. I am willing to dispose of this 
as quickly as we can.

  Mr. DODD. We are not going to be able to have recorded votes until 
after 2 o'clock because of the conference lunches. I suggest we lay it 
aside temporarily and see if there are amendments to be offered and try 
to work out language that may make this an acceptable amendment.
  The Senator understands the problem. He identified the problem area 
for us. My suggestion to the Senator from Kentucky is to try to do 
that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think temporarily laying aside the 
Kyl amendment is a good idea. I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We have 
to round up another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am holding this loose-leaf binder in my 
hand. These are all amendments that various Members have suggested they 
would like to offer. Many of them I think we can accept, but I cannot 
accept them if they do not come over and offer them. So I am making an 
appeal. We have an hour when we are not going to be able to vote 
because of the lunches that are occurring, but if there are Members who 
would like to be heard on this bill, I am urging them to please come 
over and offer their amendments. We cannot vote on it right away, but 
they can explain the amendment. They can submit it. We could lay it 
aside and go through a number of these and then try to work them out, 
either accept them or set up the time for recorded votes or vote on 
them, but we cannot get through the bill if we lose an hour or so 
sitting in a quorum call.
  I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to the 
Chamber and offer their amendments if they have gone to the extent of 
drafting an amendment and going to legislative counsel. Many of the 
amendments are very good ideas and I think would strengthen and make 
this a better bill, but I need to have them offered.
  So as I am sitting in the Chamber, I will wait for Senators to take 
the time and come over in the next few minutes and we will consider 
their proposals.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the current state of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments, McConnell and Kyl, 
have been laid aside.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
on the pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the 2000 Presidential election 
demonstrated the need to improve the instruments of voting and the 
means of electing our Federal officeholders. Protecting and enhancing 
this basic right to vote fairly, clearly, and easily is both critical 
and necessary.
  Early last year, Senator Schumer, Senator Torricelli, Senator 
McConnell, and I worked on a compromise bill to observe three key 
objectives: Respect for the primary role of the States and localities 
in election administration; second, establishing an independent, 
bipartisan commission appointed by the President to provide nonpartisan 
election assistance to the States; third, to enforce strong antifraud 
provisions.
  Supporting this bipartisan effort was a diverse group of 
organizations, such as Common Cause and League of Women Voters, because 
the issue is bipartisan. In crafting the compromise bill, we were 
mindful of the fact that both rural and urban areas have unique 
difficulties not only with accessibility but funding improvements to 
their voting systems. Heavily rural States such as mine or that of the 
Presiding Officer have issues relating to voting procedures that are 
different than those faced by large urban areas. For this reason, any 
compromise effort must not impose an unfunded election mandate upon the 
States or, in the alternative, give State flexibility to determine how 
it can use the funds.

[[Page S812]]

  I am quite pleased that the chairman and the ranking members of the 
Rules Committee were able to preserve all three of the elements in the 
substitute to S. 565. I think the Dodd-McConnell Bill is a thoughtful, 
bipartisan attempt to provide grant moneys to States to implement 
alternative means and instruments of voting that provide swifter and 
more accurate results and are less susceptible to partisan interference 
and difference of opinion.

  However, I continue to have concerns regarding the degree to which 
States are given enough flexibility to implement the changes they 
believe are best for them. I look forward to working on an agreement 
that will accommodate reasonable changes in this respect.
  As I think a number of people have noted in speaking on this issue, 
there is a lot of difference between a large urban area and a rural 
area. In rural areas in my State, some of the voting is done far 
differently from the urban areas, but they are able to do it quickly 
and accurately. We need to work to make sure we provide options to 
localities to be able to implement this in a way that is most useful to 
them.
  Under the legislation, a new election administration commission will 
be established, composed of four Members recommended by the Senate 
majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the House Speaker, and the 
House minority leader. This commission will begin implementation of new 
voting requirements starting in 2006. These requirements will permit 
voters to verify their ballot choice and correct errors before ballots 
are cast, and allow notification to voters if there is more than one 
choice made on ballots, among others.
  In addition, the bill authorizes $3.5 billion for grant and matching 
programs to allow States and localities to meet the voting requirements 
under the bill. The grants will be administered by the Attorney General 
in consultation with the FEC, until the new election commission is 
operating.
  The grants will be used to buy new voting equipment, train poll 
workers, implement various other recommendations, or make other 
improvements approved by the commission. In order to receive funding, 
States and localities will have to demonstrate compliance with the 
Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws, institute provisional 
balloting and other safeguards to assure accuracy during the transition 
to new systems, establish poll worker training, voter education 
programs, provide disabled voters with the opportunity to vote under 
the same conditions of privacy and independence as the nondisabled.
  Again, however, I must mention a concern I have for rural States such 
as mine, Kansas, and the Presiding Officer's, Nebraska, that would be 
at a disadvantage under a competitive bidding process as is 
contemplated in the Dodd-McConnell bill. I hope a formula process can 
be worked out that will make the grant-making process fairer for rural 
States such as my own.
  I am pleased to see one of our key requirements was adopted by the 
Senate that assures all military and overseas votes are counted. I 
believe this is important legislation that will instill confidence in 
our voting system. Not only should we do everything possible to ensure 
that every qualified American is able to vote, but that we are able to 
do so with certainty, accuracy, and confidence.
  Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their 
tireless efforts in regard to this bill. I am hopeful we can get 
through a good, bipartisan piece of legislation that will improve our 
ability to vote in this country, will shorten the timespan for us to 
get an accurate vote taken. Clearly, in this age where we have rockets 
going all sorts of places in outer space, surely we can find a way to 
count votes quickly and accurately. This bill will help move us forward 
in that regard.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, 
Mr. Reid, and myself are cosponsoring an amendment that I think will be 
agreed to because it is merely a study. Our hope is to try to change 
the day the elections are, so as to really promote campaign reform
  In my experience over the years, the first Tuesday after the first 
Monday in November is just an arbitrary choice of the middle of the 
week, whereby we have less than half of our electorate actually 
participating.
  For industrialized countries, you might say we have the least. The 
only other countries I have been able to find that have a middle-of-
the-week election day are the Dominican Republic and Belize. The 
industrialized countries all have far greater participation by the 
electorate.
  Right to the point, it is really inconvenient to hold an election on 
a workday. It is not a holiday. People come early in the morning, 
before going to work, and already there is a long line. So they leave, 
and the next thing you know they go to work and say they couldn't get 
off in time at night to go and vote.
  The Senator from Nevada and I are convinced we can select a better 
day. We all thought, of course, of Saturday. But our religious friends 
who do not participate in civic activities on a Saturday would have 
some misgiving about that particular selection. Similarly, people would 
have misgivings with respect to the selection of a Sunday, which is the 
day used in many industrialized countries.
  The bottom line is, I think perhaps Veterans Day, which is already a 
holiday, could be an alternative. The whole idea is to get a day that 
is a holiday. No one wants to add another holiday to the calendar year. 
But if we put it on Veterans Day, veterans couldn't have any better 
celebration than participating in democracy. They have given their 
lives to preserve democracy in wars overseas. What better way to 
celebrate, in addition to Veterans Day parades and other kinds of 
celebrations, than to also celebrate by going to the polls and voting. 
Take that particular day--Armistice Day, November 11--and open the 
polls. Of course, the idea here is to proclaim a day, other than 
Saturday or Sunday, so as not to get into the same problem.
  This year, for example, I think election day is November 5, and then 
November 11 is Veterans Day, which is the next Monday.
  I hope, given a deliberate study and consensus being developed, we 
can very promptly put in this particular reform. It is not just 
machines and chads and other things down in Florida that causes 
election problems. The problem is the working population. In many 
instances, they do not want to irritate their bosses by taking time off 
to vote.
  The attitude is developed by us in public life that there is 
something wrong in participating in politics. That has to be changed. 
One quick way to change it and one quick way to really enhance the 
participation of our electorate in these elections is to have it a 
holiday and perhaps select Veterans Day. It could be the study would 
recommend another approach on Saturday or Sunday or whatever, but the 
important thing is that we do have a day off so we can participate in 
the most important function of our entire democracy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its proper filing with our distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee and the principal author of our election reform bill, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire--the Kyl amendment has been 
temporarily laid aside. Is my colleague filing this or is he offering 
it?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No, filing it for your consideration because I have 
been working with Senator Specter--it is a study, not an actual 
requirement.
  Mr. DODD. Let me say, in the absence of my colleague from Kentucky--
he will be back shortly--there are a number of our colleagues who 
expressed the same interest as the Senator from South Carolina. I think 
Senator Boxer from California has expressed an interest in the same 
subject

[[Page S813]]

matter. There may be others who will want to take a look at this. I 
think the Senator from South Carolina is making a very fine suggestion. 
This is a legitimate issue.
  I heard some of his comments as I was making my way up here. The 
point he makes is a worthwhile one. There are people who, because of 
their work obligations, find it difficult. Other countries have tried 
this. We can learn from others who have been able to increase voter 
participation by making the time available to them. There are a lot of 
different ideas.
  As he pointed out, there is the holiday idea, using existing 
holidays, weekends. There are objections people raise to almost any 
idea you bring up as well. But I think it will be worthwhile. With the 
establishment of this permanent commission, they can gather information 
and come back in 6 months or a year and make a recommendation to us and 
let us deal with this issue. It really ought to be confronted. It is 
long overdue, and I commend him immensely for raising the idea and 
turning it over to the commission for their analysis and reporting back 
to us.
  I hope many of our colleagues on the other side would agree with this 
proposal and we can accept the amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DODD. I heard the comments of my friend from Kansas, Senator 
Brownback, talking about the bill and one of his concerns that has to 
do with the issue of how the $400 million authorizing grant money would 
be allocated.
  Again, Senator Jeffords, I think maybe Senator Reid, certainly 
Senator Brownback, and maybe others, have raised the issue of having 
some floor so every State would have an opportunity to receive some of 
the grant money to modernize their election equipment. That is a very 
fine suggestion. Let me say that those Members who are interested--
Senator Collins of Maine, I think, as well, is interested in a similar 
idea--I think we could very quickly put together a proposal that will 
be accepted by both sides as a way to guarantee that every State would 
qualify for some of this assistance so it wouldn't all be absorbed by 
just large States.
  There are four amendments that will be very similar. If they come 
over, we can accommodate them.
  I see my friend from Illinois is here, and I know he has a number of 
ideas he wants to raise on this bill. I yield to him.


                           Amendment No. 2895

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 2895.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To eliminate the special treatment of punchcard voting 
              systems under the voting systems standards)

       Beginning on page 3, line 9, strike through page 5, line 
     14, and insert the following:
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the voting 
     system (including any lever voting system, optical scanning 
     voting system, direct recording electronic voting system, or 
     punchcard voting system) shall--
       (i) permit the voter to verify the votes selected by the 
     voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted;
       (ii) provide the voter with the opportunity to change the 
     ballot or correct any error before the ballot is cast and 
     counted (including the opportunity to correct the error 
     through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter was 
     otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error); 
     and
       (iii) if the voter selects votes for more than 1 candidate 
     for a single office--

       (I) notify the voter that the voter has selected more than 
     1 candidate for a single office on the ballot;
       (II) notify the voter before the ballot is cast and counted 
     of the effect of casting multiple votes for the office; and
       (III) provide the voter with the opportunity to correct the 
     ballot before the ballot is cast and counted.

       (B) A State or locality that uses a paper ballot voting 
     system or a central count voting system (including mail-in 
     absentee ballots or mail-in ballots) may meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) by--
       (i) establishing a voter education program specific to that 
     voting system that notifies each voter of the effect of 
     casting multiple votes for an office; and
       (ii) providing the voter with instructions on how to 
     correct the ballot before it is cast and counted (including 
     instructions on how to correct the error through the issuance 
     of a replacement ballot if the voter was otherwise unable to 
     change the ballot or correct any error).

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me at the outset commend my colleague, 
Senator Dodd. This was an amazingly difficult issue to tackle because 
when he decided to tackle it, America was in flames over the last 
Presidential election. There were strong feelings among Democrats and 
Republicans about the outcome of that election and the decision of the 
Supreme Court. In America, it seemed for weeks that there were abuses 
of the election, and we heard charges and countercharges. Frankly, I 
think the Senator stepped in where angels fear to tread and came up 
with an excellent piece of legislation which I am more than happy to 
cosponsor. In fact, I am proud to cosponsor it.
  I commend the Senator because I know this piece of legislation 
doesn't embody everything he wants nor everything the cosponsors want. 
But it is his best good-faith effort to put forward a bill which will 
significantly change and significantly improve elections across 
America. For that, I not only commend him but I think he has done a 
great public service to this Nation. The fact that several Republican 
Senators have stood up in support of this effort--I hope there will be 
many who will vote for it--is evidence that we can solve problems in 
America. And certainly the Senate should be in the forefront of solving 
the problem and basically making certain that the right of Americans to 
vote is protected.
  The preamble to the bill we are considering today I really think says 
it all. The first finding of this bill says the right to vote is a 
fundamental, incontrovertible right under the Constitution. It goes on 
to spell out exactly what that means in terms of Congress's obligation 
once we have acknowledged that fundamental, incontrovertible right 
under the Constitution.
  I think this bill in so many ways addresses that. It creates a 
commission to try to find more efficient and modern ways for fraud-free 
voting and that serve the American people.
  The amendment I bring to the floor addresses an issue which I hope my 
colleagues will consider. The issue is this: If you decide to exercise 
your civic duty, you have listened to all the people exhorting you to 
get out and vote, that your vote counts, and you believe it in your 
heart and are willing to make a sacrifice of your time, and perhaps to 
leave your family or your job to go to the polling place and vote, the 
basic question in my mind is whether or not we are going to help in 
that circumstance, make certain that people have their chance to 
express their political will or whether we are going to put obstacles 
in their paths. There are already obstacles in the system. You have to 
register to vote. We want to try to eliminate as much fraud as possible 
when it comes to voter registration.
  Of course, you have to follow the rules of voting when you turn up at 
the polling place or apply for your absentee ballot, which I did a few 
minutes ago at my desk here in Washington for our primary election in 
Illinois on March 19th. You have to follow the rules when it comes to 
voting and then put your ballot, as instructed, in the appropriate 
receptacle for it to be counted. That is the basic system for paper and 
punch card ballots, and a number of other systems do it differently.
  But there was language added to this bill which troubles me greatly. 
The provision says when it comes to overvoting--in other words, when it 
comes to a situation where you have made a mistake, you have spoiled 
your ballot, you have voted, for example, twice for the same office--
originally it was my intention and hope that we would say to a voter in 
that circumstance, if you made a mistake, to err is human; we will give 
you another chance to vote.

  But language was inserted--the Senator from Missouri, Republican 
Senator from Missouri offered it--which says that we will make an 
exception when it comes to those errors and those mistakes in punchcard 
systems.
  I need not remind you what punchcard systems are all about. With the

[[Page S814]]

phrase ``hanging chad,'' all the lexicon of the last election comes to 
mind immediately. In my home State of Illinois, in all but a few 
counties we use punchcard systems--not only in the city of Chicago but 
all across the State.
  So you walk in there, and they give you this card that has all of 
these little windows on it. You go into your polling booth and put the 
matrix on top, which is the ballot. Then you punch the hole next to the 
candidate of your choice. I have come to learn, having been a lawyer in 
the State capitol for years and watching election contests, that when I 
finished voting I always lifted that ballot up to look for hanging 
chads to make sure that the numbers I punched corresponded with the 
names on the ballot. I think that is an extra effort, but I want my 
vote to count. I believe every American thinks the same way.
  But when it came time to compromise on this bill, language was 
offered which said if you make a mistake in your voting in a punchcard 
precinct in America, we are not going to tell you about it; we are not 
going to notify you; we are not going to inform you. So the net result 
of that is a person who in good faith is trying to exercise their civic 
duty and their constitutional right to vote is discriminated against 
when it comes to whether they will be notified of mistakes.
  We included paper ballots in this exception. I can understand the 
practical reason for that. If you have made a mistake on a paper 
ballot, you have to manually count the whole ballot in a polling place. 
You can't do that and preserve ballot confidentiality. That is not 
practical. That is not going to work. I understand that exception.
  We also made an exception, primarily for the States of Washington and 
Oregon, and said because you have a system where everybody mails in 
their ballots, how in the world can we receive the ballots, count them, 
and send back the ones that are in error? It is practically impossible 
to make that work.
  But look at the rest of the world and the rest of the United States. 
At least thirty-four percent of voters in America use the punchcard 
system. For the vast majority of those voters, we are saying if you 
have over-voted and spoiled your ballot, it is going to be thrown out 
and not counted, and we are not going to tell you. It is a ``gotcha'': 
You went in and did your best. But you didn't do good enough. Sorry. Go 
home and try again in 2 or 4 years.
  I do not buy that. The premise of this bill is that the right to vote 
is a fundamental and incontrovertible right under the Constitution and 
we should do everything in our power to assist voters in exercising 
that right. How important is that?
  There is a study I have had a chance to look at by Caltech and MIT 
called the Voting Technology Project. They go into an analysis of 
voting systems and people who have spoiled their ballots where they are 
not counted.
  I will tell you that the No. 1 voting system for spoiled ballots in 
Presidential elections in America is the punchcard system, the very 
system for to which this bill creates an exception. Here we know that 
the most problematic voting system is the punchcard system, and we 
have said in this bill, that has pledged itself to protect the right of 
American's to vote, that we are not going to tell you in a punchcard 
system if you make a mistake: That's your problem, buddy; come around 
next year. I don't think that is right. Not only is it not right, but 
it destroys confidence in the process.

  Let me give you some statistics which you might be interested in. 
This comes from the same study to which I am making reference.
  Punchcards lose at least 50 percent more votes than optically scanned 
paper ballots. Punchcards have an average residual vote--a spoiled 
ballot--of 2.5 percent in Presidential elections and 4.7 percent for 
other offices. Over 30 million voters in America used punchcards in the 
year 2000 election. Had those voters used optical scanning, there would 
have been 300,000 more votes recorded in the 2000 Presidential 
election. In addition, 420,000 more votes would have been counted in 
Senate and gubernatorial elections.
  Let me tell you that this strikes close to home. One hundred and 
twenty thousand of my constituents in the State of Illinois in the 
County of Cook went to the polls and cast their ballots in the November 
Presidential election of 2000 and had those ballots thrown out. They 
might as well have stayed home. They didn't vote for anybody. They 
thought they did. They took the time. They registered. They went to the 
polling place. They deliberated the candidates' names and made their 
choices, but they made a mistake. How can you make a mistake on a 
ballot? You saw the butterfly ballot in Florida. We all know what that 
looked like. Try to look at the right place to punch on that ballot. A 
lot of voters testified afterwards that they were totally confused by 
that ballot, and they have been prohibited and banned from use ever 
since. They might have voted for the wrong candidate. But in some 
situations, you would have someone come in to vote for Mr. Gore, or Mr. 
Bush, and would mistakenly write in their names in the write-in space 
at the bottom of the ballot, and the ballot would be tossed out. Any 
mistake in the process disenfranchises the voters.
  That is why I hope this amendment will be accepted, because we are 
saying with this amendment that we value your vote however you vote in 
America. We understand the paper ballot problem. We understand the 
central-count, mail-in voting that occurs in Washington and Oregon. But 
for that situation, we are going to stand behind the voters and help 
them vote.

  How big a problem is this in America? As I said, one of three voters 
is faced with a punchcard system, and that is what they have to live 
with. Also, how difficult is it to notify me that I have overvoted on 
my ballot? There is a simple little machine--we are going to have some 
of them in our State in the next election--called the PBC-2100. With 
these machines--no larger than a typewriter--you would finish voting on 
your punchcard, you would walk out of the booth, and in your own 
privacy, without the world looking in, push your ballot into the 
tabulating machine, and it would tell you whether you have a spoiled, 
voided ballot that is illegal and cannot be counted. You can then make 
a decision. You can say to the election judge: I did something wrong 
here. Tear this one up, and let me try again before I leave the polling 
place.
  That is reasonable, and most States say: That is our standard. We do 
not want to trick people. We want to give them a chance.
  But if you decide, for whatever reason--it is a spoiled ballot--I 
don't have time, I don't care, take it. That is your choice, too. But 
what we should do is let people know rather than putting them in this 
trick bag situation.
  The thing that troubles me is that the jurisdictions that rely 
heavily on punchcards are jurisdictions which have had these systems in 
place for decades. In Illinois, I think it has been almost 40 years 
with a punchcard system. This was the state of the art back in the 
1960s, the IBM punchcards. Well, the world has changed, but a lot of 
election jurisdictions do not have the money to change with it. So they 
are using the old system.
  So where do you find these punchcard systems? You find them 
overwhelmingly used in, for example, inner-city areas, such as the city 
of Chicago, the city of St. Louis, Kansas City, and others. I should 
correct my statement. I am not certain that St. Louis and Kansas City 
have them. I can certainly speak for Illinois.
  In these situations, you find that the overwhelming majority of 
African-American and Hispanic voters use punchcard systems, systems 
that are antiquated. As we know from Florida, with even the best of 
intentions, you may not get the result you want using a punchcard 
system.
  So if you do not tell these voters they have made a mistake, you are 
basically disenfranchising them, or, to put it more moderately, you are 
stacking the deck against them, and not doing it for other election 
systems. That, to me, is unfair.
  Let me just tell you the lay of the land in Illinois so you 
understand where I am coming from. We have a court order in Cook County 
which says that we will, in fact, look at all the punchcards to make 
sure, if there is an overvote, the voter is notified. I think that is 
fair. But, frankly, it should be fair across the board.
  Cook County leans Democratic. We should say to the 101 other counties 
in

[[Page S815]]

Illinois, the same rules apply, the same law applies. Whether you are 
voting in a Republican-dominated county downstate or in a Democratic 
county, such as Cook County, the same rules should apply. That is what 
this amendment would say: Punchcard systems, whether in rural 
Republican areas or in Democratic inner-city areas, should be systems 
we can trust and count on.
  We should accept our responsibility under this law to help the voter, 
not to make it more difficult. That is why I have offered this 
amendment.

  I sincerely hope my colleagues following this debate will stop and 
reflect on what happened in America with the last Presidential 
election.
  I can recall a cabdriver in Chicago. I asked him where he was from. 
He said: Africa.
  I asked him: What do you do for a living besides driving a cab?
  He said: I am an engineer. I am trying to make a living here in the 
United States.
  We were in the middle of the Florida recount.
  I asked him: What do you think about all this?
  He said: In my home country, people would be killed in the streets 
over the dispute you are having in this Presidential election.
  Thank God that never happened, and I hope it never does. But we know 
that, though there might not have been lives taken in the streets, a 
lot of people left that November 2000 Presidential voting experience 
with a bitter taste in their mouth. They thought the system of voting 
in America was not a friendly system, it was not a system dedicated to 
what we have called this ``incontrovertible constitutional right to 
vote.'' They thought it was a system that was designed to catch you if 
you didn't play by every single rule and go by every single 
instruction. If it caught you, it would disenfranchise you.
  This amendment gets us back to establishing confidence again in a 
system that I think will say to all Americans: If you are in punchcard 
jurisdictions--and one out of three Americans is in a punchcard voting 
jurisdiction--we are going to help you make a decision so your vote 
will count. That is so basic. I think it really reflects the intention 
originally of the sponsor, Senator Dodd, in this legislation, that we 
make this commitment to the system.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. CARNAHAN). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. First of all, Madam President, I commend my colleague and 
friend from Illinois for his support on the underlying bill. I am very 
grateful to him for helping us craft this proposal and lending his name 
as a cosponsor of the bill. He has been tremendously helpful.
  The Senator from Illinois makes a compelling case. We have tried, in 
this legislation, to strike a balance. I suppose it is a painful lesson 
we all have to learn from time to time. But we would like to write our 
own bills. We all have our own ideas of exactly what we would do if we 
could just write the bill ourselves.
  Coming to the floor with a bill that is endorsed and cosponsored by 
the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, and others, 
obviously did not happen miraculously. It happened through the work of 
trying to offer proposals and negotiating out provisions that will 
allow people to achieve a level of comfort with a product to which they 
are willing to lend their names, and to be able to present it to our 
colleagues for their overall support.
  That is where we find ourselves and where I find myself with this 
particular proposal. Again, I am one who believes, wherever possible, 
where the equipment allows, that people ought to be able to know if 
there is an overvote. The Senator from Illinois makes an irrefutable 
case for it, in my view.
  While memories fade a bit, and other events have overtaken the events 
of 14 months ago, it is not that hard for people to remember how 
distraught this country was over the fact that we could not seem to get 
a Presidential election straight.

  We discovered--obviously, not just in Florida, and it was not just 
for this race--that all across the country there were serious problems 
with the election systems and that voting systems were outdated. 
Depending on what community you lived in--how affluent it was--you 
might have better equipment than other communities. There have been all 
sorts of problems that have been identified by every single study and 
commission that has looked at election processes in the country.
  What the Senator from Illinois has proposed is that when we are 
talking about punchcard systems--and there is a machine that can 
indicate over-votes on a punchcard. Under our bill, we provide grant 
money to States and localities to help them acquire equipment. The $3 
billion is there for that purpose. You can actually buy a voting system 
that does exactly what the Senator from Illinois would like to see 
done.
  When I wrote the bill with Senator Bond and Senator McConnell, there 
were tradeoffs. I had to give up on some things I did not like giving 
up on--and this is one of them--in order to get support for other 
provisions of the bill. I am not going to speak for my colleagues from 
Missouri and Kentucky, but there were things they did not want to 
particularly give up on. So we struck an agreement on this overvote 
issue that presently does not require as a matter of national law that 
punchcard systems must report an overvote.
  But let me also say, there is nothing in this legislation which 
prohibits any State from doing exactly what my friend from Illinois 
wants to do. In fact, I think the State of Illinois does require that 
there be an overvote requirement--or there is a court order pending 
that----
  Mr. DURBIN. In Cook County.
  Mr. DODD. In Cook County, excuse me--that is requiring they do just 
that.
  So I say to people who are wondering about this issue, while we do 
not go to the extent that my colleague from Illinois would like us to 
in this bill, by requiring, as one of the minimum standards in this 
legislation, national standards that every jurisdiction in the country 
that uses a punchcard system must use a punchcard system that would 
allow the voter to be able to determine whether or not an overvote has 
occurred. We say nothing in this legislation that would, in any way, 
restrict a State from requiring exactly what the Senator from Illinois 
is seeking. In fact, I would encourage States to do it, to use the 
grant funding and acquire them because I think it is a great service to 
be able to provide for your voters, and to avoid exactly the situation 
the Senator from Illinois describes.
  We all remember, very vividly, the pictures every night on television 
of people holding up these butterfly ballots where to say it was a 
confusing situation was a mild description of those ballots. And there 
were the punchcards that were also very difficult to read. People were 
holding them up to the light and showing hanging chads and the like.
  So the Senator's point is an excellent one.
  It is not a point with which I disagree. But anyone who has ever had 
to manage a bill on the floor, where you have 99 other colleagues and 
you are trying to put together a compromise bill that includes some 
very important changes and advances in the law, then you know how 
difficult that can be. This is exactly one of those points.
  I agree with what my colleague wants to do, but I also know in 
putting this bill together, the decision was made to allow States to do 
that but not require in the punchcard system that it be done. I am in 
an awkward position because I agree with my colleague, but I am in a 
tough position because I am trying to work out a bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me counsel my friend and colleague from Connecticut 
to follow his heart.
  Is it not true in this bill with the Bond exception that we do say to 
jurisdictions across America that we want them to tell people if they 
have overvoted and spoiled their ballot, if they have cast other than a 
paper ballot, a punchcard ballot, or a mail-in central counting system, 
like Washington or Oregon? So for other methods of voting, the optical 
scan, the standard lever machines, the direct recording electronic, 
this bill says: We want to save you from making a mistake. We

[[Page S816]]

want you to have your vote count. Isn't that true? We have said for 
those systems that we really want to have this protection, but not the 
punchcard system.
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct. That is 
exactly what the bill does. As I said before, he urges me to follow my 
heart. I would be very much inclined to do so. He also is a very 
accomplished legislator and knows how difficult it is. In fact, he has 
been in this very chair I now find myself in where he has been 
confronted with not dissimilar proposals where his heart said one thing 
and, as he tried to cobble together a piece of legislation that enjoyed 
the bipartisan support I am seeking with this bill, he was torn between 
trying to produce an underlying bill and agreeing with the proposal 
that one of his dear friends offered.
  I have no argument whatsoever with the proposal, but he knows the 
quandary his friend is in.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask my friend and colleague from Connecticut, if you 
can't follow your heart, can you at least take a walk?
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Illinois. Again, I urge Members 
to follow what he has proposed here. He said it very well. We do 
require in this bill that there be overvotes, not undervotes. I don't 
know if my colleague from Illinois made that distinction. There is 
nothing in this bill that requires that a person be notified of an 
undervote. Senator McCain, in fact, raised this issue with me. I 
thought he brought up a very good point. There are many of us--we can 
all identify with this--who have gone in to vote and there were some 
positions where we just did not know the people. We did not know 
anything about them whatsoever. So from time to time, we do not cast a 
ballot on those particular races. We make the conscious decision not to 
cast a ballot.
  We don't want to necessarily be notified that we have not voted for 
the deputy sheriff in some place. So we have excluded any reference to 
undervote references, only to overvote where, again, everyone wants to 
be notified if they voted for two candidates for President or two 
candidates for Senate, or Governor. The overvote issue is extremely 
important.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have spoken to the ranking minority leader on the 
Senate Rules Committee, Senator McConnell. Once again, I make this 
offer on the floor. If there are any who wish to speak for or against 
this amendment, I want to give them ample opportunity to do so at this 
moment. But if there are no requests for debate, in the interest of 
completing the bill today, I will ask for the yeas and nays. But I will 
withhold that in the interest of having a free and open debate on this.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Regretfully, I am going to join Senator Dodd in 
opposing this amendment. We had a carefully crafted compromise on this 
whole issue of whether or not to, by either direction or indirection, 
require certain voting machines in jurisdictions. I think that is, in 
effect, what this does. We don't want to dictate to any State what form 
or what kind of machine they choose to take. This was a significant 
point of negotiation between the five principals on this bill, who were 
Senator Dodd, myself, and Senators Bond, Torricelli, and Schumer.
  This would mandate a certain kind of punchcard machine, one that 
notifies the voter of overvotes. This is a decision which the five of 
us concluded should best be left to the States. In crafting this bill, 
we were careful to avoid mandating any particular system out of 
existence, and that, in effect, is what this amendment would do. Our 
bill seeks to address the Senator's concerns. It does it in such a way 
that we don't eliminate any system.
  Regretfully, I join the chairman of the committee in saying if this 
amendment is approved, I think it takes away any argument we can make 
in opposing any other amendment if somebody says you think you ought to 
use this kind of machine or that kind. Regretfully, I, too, have to 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from Kentucky, if he would 
like to engage me in dialog, I invite him to do it.
  In your bill, as currently written, it says if people have overvoted 
and spoiled their ballots, we will notify them in jurisdictions that 
don't have paper ballots, that don't have punchcards and in States such 
as Washington and Oregon where there are mail-in ballots. I say to my 
friend from Kentucky, you are, in this bill, already establishing a 
standard of care for every voting system but three. Why do you make an 
exception for a punchcard system where one out of three Americans vote 
with that system, a system we saw in Florida that was rife with 
problems, where people voted with the best of intentions, and where we 
lost 120,000 voters in Cook County, IL? Why would you say, if you 
happen to have an optical scanning system, you have to notify voters if 
they spoiled their ballots? If you have a lever machine, you have to 
notify people. If you have an electronic device, you must notify 
people. But when it comes to the punchcard system, the oldest one, the 
one fraught with more problems than any others, you have carved out an 
exception. Why do you make that distinction?
  Mr. McCONNELL. More Americans voted on punchcards than any other way 
in 2000. So if we want to start mandating certain kinds of punchcard 
voting systems, we are going to have to pay if you want to have funded 
mandates and not unfunded mandates; we are going to have to pay, in 
effect, to replace, apparently--most places except Illinois--all of 
these punchcard machines. I suspect that is a simple answer to the 
question of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I may be mistaken, but I thought this bill not only 
created a commission, but created a Federal grant system to do just 
what we are talking about, to modernize election systems across America 
so they are more trustworthy and consistent with this so-called 
incontrovertible constitutional right to vote.

  Mr. McCONNELL. You can't overvote on a lever machine, and you can't 
overvote on these optical touch-screen voting machines. So it is really 
not a problem with those kinds of machines.
  Mr. DURBIN. If you accept the premise of the bill you brought to us 
that this is an incontrovertible constitutional right, think about what 
you have just said. Is this really equal justice under the law, that we 
have a slot machine culture when it comes to voting? If you happen to 
be in the right jurisdiction with the right machine, we will correct 
your mistakes; but if you happen to be one of those poor people with a 
40-year-old punchcard system, good luck. If your vote doesn't count, 
try it again in 2 or 4 years from now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. One short answer to the Senator's concern is that of 
these millions of people who voted on punchcards, almost nobody 
complained except in Florida. Nobody demanded a recount. Nobody went to 
court. The practical effect of what the Senator is suggesting here is 
that we mandate a certain kind of punchcard voting system. It seems to 
me that clearly wrecks the fundamental concept of the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. With all due respect to my colleague, if I have cast a 
spoiled ballot, they don't give me a call or send me a note in the 
mail. I never know it. Those 120,000 people, who thought they had done 
the right thing and performed their civic duty, went home proudly after 
voting in Cook County, and 300,000 who voted across America went home 
and said to their kids: This is what you have to do, you have to vote. 
Their ballots were tossed because they were punchcard voters who got 
caught in hanging chads and a system that was over 40 years old.
  Are we really serious about giving people their constitutionally 
protected, incontrovertible right to vote, or is this going to be a 
haphazard system? I hope not.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I bring to this debate the 
very painful experience we had in Florida. Because of the trouble with 
the punchcard ballots, the Florida legislature has wisely eliminated 
punchcard ballots for the future, but many other places in the country 
still have punchcard ballots.
  I would never want voters in other places to have the confusion, 
mystification, and belief that their constitutional right of being able 
to vote

[[Page S817]]

had been taken away by virtue of having realized after the fact that 
their ballot had been punched twice, because of incorrect instructions, 
or incoherent instructions, or an incoherent way in which the ballot 
was designed that confused, not intentionally, but had the bottom line 
result of confusing the voter.
  If it is so easy with technology to notify a voter that they have, in 
fact, overvoted, why should we not give that almost God-given right--
certainly, that American right of the ballot --to notify them that 
their ballot isn't going to count because it has been overpunched?
  So I lend my voice, having been borne out of the painful experience 
of the Presidential election in Florida in 2000, in support of the 
Senator from Illinois and his amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham of Florida be added as a 
cosponsor.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his 
leadership. I ask the Senator if he agrees, and maybe he doesn't; I 
didn't confer with him. But we really ought to be in the position of 
saying that States and local voting jurisdictions in a Federal election 
simply can't use punchcards. I think we ought to get rid of them all. I 
am proud that my State of Iowa, 28 years ago, got rid of the punchcards 
for the very reason that too many people were making mistakes. That was 
28 years ago. I am very proud of that. I think this is an old 
technology, fraught with all kinds of errors. I don't care what anybody 
says, they ought to be done away with. Again, I suppose we are not in a 
position to do that here, but at least we can do it in the Senator's 
State of Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. The fact 
is, the highest incidence of spoiled ballots in Presidential elections 
in America is on punchcard systems. It makes the point of the Senator 
from Iowa.
  Look at the last Presidential election, what a handful of votes would 
have meant in one State or another, and to have a report that over 
300,000 more votes should have been recorded in that Presidential 
election that were lost to punchcards. This bill, which is supposed to 
be about election modernization and election reform, turns a blind eye 
to the voting system used by one out of every three Americans. I do not 
think that is consistent. I do not think you can say it is an 
incontrovertible constitutional right and ignore one out of three 
voters when it comes to saving them from a mistake.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, will my colleague yield? I want to make a 
point. I said to my colleague, I certainly do not disagree with what he 
wants to do. Let me make the case again. One is, nothing in this 
legislation, in fact, prohibits any State from making a decision 
requiring this equipment and notifying voters of an overvote. In fact, 
in Cook County there is a court order that requires that very result. 
Other States may do the same.
  Again, I make the point to my colleagues, this was putting together a 
bill with a lot of different features to get a bipartisan product. 
Unlike the other body, the Rules Committee in the Senate does not 
control the debate and whether there are no amendments. They just bring 
the product out and you vote for or against it. Here we have already 
dealt with seven or eight amendments, and I have a book thick with 
amendments people may offer on this issue.
  Senator Bond, Senator McConnell, and myself tried to work something 
out that will move us along on some very important underlying 
provisions.
  Again, this equipment is not inexpensive. States can apply through 
the grant program to get the money to buy this equipment. They can put 
it in place. There is nothing here that prohibits people from doing 
that whatsoever. In fact, I encourage them to do exactly that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. Certainly.
  Mr. DURBIN. If we accept what the Senator has said, that it is really 
up to every State to modernize their system and to make it a more 
trustworthy system, I have two questions for Senator Dodd: First, why 
did he preface this bill by saying this is an incontrovertible right 
under our Constitution; and second, why did the Senator include any 
reference at all in the bill requiring that you permit the voter to 
verify the votes selected by the voter, and go on to say provide the 
voter with the opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error?
  If it is the Senator's belief that this is about States rights, then 
why does he have any language in this bill regarding standards?
  Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we do, but it is about balance. No 
one has claimed perfection. We are trying to strike a balance where the 
Federal Government, for the first time, becomes a better partner with 
our States and simultaneously saying, in exchange for that partnership, 
there are certain minimum requirements--certain ones, not every one I 
would like, not every one one might imagine, but certain ones on which 
a majority--hopefully a large majority--of Democrats and Republicans, 
with very different points of view on this issue, can find common 
ground. That is what we try to do when we legislate, and that is what I 
tried to do with this bill.

  I could think of 20 more minimum Federal requirements I would write 
into this bill if I were king. But I am not king, yet. So I am working 
with my friend from Kentucky. If he were writing this bill, he would 
have a very different set, I presume, and it would be the same with my 
colleague from Missouri.
  I say to my friend, this is not easy, I admit. It is complicated, and 
we are not writing this bill in tablets. We have established a 
commission so there will be an ongoing process. We do not have to wait 
another 40 years to talk about changes to be made in the system.
  I urge States to do this. If I were writing the bill alone, I would 
have written exactly the provision my friend from Illinois has 
suggested, but in trying to cobble together provisions that will allow 
us to take a major step forward in improving the election system of 
this country, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment without 
rejecting the idea.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. Certainly.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Given the experience we had in Florida, what 
could any of the three Senators have as an objection to notifying 
someone that they had overvoted on a punchcard ballot? What is the 
objection?
  Mr. DODD. The bill does not prohibit that.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Given what we went through.
  Mr. DODD. What my colleagues are requesting is that we mandate that 
in this bill. There is nothing in this legislation that says Florida is 
going to insist--the State of Florida has abandoned their punchcard 
system, but in the case of Illinois, which is a live example, under a 
court order, the State has said you must notify voters of an overvote. 
That is fine. No one here is suggesting in this bill that the State of 
Illinois should not be able to do that.
  What is missing, what the Senator from Illinois would like, is that 
we absolutely require in every jurisdiction where a punchcard system is 
located that that system notify the voter of that overvote. I do not 
disagree with him in that sense, but understand in putting this bill 
together, I was not able to get that far. We had to compromise.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I understand the Senator's discomfiture. It 
just seems to me it is common sense to assure a person's right to have 
their ballot counted given the awful experience we had in the State of 
Florida on ballots not being counted. I just do not understand the 
opposition.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I yield the floor. Does the Senator from Missouri want to 
be heard?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I stated earlier and I restate--I ask the Senator from 
Missouri to stay in the Chamber. I hope we can reach an agreement that 
those in opposition have ample opportunity to speak and I have a few 
minutes to close, and we can bring this to a vote at a specific time. 
If I can have a suggestion from the ranking member or the Senator from 
Missouri as to how much they would like to have, I would like to 
propound that unanimous consent request.

[[Page S818]]

  Mr. DODD. May I make a suggestion? How much time does Senator Bond 
need?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, since most of the discussion has occurred 
on the other side, I think we need at least 15 minutes more on this 
side to discuss what I think are some alternatives. Some good questions 
were raised by the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Florida. 
I would like to have a chance to speak about them. I hope I can have at 
least 15 minutes for that. I do not know how much time the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky will need in addition to that.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri, or his designee, be recognized for 
15 minutes; that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized 
for 5 minutes; that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and that the vote occur on or in relation to 
this amendment at 10 of 3, with no other amendments in order to this 
amendment, with no intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I know there are many concerns about 
voting. We cannot solve all of them in this bill. I think we have 
reached a workable position where we will provide assistance to States 
and localities to improve their voting system. If a State wants to 
change its voting machine, or if it wants to add a new kind of machine 
to check punchcards, it can do that.
  If the system does not work in Chicago, or if it does not work in 
Illinois, there is money in this bill to allow them to change it. If it 
works in Missouri, why should we be told we have to spend money on a 
whole raft of new supplementary equipment or new machines?
  There is $3.5 billion in this bill. We hoped when we put this money 
in that it would provide enough money for at least every polling place 
to have a machine which was accessible to the visually impaired. We 
want to make sure this money goes to provide equipment that serves 
special needs people. That is one of the strengths of this bill.
  I see no reason why we ought to tell States what kinds of general 
machines or systems they use. If it works, do it. If it does not work, 
fix it.
  St. Louis County, which I represent, is one of the largest voting 
jurisdictions in the country with 650,000 registered voters. St. Louis 
County uses punchcards. Its error rate in the November 2000 election 
was 0.3 percent, the lowest in the country for large jurisdictions. St. 
Louis County is a microcosm on the United States, across the 
demographic and socioeconomic scale. This county manages to do it quite 
well, and I have not heard any concerns elsewhere in our State 
regarding punchcards. We vote with a punchcard. Know what you can do? A 
punchcard is not something where it is in the machine once you have 
cast the ballot. You can take the punchcard out and look at it before 
you put it in the box. You could look at that punchcard and see what 
you punched out.
  Now, there is new equipment to put different colored lines on that 
punchcard or any other system that one wants on that card, so when you 
walk out of there, you can hold it up. We expect some basic competence 
of the voters. There is no guarantee somebody will not go in and vote 
for the wrong person. A total electronic ``hoo-ha'' machine is not 
going to prevent somebody who goes in to vote for candidate A from 
casting a mistaken ballot for candidate B. There is no constitutional 
right to say that one cannot make a mistake, but with a punchcard you 
can hold it up and look at it.
  Certainly, after what we saw in Florida, I would imagine people could 
look up to see if there is a hanging chad or if there are two holes 
punched next to each, then that person can say they over voted or if 
there is no hole punched they can say they missed it.
  The Ford-Carter Commission reviewed error rates of the 40 most 
populous voting jurisdictions in the country. Twenty-six of those 
jurisdictions had an error rate below the national average. Nine of 
them were punchcard counties. St. Louis County, King County, Orange 
County, CA, all had error rates less than 1 percent. Clark County, NV, 
home of Las Vegas, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, San 
Bernardino County and San Diego County all used punchcard and had an 
error rate less than 2 percent. In fact, punchcards are much better 
represented than electronic machines. Only three of those jurisdictions 
that fell below the national average used electronic machines.
  To conclude that punchcards are out of date and therefore responsible 
for the high error rates we saw in Palm Beach County is simply wrong. 
In Florida, there were 15 other counties that used punchcards and had a 
lower error rate than Palm Beach County. The problem is not punchcards. 
The problem was in the voting booth with the voters in Palm Beach 
County.
  Whatever the issue, whatever the reason, whatever the problem, the 
people of Palm Beach, their elected officials, had the opportunity to 
review the problem and correct it. There are a number of ways they 
could do it. If they want to use money that is available to buy a 
checking machine, they can do that. If they want to put up signs and 
tell the people, look at the ballot, we are going to put lines on the 
ballot that show which are color coded so each office has a color code, 
they can do that. The fact that they need to do that in Palm Beach 
County, or in Cook County, IL, is not a reason why the dollars that are 
going to improve the voting system in our State or any other State 
should be required to get some kind of fancy machine that they do not 
have or buy equipment that they do not need.
  The performance of voting machines is affected by many factors that 
go beyond the equipment. Some of that is the skill and training of poll 
workers. Mistakes made by the individual voters do occur. Some voters 
choose not to cast a ballot.
  I have pointed out in my discussions that one time when I ran, my 
opponent and I, in a large suburban county, received less votes than an 
uncontested candidate for Congress received. Now, were those under 
votes? I regret to say that I cannot claim they were under votes. I 
think maybe the voters chose to say they did not want either one of us. 
That is one of the choices that voters make.
  There are some administrators I have talked to who say that dollar 
for dollar you can get more and better results in assuring voters 
really cast the vote they want to cast with voter education and poll 
worker training. Machines do not solve all human problems. We are going 
to make machines available for those who have conditions that require 
special needs. We are going to provide assistance to those States and 
those areas where they think they need to use a different kind of 
machine.
  The punchcards serve specific local needs. With a punchcard machine, 
each voter needs a blank punchcard. With an optical scan, they need a 
separate ballot. With this bill, we expand the language requirements of 
new voters in very large jurisdictions with many offers and 
propositions. It may be to provide the punchcard makes more sense than 
other technologies. Why should they not be able to use it?
  I believe that we are on the right track by providing assistance. 
Where local jurisdictions find they have problems, where they do not 
feel a need or for some reason or another punchcards do not work, we 
are providing some money and they ought to step up to the plate and put 
in some of their own money and get something they think would work. I 
strongly object to saying we are in this bill going to mandate that 
everybody uses a certain kind of machine or has a certain kind of check 
and balance. We have already gotten into the business of local 
elections on a grand scale and, frankly, I do not think most of us who 
have had experience in elections want to see the Federal Government 
take over the function totally. We are making money available for those 
jurisdictions and those States which think they ought to have a 
different system.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we all know, regrettably, we are 
going to be spending the Social Security surplus in this year's budget, 
and this amendment, in effect, would require us to spend some of the 
Social Security

[[Page S819]]

surplus to buy new voting machines. It seems to me that is a 
particularly inappropriate use of the Social Security surplus, which 
is, in fact, going to be spent this year on such items as fighting the 
war abroad and homeland security.
  I want to echo the comments of Senator Kit Bond. There are 64,337 
precincts in America that use punchcards. Nearly 50 million voters vote 
on punchcards. The practical effect of the amendment of the Senator 
from Illinois is to replace the vast majority of those with some 
system, which is why the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the 
committee, who would otherwise be in favor of this amendment, has 
stated that this begins to unravel the bill.
  If we mandate a particular voting system in this way, there will be 
lots of other amendments coming in mandating other kinds of methods of 
voting. So I hope this amendment will be defeated. I think it is a path 
we do not want to go down if we are serious about trying to enact this 
legislation. I know the chairman of the committee and I are certainly 
serious about it. We think it would be a step in the right direction 
and an appropriate step to take. We have managed to get together on the 
bipartisan basis and we hope we can keep that bipartisan spirit 
together and move this bill toward passage.
  I am unaware of any other debate. Did Senator Bond reserve the 
remainder of his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining under the 
unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes. The 
Senator from Missouri has 6 minutes. The Senator from Kentucky has 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't know if the Senator from Missouri wants 
additional time. I thought we were aiming for 10 minutes to 3.
  Mr. DODD. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the 
Senator from yielding back time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have not used the last 5 minutes. I thank the Senator 
for his always valuable advice.
  The Senator from Missouri, in all fairness, was not here at the 
opening of my comments about the system. I want the Senator to reflect 
for a moment on some of the things he said and some of the things which 
we know to be true. The Senator undoubtedly points to St. Louis County 
which has an excellent record on the punchcard system. But the simple 
fact according to the Caltech-MIT study is that nationwide the No. 1 
voting system which voided ballots cast for President in the year 2000 
was the punchcard system. There was no other system as bad as the 
punchcard system for taking away a person's right to vote for President 
in the year 2000. That is a fact. They conclude 300,000 Americans went 
to vote for President and their votes were not counted on punchcard 
systems, but would have been on other systems such as optical scan. 
Punchcard systems didn't work as well. They spoiled their ballots.
  To suggest there is no problem defies the obvious statistical 
information in evidence we have been given.
  The Senator from Missouri also said you can check out your ballot 
before you leave the punchcard voting place. He is right. I have done 
it. It is no small feat. Remember those pictures of the judges in 
Florida staring at the little holes in the cards, trying to figure out 
which hole had been punched, what was hanging, what was pregnant, what 
was gone, what was here, what was there?
  If we are going to turn voting in America into this kind of bunco 
game to see how we can stop someone from exercising their right to 
vote, we ought to mandate punchcard systems. We know that is the system 
that takes the vote away for President of the United States, whether 
you are a Democrat or a Republican.
  I know what it means to check the ballots, the punchcard ballots. 
Better have good eyesight and patience to match up every hole in the 
card to the number next to it on the ballot in front of you.
  There has been lots of talk about Federal mandates. I didn't write 
the compromise substitute amendment before the Senate. I believe the 
Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Kentucky, and even the 
Senator from Missouri had a voice in this. I refer Members to the 
opening of this amendment. Here is what the amendment the Senator is 
prepared to support, the substitute bill, says: Each voting system used 
in an election for Federal office shall meet the following 
requirements.
  Like it or not, that is a mandate.
  Among the requirements is to have a system that notifies voters of 
overvotes, and to give the voter the power to verify votes and the 
power to correct errors. That is a mandate currently in the law.
  Senator Bond's amendment said we will make an exception for punchcard 
machines for one out of three voters. This Federal requirement to make 
sure people's votes count will not apply in a punchcard system.
  I don't think that is fair. I don't think it is fair to voters across 
America who have little voice in the process as to what kind of voting 
machine they will face on election day.
  What I think makes sense is to treat voters as fairly as possible, 
whether they live in St. Louis County, St. Louis city, or in rural 
Missouri. The same thing is true in Illinois.
  What I am doing, some can say, is not to my advantage. Cook County 
has a court order saying we will check the punchcards to make sure 
people get a chance to vote correctly. This amendment will apply to the 
whole State, the Republican rural areas as well as the inner-city 
Democratic areas.
  Make no mistake, the people most likely disadvantaged by the weakness 
of the punchcard system are people living in cities that are 
overwhelmingly minority and low-income people. Once again, when it 
comes to voting in America, if you happen to have enough money and live 
in the right place in America, you are not going to have a problem on 
election day. But if you happen to be a hard-working, blue-collar 
person who comes in to vote and is stuck with a punchcard system, the 
deck is stacked against you. And this bill doesn't help you one darned 
bit.
  If we are going to do anything fair across America to help the 
situation in Florida and ourselves, for goodness' sake, give every 
American an opportunity to have their vote counted.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, with all due respect, I agree with much of 
what my colleague said, but I want to make a couple of corrections. The 
$3.5 billion, we are told, is the number if every single precinct in 
the country decided to change every voting machine. It has to be the 
most sophisticated equipment you can buy. The number we have put in 
this bill is not drawn out of thin air. This is a number that should 
accommodate virtually every jurisdiction to make changes. Obviously 
that will not happen in every jurisdiction. But the money will be 
there, provided the Appropriations Committee supports what the 
President asked for in this budget and what we included.
  Second, I make the case again, this bill gives people the right to be 
able to verify how they have voted and to have the right to ask for 
that check to occur. It says nothing in here to prohibit that. In fact, 
the resources are going to the States, and in this particular case, so 
they can get the equipment that Illinois will have in Cook County, to 
be able to update its punchcard system or whatever else it wants to 
have.
  These are very significant steps forward that come closer to 
addressing the problem that the Senator from Illinois identified. Not 
as comprehensively as he would, I add, with his amendment; his 
amendment goes much further than that. I am not really disagreeing 
except to the extent I try to present to this entire Chamber a bill 
that would enjoy the support of an overwhelming majority of Democrats 
and Republicans. That is not an easy task when it comes to election 
reform.
  I have great respect for my colleague from Illinois, and I urge our 
colleagues to vote their conscience, although on this issue I happen to 
disagree.
  If there is no further requests for time, I urge we get to a vote on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

[[Page S820]]

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I concur with the Senator from Connecticut 
we should move along as quickly as possible.
  There were a number of items raised. Apparently, there was a 
misunderstanding. The Senator from Illinois claimed I said some things 
I didn't say. I didn't say there were no problems. I didn't say they 
didn't have a problem in Cook County. They have a court order. 
Apparently, they do have a problem. They may well have a problem in 
Palm Beach County.
  I said we provide some money that can assist them in curing their 
problem. We want to see elections honestly and fairly conducted and do 
everything we can to assist the voter to make the right choice and be 
able to cast their ballots as they wish. There is no requirement in 
this bill that if you have a paper ballot you have to have a machine to 
check it. If you have a mail-in ballot, you don't have to send it back 
if it is overvoted or undervoted. If you have an optical scan, there is 
no way to check it.
  On these things where there is a piece of paper, optical scan or a 
punchcard, we say we are putting money for voter education to tell 
voters how to do it. It is not like the poor people trying to come up 
with ideas about what is a hanging chad or what is a pregnant chad. 
With a little voter education you can tell them, if you are not sure 
after you punched the ballot, you look at it. If you do not think you 
got it right, you can get another one and do it right.
  There is an obligation on the voter and there are all different kinds 
of voting equipment and systems to make sure he or she makes the right 
choice. As I said, part of that is making sure if you want to vote for 
candidate A, you vote for candidate A. This is not a big brother nation 
where we go in and guarantee everybody is going to make every right 
choice. There are lots of errors.
  As a matter of fact, some of the most expensive equipment we have, 
the DRE equipment, a whiz-bang machine, the error rate is equal to the 
error rate on punchcards. By the way, the studies that have been done 
show there is no link whatsoever between the kind of system or the 
technology available and the economic status of the voting area. That 
is what I would call a red herring.
  St. Louis County, MO, has some of the wealthiest and some of the 
poorest voters in our State. They all get to use a punchcard.

  In Audrain County, MO, we don't have a lot on the high end. We have a 
lot in the low end. We have a lot in the middle. We use a punchcard. I 
don't think we ought to be saying that because folks in Cook County or 
Palm Beach have had problems with punchcards--given the fact that our 
county clerk in Audrain County makes the system work for the people who 
vote there, we should not have to go back and tell them: Whoa, you have 
to spend some money, take the available Federal resources, match it, 
because you need to have a different kind of equipment to check the 
punchcard. Most of the folks back home at the coffee shop would say, 
after all this whoop-de-la in Florida, they are going to look at the 
ballot and make sure they punched the things out that they wanted to 
punch out.
  I do not believe we need to intrude further on the management of 
elections by saying you can't use a punchcard machine unless you have 
another form of device. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank, again, the Senator from Missouri for his 
contributions to this debate and reiterate that the key to this is 
voter education, as Senator Bond pointed out, and with the punchcard 
there is an opportunity to correct.
  Assuming the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is agreed to, 
this is going to use up close to $1 billion of the $3.5 billion 
authorized in this bill. Then I wouldn't be surprised to see other 
Senators coming over, offering amendments to mandate other kinds of 
voting machines.
  So I think this amendment should be opposed. I think it begins to 
unravel the bill. I hope our colleagues will not support the Durbin 
amendment.
  Is all time yielded back?
  I reserve the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the debate we just heard is probably a 
replay of many arguments over the Voting Rights Act of 1965: It is a 
matter of States' rights. It isn't the Congress's responsibility. This 
is too big a job.
  But we decided in the 1960s that the accident of birth or color would 
not deny you your right to vote in America. Today, by turning down this 
amendment, we would say the accident of the voting machine that you 
face wherever you happen to be registered can turn away your right to 
vote, can deny you this basic constitutional franchise.
  One out of three voters will not have the protection of this law 
because the compromise legislation doesn't provide for notification in 
punchcard systems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would like my colleagues to understand that voting 
for the Durbin amendment means spending Social Security surplus to buy 
voting machines--spending Social Security surplus to buy voting 
machines. I hope that is a step we will not take, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has time remaining.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, briefly, this is not, as has been 
characterized, a replay of the basic Voting Rights Act. We assure 
everyone has a right to education. We are just not mandating a new 
machine be purchased in every jurisdiction, whether they need it or 
not. They work in many jurisdictions. If they do not work, let those 
jurisdictions fix them. We are not going to mandate that everybody 
spend money on them.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2895. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Hatch
  The amendment (No. 2895) was rejected.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S821]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Montana is 
ready to call up an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2887

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2887.

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To clarify the ability of election officials to remove 
   registrants from official list of voters on grounds of change of 
                               residence)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CLARIFICATION OF ABILITY OF ELECTION OFFICIALS TO 
                   REMOVE REGISTRANTS FROM OFFICIAL LIST OF VOTERS 
                   ON GROUNDS OF CHANGE OF RESIDENCE.

       Section 8(b)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(b)(2)) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``, except 
     that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a 
     State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) 
     and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of 
     eligible voters if the individual has not voted or appeared 
     to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for 
     Federal office and has not either notified the applicable 
     registrar (in person or in writing) or responded to a notice 
     sent by the applicable registrar during the period in which 
     such elections are held that the individual intends to remain 
     registered in the registrar's jurisdiction.''.

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this is a very simple amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senators from Florida had a 
proposal they want to present and on which we are prepared to rule. The 
Senator from Connecticut also had a proposal, as well as the Senator 
from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, if I am out of line, I could be put back 
in line very easily.
  Mr. DODD. That would be a first, Madam President.
  How much time does the Senator from Montana want on his amendment?
  Mr. BURNS. I don't think it is going to take much more than 15 
minutes. If you had somebody scheduled in front of me, I say to the 
Senator from Connecticut, I would facilitate that.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate the Senator's consideration. What we might do 
is proceed with the Senator from Connecticut, then the two Senators 
from Florida--they need a very short amount of time on their proposal, 
and it may be accepted--then the Senator from Montana. We will try to 
get some time agreements and see if we can't get some other Senators to 
come forward. We will move these things in order. We will move in that 
fashion, if that is all right.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I might suggest, we just had an amendment 
from your side. If this amendment could be handled in 15 minutes, why 
don't we work on getting time agreements, go back and forth to the 
extent that we have an equal number of amendments?
  Mr. DODD. I am prepared to do that as well. In the meantime, my 
colleague from Montana very graciously has offered to wait because I 
did make a commitment to my colleague from Connecticut. You don't want 
to get me in trouble in Connecticut. Let me turn to my colleague from 
Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 2889

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut, the distinguished chair and manager of this very critical 
piece of legislation. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell for 
the bipartisan agreement they have that brings forth this historic 
reform legislation.
  As the Presiding Officer knows well, I have a particularly personal 
and poignant series of memories related to the election of 2000, most 
of them really quite good until post-election day. As my mother, if I 
may quote her in this great Chamber, said: There must have been a 
reason that happened.
  Maybe one of the reasons was to lead to the election reform proposal 
that is before this Chamber which I think will take significant strides 
forward in making sure that if we ever have a national election as 
close as the one in 2000 again, there will be a series of laws and 
procedures in place, an ongoing commission in place that will make 
certain, one, that the right of citizens to vote is not just the right 
to cast their ballot but the right to have that vote counted, of which 
millions were not counted throughout the country, and that there be a 
more orderly process for determining, without resort to courts, what 
the result of that election was.
  Bottom line: I thank Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell for bringing 
this bill forward.
  I call up amendment No. 2889, which I have placed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself 
     and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2889.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for full voting representation in Congress for the 
  citizens of the District of Columbia, to amend the Internal Revenue 
   Code of 1986 to provide that individuals who are residents of the 
District of Columbia shall be exempt from Federal income taxation until 
 such full voting representation takes effect, and for other purposes)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the community 
     of American citizens who are residents of the District 
     constituting the seat of Government of the United States 
     shall have full voting representation in Congress.

     SEC. ____. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 
                   RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     inserting after section 138 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 138A. RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       ``(a) Exemption for Residents During Years Without Full 
     Voting Representation in Congress.--This section shall apply 
     with respect to any taxable year during which residents of 
     the District of Columbia are not represented in the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate by individuals who are elected 
     by the voters of the District and who have the same voting 
     rights in the House of Representatives and the Senate as 
     Members who represent States.
       ``(b) Residents for Entire Taxable Year.--An individual who 
     is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia during 
     the entire taxable year shall be exempt from taxation under 
     this chapter for such taxable year.
       ``(c) Taxable Year of Change of Residence From District of 
     Columbia.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who has 
     been a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia for a 
     period of at least 2 years before the date on which such 
     individual changes his residence from the District of 
     Columbia, income which is attributable to that part of such 
     period of District of Columbia residence before such date 
     shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt 
     from taxation under this chapter.
       ``(2) Deductions, etc. allocable to excluded amounts not 
     allowable.--An individual shall not be allowed--
       ``(A) as a deduction from gross income any deductions 
     (other than the deduction under section 151, relating to 
     personal exemptions), or
       ``(B) any credit,

     properly allocable or chargeable against amounts excluded 
     from gross income under this subsection.
       ``(d) Determination of Residency.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     determination of whether an individual is a bona fide 
     resident of the District of Columbia shall be made under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Individuals registered to vote in other 
     jurisdictions.--No individual may be treated as a bona fide 
     resident of the District of Columbia for purposes of this 
     section with respect to a taxable year if at any time during 
     the year the individual is registered to vote in any other 
     jurisdiction.''.
       (b) No Wage Withholding.--Paragraph (8) of section 3401(a) 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) for services for an employer performed by an employee 
     if it is reasonable to

[[Page S822]]

     believe that during the entire calendar year the employee 
     will be a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia 
     unless section 138A is not in effect throughout such calendar 
     year; or''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 138 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 138A. Residents of the District of Columbia.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to remuneration paid after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is an amendment that I am 
introducing and will then withdraw. I thought it was important to put 
this issue before the Chamber while we are considering comprehensive 
election reform legislation because in our country the right to vote is 
a sacred right. The vote is a civic entitlement of every American 
citizen. We believe the vote to be democracy's most essential tool. Not 
only is the vote the indispensable sparkplug of our democracy, the vote 
is the sine qua non of democracy and equality because each person's 
vote is of equal weight, no matter what their wealth is or their 
station in life--or is it?
  That is the question this amendment poses. As we engage in this 
debate to remedy the voting problems that arose in the election of 
2000, we have to acknowledge the most longstanding denial of voting 
representation in our country, and that is the denial of voting rights 
to the citizens who live right here in our Nation's Capital. The nearly 
600,000 people who live in the Nation's Capital are denied voting 
representation in the Congress of the United States. Citizens of DC 
have a nonvoting delegate in the House who may vote in committees but 
not on the House floor. DC citizens--our fellow citizens--are not 
represented in this body at all. Yet, as we speak, residents of the 
District of Columbia are engaged abroad and at home in the current war 
against terrorism alongside other Americans.
  The people who live here in our Nation's Capital have always met each 
and every obligation of citizenship. They have fought and died in all 
of our wars, often in greater numbers proportionately, and even 
absolutely, than larger States. In fact, sadly, the casualties of 
District residents in our wars have been increasing.
  In World War I, the district suffered more casualties than three 
States. In World War II, it suffered more casualties than four States. 
In Korea, it suffered more casualties than eight States. And in 
Vietnam, more residents of the District of Columbia were casualties 
than in 10 States.
  I am the sponsor of legislation before the Finance Committee at this 
point which is called the No Taxation Without Representation Act. Its 
name is taken, of course, from our own revolution because our forebears 
went to war rather than pay taxes without being represented. Citizens 
of our Capital believe in the principles of the Nation's revolutionary 
heroes established as a result of our own revolution. Today, they are 
using the only tools of democracy available to them to secure voting 
representation in Congress. They are seeking redress of their 
legitimate grievances from us in Congress.
  Madam President, despite the bill's title--No Taxation Without 
Representation Act--the people of the District seek voting 
representation, not exemption from taxes. I must admit there are 
employees of our office who are residents of the District who have been 
tempted to have the exclusion go the other way. The tax provision is in 
the bill for effect--perhaps an ironic effect--to remind us of the 
American principle that gave birth to the Nation--that no man or woman 
should be required to pay taxes to a government until represented by a 
vote on what that government does or requires.
  No other taxpaying Americans are required to pay taxes without 
representation in Congress. Indeed, residents of the District of 
Columbia are second per capita in taxes paid to the Federal 
Government--comparing them to all the States of the Union. Tax issues, 
of course, are some of the most contentious issues that come before the 
Congress. We cannot even begin to contemplate how our own constituents 
would react if we could not vote one way or another on pending tax 
legislation that would have so personal an effect on them.

  I support voting rights for District residents for the same reason I 
support the historic election reform bill before us today. The great 
principle of voting rights is riding on both bills. I know the American 
people believe their national credo requires that no taxpaying 
Americans are to be excluded from voting representation in Congress. A 
national public opinion poll suggests as much. The majority of 
Americans believe that DC residents already have congressional voting 
rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent say, around the 
country, that DC residents should have full representation.
  Like the bill before us, our No Taxation Without Representation Act 
seeks to vindicate the precious right of voting representation. As I 
said at the outset, I do not intend to press for a vote on this 
amendment at this time. That is a decision that I have made in 
cooperation with those in the District who most advocate voting rights, 
including Eleanor Holmes Norton. I raise voting rights for the citizens 
of our Capital during this discussion because these rights are a 
related issue of great importance to our country.
  Last year was the 225th anniversary of the American Revolution, and 
the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the Nation's Capital. The 
revolutionaries who fought to establish our country, and later the wise 
Framers who wrote our Constitution, did not intend to penalize and deny 
basic rights to the citizens who settled and built our Capital into a 
great American city. The city had not yet been established or come 
under congressional jurisdiction when the Constitution was signed. In 
fact, the first DC residents continued to vote in Maryland and 
Virginia, the States from which the land for the District was ceded, 
for 10 years following the ratification of the Constitution.
  In placing our Capital under the jurisdiction of the Congress, the 
Framers intended to pass to us the responsibility, I believe, to assure 
the rights of the citizens of the Capital once the city was 
established.
  Unfortunately, Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more 
than 200 years.
  So I intend to withdraw this amendment. As I do, I ask that we 
reconsider the denial of voting representation to the citizens of our 
Nation's Capital, those who live here at the heart of our democracy. 
The time has long since passed for Congress to extend voting 
representation to those who live where we do the people's business. I 
hope we will find a way to remedy this wrong soon.
  I want to state that Senator Feingold is my cosponsor and, at the 
appropriate time, we will submit a statement for the record in support 
of this amendment. I now withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Before he does that, I want to be added as a cosponsor as 
well.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am honored to do it.
  The amendment (No. 2889) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DODD. There have been a number of proposals such as this 
throughout the years for the District of Columbia to have 
representation. It is one of the great travesties, in my view. Many 
people live here. It has the population of many States, and they don't 
have a vote or a voice in the Senate. They have a voice, but no vote, 
in the House of Representatives.
  I appreciate the fact that we are not going to press the issue on 
this bill. I commend the Senator for raising the issue, for 
articulating the point of view that I think many Americans, when 
confronted with the facts, embrace. I think they are shocked to see 
that this many people are excluded from representation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is no value we can attach to the 
most basic right of every citizen living in a democracy. The right to 
vote is much more than dropping a ballot in a box. The right to vote 
symbolizes freedom, equality, and participation in the government that 
creates the laws and policies under which we all live. This is why I 
rise today, in support of Senator Lieberman's D.C. voting rights 
amendment.

[[Page S823]]

  Under our representational democracy, every American is entitled to a 
voting voice in Congress, a voice that seeks to speak for their 
interests and present their needs, unless you live in the District of 
Columbia.
  When the District of Columbia was created as the United States 
Capital 200 years ago, its residents lost their right to congressional 
representation. It is time for us to right this wrong.
  District of Columbia residents serve in the U.S. armed forces, and 
some of them are currently overseas fighting in our war on terrorism. 
D.C. residents fought and died in the Vietnam war. They keep our 
Federal Government and capital city running, day and night. They pay 
Federal taxes. And yet they have no voice. We fail to give them a say 
on even basic administrative matters that other states and cities 
decide for themselves. D.C. residents can fight and die in the name of 
their country, but they can't implement a local budget without the 
approval of Congress.
  What makes this inequity particularly egregious is that District of 
Columbia residents, like all Americans, pay Federal taxes. So while the 
rest of the Nation benefits from our victory in the Revolutionary War, 
the voice of D.C. residents continues the rallying cry, ``No taxation 
without representation.'' This founding principle of our Nation, which 
so vigorously carried us to our Nation's independence, has still not 
been honored for this group of Americans.
  There are approximately 490,000 Americans living in the State of 
Wyoming. Residents of Wyoming have three voting voices in Congress. 
There are 550,000 Americans living in Washington, D.C. These Americans, 
however, purely due to the location of their residence, have no 
representative with full voting authority in either the House or 
Senate. D.C. has one delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, but she does not 
enjoy the same right to participate in decision-making as her 
colleagues. And, of course, D.C. has no representation in the Senate. 
This is not equal representation. It is unequal representation. It is 
wrong. It is un-American. And it should end.
  Virtually every other nation, from Albania to Zimbabwe, grants the 
residents of their capital cities equal representation in their 
legislature. It is simply an embarrassment that in these modern times, 
we, as the world's most powerful democracy, are denying suffrage to 
half a million Americans.
  Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the United States 
has forged its own suffrage history, overcoming the denial of access 
and extending voting rights to all Americans regardless of race, 
gender, wealth, marital status, or land ownership. Through our 
interpretation of the one-person/one-vote doctrine, we have made great 
strides in overcoming inequality and underrepresentation. There 
remains, however, this suffrage hurdle: the disenfranchisement of 
550,000 District of Columbia residents.
  This hurdle has been recognized by Republicans and Democrats alike. 
In 1978, Congress debated and passed a Constitutional amendment 
granting D.C. voting representation. Then-Senator Bob Dole said:

       The Republican party supported DC voting representation 
     because it was just, and in justice we could do nothing else.

  The 1976 Democratic and Republican platforms were almost identical on 
this issue, the Republican platform stating:

       We support giving the District of Columbia voting 
     representation in the U.S. Senate and House of 
     Representatives.

  The Democratic platform echoed:

       We support full Home Rule for the District of Columbia, 
     including full voting representation in the Congress.

  Unfortunately, since 1978, the Senate has not considered this 
important issue.
  President Lincoln spoke of a ``government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people.'' This guiding principle has sustained 
America throughout some of her most trying times. Shouldn't the people 
who work and reside in the presence of this former president's 
monument, and who have contributed so much to making our Nation the 
great nation that it is, have the right to live by this ideal?
  It is time to address this injustice. At a time when the Senate is 
debating election reform and reflecting on issues like antiquated 
voting machines, the Senate should also address one of the oldest and 
most egregious violations of the fundamental right to vote--the lack of 
full voting representation in Congress for D.C. residents.
  I thank Senator Lieberman for offering this important amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to join our effort to allow D.C. residents to 
enjoy the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut for his kind words and for his leadership.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by Senator Burns 
be set aside for a moment so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, is this another amendment?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thought that the Senator from Montana 
was going to be able to go after the first amendment. I had an 
amendment on the death tax and small business depreciation. We were 
trying to expedite the procedure. I ask how long this amendment will 
take.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. My statement will take, at most, 10 minutes. I think 
the understanding, I say through the Chair, is that I would make a 
statement on behalf of DC voting rights and withdraw it and then 
proceed to an amendment, which may engender debate on the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2890

  Madam President, I have amendment No. 2890 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2890.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize administrative leave for Federal employees to 
           perform poll worker service in Federal elections)

       At the end of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 402. AUTHORIZED LEAVE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM 
                   POLL WORKER SERVICE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Federal Employee Voter Assistance Act of 2002''.
       (b) Leave for Federal Employees.--Chapter 63 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     6328 the following:

     ``Sec. 6329. Leave for poll worker service

       ``(a) In this section, the term--
       ``(1) `employee' means an employee of an Executive agency 
     (other than the General Accounting Office) who is not a 
     political appointee;
       ``(2) `political appointee' means any individual who--
       ``(A) is employed in a position that requires appointment 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate;
       ``(B) is employed in a position on the executive schedule 
     under sections 5312 through 5316;
       ``(C) is a noncareer appointee in the senior executive 
     service as defined under section 3132(a)(7); or
       ``(D) is employed in a position that is excepted from the 
     competitive service because of the confidential policy-
     determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character of 
     the position; and
       ``(3) `poll worker service'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) administrative and clerical, nonpartisan service 
     relating to a Federal election performed at a polling place 
     on the date of that election; and
       ``(ii) training before or on that date to perform service 
     described under clause (i); and
       ``(B) shall not include taking an active part in political 
     management or political campaigns as defined under section 
     7323(b)(4).
       ``(b)(1)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the head of an 
     agency shall grant an employee paid leave under this section 
     to perform poll worker service.
       ``(B) The head of an agency may deny any request for leave 
     under this section if the denial is based on the exigencies 
     of the public business.
       ``(2) Leave under this section--
       ``(A) shall be in addition to any other leave to which an 
     employee is otherwise entitled;
       ``(B) may not exceed 3 days in any calendar year; and
       ``(C) may be used only in the calendar year in which that 
     leave is granted.
       ``(3) An employee requesting leave under this section shall 
     submit written documentation from election officials 
     substantiating the training and service of the employee.

[[Page S824]]

       ``(4) An employee who uses leave under this section to 
     perform poll worker service may not receive payment for that 
     poll worker service.''.
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made 
     by this section.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than June 1, 2005, the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the implementation of section 6329 of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by this section), and the extent 
     of participation by Federal employees under that section.
       (2) Subsequent reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     each general election for the Office of the President, the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the participation of Federal employees under 
     section 6329 of title 5, United States Code (as added by this 
     section), with respect to all Federal elections which 
     occurred in the 54-month period preceding that submission 
     date.
       (B) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on 
     January 1, 2008.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6328 
     the following:

``6329. Leave for poll worker service.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, this section shall take effect 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, this amendment will address one of the most critical 
problems in our electoral process. It is consistent with the overall 
purpose of the bill, and that is the pressing need for more trained and 
able poll workers to serve during Federal elections.
  Obviously, our democracy is run by a cast of millions of voters who 
deserve to cast their ballots in the full confidence that they will be 
counted. This landmark legislation will provide much needed funding to 
States and localities to improve voting systems and standards, to 
create computerized statewide voter registration systems, to improve 
accessibility for voters with disabilities, and it will provide 
provisional voting so that all eligible voters who go to the polls can 
be assured they can cast their vote.
  These are all very important improvements, the fruit of constructive, 
broad-ranging, and bipartisan discussion on election reform that has 
been conducted over the last 14 months and led with great purpose and 
ability by my friend and colleague from Connecticut.
  However, comparatively little attention has been paid to solving 
another problem that affects our electoral process, and that is the 
difficulty that local jurisdictions have in recruiting and training 
enough people to work at the polls on election day.
  We need an army of trained, responsible, reliable, experienced people 
to work at the polls on election day to ensure that the laws we adopt, 
including the one before us, are implemented fully and that the 
elections are conducted efficiently and fairly. Right now, from all 
that the experts tell us, that army of poll workers is without 
sufficient support. There are not enough troops to carry out 
the responsibilities that they have. In fact, the General Accounting 
Office, the National Commission on Election Reform, which was chaired 
by former Presidents Carter and Ford, and a host of others who have 
examined the whole question of the way we cast our votes, have 
documented the extent of this problem of inadequacy of numbers of poll 
workers.

  In most locations, the recruiting and training of qualified poll 
workers is one of the most crucial, yet difficult, tasks that election 
officials face. Fifty-seven percent of local election officials 
responding to a GAO mail survey said they encountered major problems in 
conducting the 2000 election.
  GAO estimated that more than half of the election jurisdictions 
encountered problems finding a sufficient number of poll workers. I 
repeat that. GAO estimated that more than half of the election 
jurisdictions in the United States in the 2000 Presidential election 
had problems finding a sufficient number of poll workers.
  There are many reasons why local jurisdictions have had these 
difficulties. Obviously, the hours are long, the pay is low, and 
funding for training workers is in short supply. That is a particular 
problem given the fact that advanced new voting systems that will be 
unfamiliar to many voters will soon be deployed in many jurisdictions 
as a result of the difficulties in the 2000 election and, in fact, 
hopefully as a result of the funding and requirements established and 
provided for in this bill.
  Many poll workers are now drawn from the ranks of senior citizens and 
retirees. This legislation already addresses some of these issues by 
providing States with additional funding and holding them accountable 
for improving management of the polling place, but we can and should do 
more.
  We often lament how voter turnout rates have fallen in our democracy. 
I regret today that given our shortage of poll workers, if our dreams 
of civic participation were to become true and voter turnout were to 
surge upward, it would present a logistical nightmare in many 
jurisdictions because the poll workers are stretched, stressed, and 
strained as it is, and they need their ranks to be bolstered.
  I support such efforts as those in the legislation passed by our 
colleagues in the other body to encourage students to become active in 
politics and work at the polls. However, I do not think that is enough. 
We need to do more.
  Fortunately, there is an able reserve force of civic-minded people. I 
am speaking of Federal employees. I am convinced many are ready to 
spring into action if they are encouraged to do so by a law and their 
agencies. I believe the Federal Government should welcome its 
employees' service on the front lines of our democracy.
  This amendment would allow Federal civil servants, not political 
appointees, to take time off with pay for training and then to work as 
nonpartisan poll workers in Federal elections. We are not talking about 
election workers for either party but nonpartisan poll workers. Most 
civil servants demonstrate daily they have the temperament and maturity 
necessary to serve citizens at the polls.
  Moreover, because many Federal employees are bilingual, they would be 
a particular asset to foreign-language-speaking voters, addressing yet 
another problem facing many jurisdictions as they organize elections.
  I stress that this amendment would authorize civil servants to be 
paid by their agency only to work in nonpartisan capacities. Anyone who 
wants to serve in a partisan capacity must do so on their own time at 
their own expense.

  I am also not proposing in this amendment that we establish a general 
election day holiday for all Federal employees. That is a separate 
question which we are not touching in this amendment.
  Under the amendment, employees who want to participate would be 
allowed to do so unless their absence would impede the agency's ability 
to accomplish its mission. That is an exception written into the 
amendment which would be exercised by their supervisors.
  Employees' service at the polls would have to be substantiated in 
writing by election officials and would be limited to up to 3 days with 
pay in any single calendar year. The Office of Personnel Management 
would be required to draft regulations to provide guidance to agencies 
and employees on how to fulfill the intent of this amendment and to 
report to Congress on how they are doing.
  It is important to note that there is some precedent for this idea. 
Federal employees under law are now serving in nonpartisan capacities 
as examiners and observers under a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights 
Act. During fiscal year 2000, the Office of Personnel Management 
provided some 550 observers and 40 examiners, either current or retired 
employees, to work in 10 States. They worked in areas where there were 
allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination in the voting process or 
in areas where jurisdictions have not provided the required language 
assistance or ballot translation. So there is a precedent for what I am 
proposing.
  There is no way to predict with any degree of certainty how many of 
the 2.8 million Federal civilian employees who live and work in 
jurisdictions across the country would be willing to receive training 
and work at polls under this amendment, but Los Angeles County

[[Page S825]]

has already implemented a similar program for its employees, and the 
results have been very encouraging. In fact, because of those results, 
the State of California passed legislation encouraging its employees to 
serve as poll workers as well.
  If the Federal Government leads by example and implements this 
amendment, I am hopeful we will see the same thing happen across 
America, and State and local governments, perhaps even private 
employers, will follow suit to strengthen the implementation of our 
election laws, their fairness, and the health of our democracy.
  I believe we would be remiss in passing this excellent broad 
legislation aimed at improving our election system without also 
providing a way to have an influx of new, trained, experienced workers 
to implement the rights we are securing with this proposal.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. First of all, let me again commend my colleague from 
Connecticut for a very helpful proposal. I do not know if we are going 
to adopt this today. I do not know how the votes would come out on all 
of this, but I think the idea of making elections more accessible and 
making available the opportunity for people to participate more is a 
good idea. As the Senator pointed out, Congressman Hoyer in the House-
passed version of this bill has a provision that actually encourages 
the participation of college students in the electoral process, 
volunteers.
  Our colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, has a similar proposal 
he intends to offer at some point before final passage of this bill, as 
well as Senator Hollings and Senator Boxer. I can think of several 
others who have proposed the idea. Senator Byrd has had a strong 
interest in the idea of a holiday or a day other than the first Tuesday 
after the first Monday as a way to increase citizen participation in 
elections.
  What the Senator from Connecticut has offered is, of course, a way in 
the interim period for people who will be able to take time away from 
their jobs to deal obviously with Federal elections and to be 
volunteers. So I am very attracted to his proposal.
  What I am going to recommend is we might set aside this amendment 
while we consider two or three other amendments, and then ask for these 
votes, if the Senator so insists on a recorded vote, to occur at a time 
we can determine shortly after we consider the Burns amendment, the 
Nelson and Graham amendments, maybe those three, as a way of trying to 
deal with some amendments en bloc.
  My colleague from Connecticut and the Senator from Missouri may want 
to respond, or the Senator from Kentucky, to the amendment of the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  In the interim, let me say it is about 10 minutes of 4 p.m. I urge 
Members to come or send staff over. We have a long list of amendments. 
I have shown the list before. There are Senators who have indicated 
they may be interested in offering amendments. I also know they may not 
be interested. But at 5 p.m., if I have not heard from Senators, I am 
going to draw the conclusion that they are not necessarily interested 
in offering it at this time or on this bill. So Senators have an hour 
to let us know whether or not they intend to move forward so we can 
come up with a list of amendments, maybe settle on some times and 
resolve many of them.
  I think we can probably come to agreement on some of the amendments 
without votes in order to move this product along. So by 5 p.m., if I 
have not heard from Senators, I am going to assume that their amendment 
would not be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I would turn over 
the time arrangements to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, who 
is the ranking member and is responsible on this side for managing the 
bill, but I wanted to comment on a few items.
  My good friend from Connecticut, the other Senator from Connecticut, 
has raised some points. I come at it from a very different perspective. 
I want to share that very briefly.
  No. 1, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the problems we have in 
elections today arise from the lack of dedicated, partisan poll workers 
and watchers looking over each other's shoulders in the election booth. 
This is where a lot of the problems can be cleaned up.

  I am most interested and will look with a great deal of interest on 
any recommendations where we can get the young college Democrats and 
Republicans to be involved in the elections because what elections need 
are partisans who are aggressive and informed and will provide a check 
on each other to make sure the voter hears both sides and makes sure 
nobody who may vote for one side or another is not given full 
information.
  Precisely for that reason, I question whether we ought to be 
releasing a whole group of Federal employees, who have important 
responsibilities serving us on a day-to-day basis, from their 
responsibilities to be nonpartisan poll workers. I want the biggest 
partisans in the world.
  We had a mess in Missouri, as I have described, when I ran for 
Governor in 1972. I vowed to clean it up. I got the meanest Republicans 
I could find to serve on the election board as my representatives in 
the major metropolitan areas. I went to my friends who were the 
Democratic leaders of the Missouri General Assembly and I got them to 
nominate for me some of the meanest partisan--well, they were nice 
people but some of the very toughest, most committed partisan 
Democrats. They watched each other, and the system worked. That is how 
the system works. It is the partisans.
  I think there is a great role, and I respect those who are totally 
nonpartisan, but I do not want them looking out for my interests in the 
polling booth. So I have real reservations about trying to put 
nonpartisans into partisan elections.
  One other thing: We have so many of the folks back in the country 
where I am from who, if they thought Federal employees were coming in 
to their local elections, would think of civil disturbances because 
this would not sit well in a few areas of my State, and I perhaps would 
suggest Montana might find that to be a bit objectionable.
  So I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his idea, but I think 
it is searching for a question rather than a solution to the problems 
we have.
  I turn it over to the managers to determine any arrangements that 
need to be made, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in response to my friend from 
Missouri, I suppose I should start by saying I admire his respect for 
checks and balances, and there are some partisan workers at polling 
places, but the problem highlighted by the GAO study and by the 
commission headed by Presidents Carter and Ford was the simple 
inability for a lot of local jurisdictions around the country to find 
an adequate number of people to staff the polls, not partisan 
positions, and there is a way in which there is enough political 
battle, partisan battle, that goes on to excess that when one gets to 
the polling place, they would like to believe there were some people 
there whose responsibility simply was to protect their right to vote 
and make sure their vote was counted, and those are the nonpartisan 
officials in every election jurisdiction across this country. So that 
is what these Federal employees would be able to do.
  I assure my friend from Missouri this is not going to be a Federal 
invasion of the local election process. This is very much a voluntary 
issue, which is, if local election officials want someone living in 
their town, their neighbor presumably, maybe even their friend, though 
a Federal worker, perhaps even a trusted friend, to work in the polling 
place, then that would give the Federal employee the opportunity to 
take the day off with pay. They would not receive any pay from the 
localities. This would actually be a help to the local governments. 
They would get not only first-class, nonpartisan poll workers but would 
not have to pay for them. That is what this is all about.

  I thank Senator Dodd for the time he has given me. I will move in a 
moment to set the amendment aside, but I do want a recorded vote, so I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S826]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, we have been talking about poll workers, 
and we would be remiss if we did not point out, because there are 
literally thousands of people across this country every election day, 
not just on the first Tuesday after the first Monday but also referenda 
that occur in our States and communities all during the year, that 
these are dedicated volunteers. It is really a remarkable thing, 
despite the shortcomings in the process today, that from the beginning 
of our Nation's history it has been voluntary citizens who have offered 
their time at all the polling precincts across the country to 
participate in the election process of the country.
  I would not want the day nor the discussion to end and not point out 
that we have great respect and admiration for these people throughout 
the years who have given so much of their time and effort to see to it 
that the election process works in this country.

  The Senator from Connecticut, my colleague, made a wonderful 
suggestion for expanding the ranks of people who would like to do this. 
Senator Sarbanes, I believe, will offer an amendment to encourage young 
people in college to get involved. We ought to applaud the efforts 
while we simultaneously thank those who have given so much.
  I urge Members--and I think my colleague from Kentucky will do the 
same--if Members have amendments, get them over here and talk to our 
staffs to shorten the list and complete the bill, hopefully.
  I yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Montana, and I ask unanimous 
consent to consider the amendment of the Senator from Montana, with the 
20 minutes equally divided on both sides, pros and cons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2887

  Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I call up my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. BURNS. This is a simple amendment that allows clerks and 
recorders and election directors in each of the counties to purge their 
lists. I am sure all States have college towns with a transient 
population. In Missoula County, there are currently 86,266 registered 
voters. What is noteworthy about that is, of the 86,266 registered 
voters, there are only 76,067 eligible voters. We have over 10,000 
voters, 1 out of 8 registered, that our election officials are required 
to keep on the list but who cannot vote in the county. That is only one 
county in one State across this Nation.
  If we are going to suggest changes in the way we cast our votes on 
the national level, it makes sense to allow election administrators to 
purge their lists in less than 8 years. Right now, the legislation 
calls for that purge every other Presidential election, or every 8 
years. I suggest in my amendment we do it after two Federal elections 
to make sure the list they have is accurate and it is not outdated. Not 
purging leads to mischief, it invites fraud, but it also jeopardizes 
the integrity of one of our basic fundamental rights; that is, the 
right to vote. It is a simple amendment. It is an amendment that needs 
to be implemented.
  We have counties that have a population of only 1,800 people with 
2,500 square miles in the county, and we cannot purge those lists in 
those counties.
  We have some polling places that have no electricity.
  Everybody found that sort of humorous. Imagine the migration from the 
rural areas to cities, which is quite evident in my State. Some old 
country schoolhouses have been maintained but have no electricity. The 
only heat is an old potbellied stove. But they become a polling place 
during elections. There is no telephone, no electricity, and they are 
lit by lantern. It works very well. We do not want to change that.

  This amendment calls for the purge of the lists after every other 
Federal election is held, meaning it would be purged after 4 years. And 
that is a long time. It makes good sense. It is common sense that we do 
it this way. It helps out in handling the expenses of counties in 
conducting elections.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 16 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I say to my good friend from Montana, with whom all Members 
enjoy a wonderful relationship, a basic problem is not only should the 
people have the right to vote, they should all have the right not to 
vote. If people decide they do not want to vote--we would like them to 
vote, we hope they do, but citizens from time to time decide, for 
whatever reason, they do not want to participate in an election or two. 
That should not automatically result in their being purged from the 
list in the community in which they reside.
  We worked hard in this bill to come up with a centralized, statewide 
voter registration system, which is going to be a major step, as the 
Senator from Missouri has pointed out, in dealing with fraud. As part 
of that, we drafted a uniform standard for purging those lists so we 
have the same standards to apply around the country. Obviously, we know 
there are differences in the country from one place to the next.
  This is not an onerous burden at all, in our view. It is a provision 
that took a lot of time to work out. This would flip motor-voter on its 
head and allow jurisdictions to purge voters for not voting. That has 
never been the intent.
  With a great deal of respect for my colleague from Montana, I urge 
the defeat of this amendment. I think this would be a major setback for 
a carefully crafted bill. I point out to my colleagues, we tried to 
craft a piece of bipartisan legislation. In so doing, it means we have 
to accept provisions that you might not have written yourself, and you 
fight to have provisions you care deeply about to be included. That is 
what this legislation reflects. To change the purging requirements on 
this basis would be a major setback in that effort.
  For those reasons, I urge the rejection of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has consumed 
approximately 2 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. If the Senator from Connecticut would yield me 1 minute, 
Madam President, as the Senator mentioned, this is one of the 
provisions on which we worked long and hard. I advocated greater 
flexibility for purging. But at the same time, I was asking for more 
controls over mail-in registrations, making sure we had live people 
voting once, not dead people, not dogs. We came to a compromise in our 
negotiations that obviously went further than the other side would like 
on verifying mail-in registration and didn't go as far as I would like 
on the punching.
  I will vote with my friend from Connecticut, although I believe and I 
am quite confident that the Senator from Montana has pointed out some 
real problems. I hope perhaps we could in conference continue the 
discussion to make sure we keep the voting lists clean. That is not 
just a problem for preventing fraud, that is a problem for assuring 
there is not unnecessary hassle or delay with the people who want to 
vote.
  Clean, adequate, statewide registration rolls make it easier to vote 
and tougher to cheat. I hope we can have further discussions in this 
area to make sure we provide the best tools possible to the State and 
local officials while maintaining the basic goals of the Federal 
legislation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think this gets down to where we really 
want to be in cleaning up this situation on voting lists, 
registrations, and everything that goes with elections. Whenever you 
have a list that is inaccurate, whether it be by address or by name or 
by whatever, and there is a huge list of names on the inactive list, 
this absolutely invites fraud and mischief. It also invites the 
situation where, if you are a voter and you want to vote and that list 
is inaccurate, you may not be able or allowed to vote.
  That is why the purge of the list at least every 4 years is 
necessary. I am adamant on this because I come out of county 
government. I was just a little, old county commissioner, but I 
understand the challenges one has putting on elections. I also 
understand the cost. I also understand what it costs to

[[Page S827]]

maintain a database that is accessible and easy to change as the times 
or the circumstance would suggest.
  This may be a part of our problem in facing the challenges of 
elections, trying to keep ``one vote, one person'' and making sure that 
person is on the list and can vote.
  I ask support of my amendment. I understand the work the managers 
have done on this legislation. I fully understand that and I fully 
understand where they come from. But as we move forward, if we have 
difficulties and we see the difficulties of maintaining the lists, then 
we can also reconsider this at a later time.
  I appreciate the cooperation of the managers, and my good friend from 
Connecticut, and I will yield the remainder of my time, but first I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I yield back my time as well. I ask unanimous consent the 
amendment of the Senator from Montana be temporarily laid aside so we 
can stack some votes. We will turn now to my colleague from Florida to 
offer another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2904

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk. This is an amendment offered by Senator Graham and me.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2904.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Attorney General to submit to Congress reports 
on the investigation of the Department of Justice regarding violations 
       of voting rights in the 2000 elections for Federal office)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS ON VOTING RIGHTS 
                   VIOLATIONS IN THE 2000 ELECTIONS.

       (a) Status Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and each 60 days 
     thereafter until the investigation of the Attorney General 
     regarding violations of voting rights that occurred during 
     the elections for Federal office conducted in November 2000 
     (in this section referred to as the ``investigation'') has 
     concluded, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the status of the investigation.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall contain the following:
       (A) An accounting of the resources that the Attorney 
     General has committed to the investigation prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act and an estimate of the resources 
     that the Attorney General intends to commit to the 
     investigation after such date.
       (B) The date on which the Attorney General intends to 
     conclude the investigation.
       (C) A description of the measures that the Attorney General 
     has taken to ensure that the voting rights violations that 
     are the subject of the investigation do not occur during 
     subsequent elections for Federal office.
       (D) A description of any potential prosecutions for voting 
     rights violations resulting from the investigation and the 
     range of potential punishments for such violations.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than the date that is 60 days 
     after the date of the conclusion of the investigation, the 
     Attorney General shall submit to Congress a final report on 
     the investigation that contains a summary of each preventive 
     action and each punitive action taken by the Attorney General 
     as part of the investigation and a justification for each 
     action taken.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I are 
offering an amendment which would require the Attorney General to 
report to Congress on the status of the Justice Department's 
investigation into alleged voting rights violations during the 2000 
election.
  The Attorney General promised to deliver this information during his 
Senate confirmation, but 1 year later we are still in the dark. We have 
not been getting these reports. Senator Graham and I have sent letters. 
That did produce a meeting with Justice Department officials.
  We asked that a report be sent to us monthly. It has not. One or at 
most two reports out of 12 months have been sent to us.
  I regret this legislation is necessary, but the Department has left 
us with no other option. Senator Graham and I have repeatedly asked the 
Voting Rights Office to fulfill the Attorney General's promise, and 
each time we have requested this status report the Voting Rights Office 
has promised to comply, yet we have received almost nothing over a 12-
month period. That is not the way government is supposed to work.
  So we come to the Senate today to ask that the Department's behavior 
change. We think it is unacceptable. It directly contravenes the 
Senate's ability to exercise its oversight authority over these 
investigations.
  As we have discussed earlier today on the election reform bill, our 
State is certainly riveted to the subject matter that we are discussing 
today and particularly now the amendment Senator Graham and I offer. 
The people of Florida deserve answers about what went wrong in that 
2000 election, and we want to get some answers.
  Basically, we want to know, how is the Justice Department 
investigation going? We want a status report. In our bill, we are 
asking for one every 2 months. Then we say, after the Attorney 
General's office concludes their own investigation, that within 60 days 
they report that to the Congress.
  I express my support for the underlying bill and my thanks to 
Senators Dodd and McConnell for crafting a bill that will greatly 
improve the election process. Nothing is more fundamental than the 
right to vote. We saw in the experience in Florida that there were some 
flaws in the system.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member, Senator 
McConnell, and Senator Dodd for bringing such an important piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  I yield to my colleague from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are here this afternoon largely because 
of the events which surrounded the election in November of 2000. Had 
there not been the degree of turmoil and controversy and allegations, 
it is unlikely there would have been the public momentum that led to 
the development of this very constructive national legislation that I 
hope we are about to adopt.
  There have been other arenas which have been touched by the events of 
November 2000. Many of our State legislatures have adopted new 
procedures, including voting machines, means by which voters will have 
an opportunity to have second ballot checks, and other methods, all of 
which are intended to assure that Americans will have the maximum 
opportunity within the law to participate in our democracy.
  There is another forum, as my good friend and colleague has 
indicated, which has not been functioning as it indicated it would. 
That is the executive responsibility.
  In the past, this Congress has adopted a set of laws which represent 
the national standards for elections. They are particularly sensitive 
to those voters who, maybe in the past, had a history of not having 
full access to voting rights. As part of that process, if there are 
allegations of irregularities, they are referred to the Department of 
Justice for a review and then what action that review indicates is 
appropriate.
  Florida was not the only State that was affected by the turmoil of 
2000. But because we happen to be the last State to have its turmoil 
pacified, we received a particular amount of national attention. So 
this issue is one especially deeply felt by the citizens of our State.
  There is concern about what has happened to these allegations of 
irregularities that were submitted to the Department of Justice that 
have not yet come to closure. As Senator Nelson has indicated, we have 
made requests on a number of occasions to try to get an indication of 
where these reviews were and how close we were to getting a final 
resolution of these matters, and we have largely been rebuffed. I am 
disappointed, frankly, that we have to offer this amendment which will 
require that in all of the areas where there is still an outstanding 
unresolved allegation of violation of Federal standards of election, 
and where the Department of Justice has not come to final closure, 
there be, on a 60-day clock basis, a report to the Congress

[[Page S828]]

which wrote these laws that the Department of Justice is supposed to be 
enforcing, as to what is happening, and how close we are to getting to 
a completion of this review.

  This is intended to be a means by which the Congress can carry out 
its oversight responsibility and protect its laws--laws that, as I 
said, were particularly designed to protect the voting interests of all 
Americans, especially those Americans who in the past have not had 
equal access to our democratic system.
  I believe this is an appropriate congressional request for 
information which I hope will have the result of motivating the 
Department to complete its review, come to closure, and let us close 
the chapter on the executive responsibility for the election. And I 
hope the Congress is soon going to, by adoption of this legislation, be 
closing the chapter on our responsibility for this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, for the life of me, I cannot 
understand. I have just spoken to one of the floor managers of the 
bill. I thought this was an amendment that was noncontroversial. It is 
my understanding that there is some objection to it.
  Senator Graham and I have had a meeting with the staff of the 
Department of Justice. They have promised us on several occasions that 
they would report to us on the status of the investigation as to 
potential voting rights violations in the Florida 2000 election.
  The Department of Justice has not come through or followed up on this 
promise to report to us. The report was to be monthly. They haven't 
even reported to us in the last 6 months. It is about as 
noncontroversial as anything.
  Senator Graham and I are utilizing this vehicle to try to send a 
message that the executive branch of Government, when it makes a 
promise, has got to come through and honor their promise. This doesn't 
have anything to do with partisan politics. It has to do with us 
wanting to know that, in fact, the investigation is being conducted and 
that they are not sitting on their hands; that when they render their 
conclusions, they would deliver those conclusions to the Congress.
  That can't be controversial. I don't want it to be controversial.
  I am somewhat mystified that someone would put a partisan cast on 
that.
  If the manager of the bill is not going to be willing to accept what 
is on its face a noncontroversial amendment, then my statements have 
been very mild and very nonpartisan.
  What we are trying to do is make government work. The executive 
branch has a duty to respond to us in our oversight capacity. The two 
Senators from Florida have an interest in knowing that the 
investigation is continuing and that they are not sitting on their 
hands and report to the Congress once the conclusion is reached. We 
don't say how long they have to do it. All we do in our amendment is 
say every 2 months give a status report to the Congress. Then we say 
that at the end of their investigation when they draw their conclusion, 
send that report to the Congress.
  I hope this is something that we don't have to spend time on. I ask 
the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Kentucky to please 
recognize the bipartisan spirit in which this amendment is being 
offered and not have us go through a harangue here. I urgently plead, 
please accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have worked hard and long on a bipartisan 
basis to try to fix a lot of problems we saw in the past without going 
back to look at the problems that arose in the 2000 election, the 2001 
election in my State, and others.
  Frankly, there is some concern on this side of the aisle. The 
amendment is designed with the likelihood of reigniting a controversy 
that we thought we put aside. I agree 100 percent that Congress has a 
right, in its oversight responsibilities, to ask for reports from every 
agency of the executive branch. Frankly, that is what oversight 
hearings are for in the authorizing committees. That is what oversight 
hearings are for in the Appropriations Committee.
  I have asked very difficult questions of agencies, both under 
Democratic and Republican Presidents. I think, frankly, in the last 8 
years I didn't get a heck of a lot of answers. But I don't think that 
we bring the oversight fights to this body and try to get the body on 
record with what has been in the past a very political controversy.
  Frankly, the Department of Justice has under consideration the 
allegations of criminal activity engaged in by the Gore-Lieberman 
campaign in both St. Louis and Kansas City. We pointed out that in 
those two areas, almost identical petitions were filed within 14 
minutes of each other. Fortunately, the lawsuit was thrown out in 
Kansas City. But the judge initially ruled in favor of Gore-Lieberman 
in St. Louis. That is the time we found out that the person who was 
alleged to have been denied a right to vote had been dead for 15 
months, which was probably a slightly greater impediment to him voting. 
That matter has been referred to the Department of Justice.
  I don't think we need to go down the path of making a formal 
legislative finding that they should report on that. I am disappointed 
that we seem to be getting back into this battle by opening up the 
controversies of the 2000 election.
  I urge my colleagues to ask in oversight committees when the 
representatives of the Department of Justice are there to speak for 
themselves, what the status is or why there is no report. I think we 
should not burden the bill that we are fighting to keep a bipartisan 
bill with something that smells to some on my side as an effort to 
reinject a partisan battle. This is all very partisan, I know, when it 
gets to elections. I believe you need to have good Republicans and good 
Democrats on both sides.
  I just hope the distinguished Senators from Florida, for whom I have 
great admiration, would use the oversight hearings to ask the questions 
of the Department of Justice.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't believe in negotiating in public. 
This is not just an intellectual exercise for our colleagues from 
Florida because the entire world inhabited their State for a number of 
weeks, and the entire world watched on an excruciating basis, hour 
after hour of voting precincts, what they went through. It was a 
tremendous ordeal that the State of Florida went through.
  My colleagues are being mild in their expression of the frustration 
their constituents felt.
  I also understand the point my friend from Missouri raised. We said 
over and over again that this bill is about the future and not about 
the past. We are trying to deal with not only the situation in Florida, 
or one election, but, rather, a condition that has grown over the years 
of a corroding and deteriorating condition of the election process in 
America, that was reflected by what happened in the year 2000 but not 
exclusively so. We wanted to get away from the notion of examining, 
through this vehicle anyway, what had happened last year.

  I think there is some frustration that my colleagues feel, however, 
about whether or not the Department of Justice is going to respond to 
inquiries they have made.
  I recommend that maybe there ought to be a willingness to sign onto a 
letter asking them to give answers, rather than getting involved in a 
debate, and a vote, however it breaks down on party lines, inviting 
more action.
  We all know the frustration in asking an agency of the Government to 
respond to us, and they do not do it. If that has been the case here, 
then maybe our colleagues, as coequals, deserve to be heard. If they 
are not responding to our colleagues, that is wrong. Whatever the 
results may be, they deserve answers. I think that is what they are 
asking; to be heard from and given answers.
  So I might suggest that maybe a letter could be crafted, on a 
bipartisan basis, which we could sign and get to the Department of 
Justice, and ask for those answers to come back to our two colleagues. 
If any of our States went through what they went through, we would want 
nothing less. So it is a way of maybe getting away from this particular 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as usual, the Senator from Connecticut

[[Page S829]]

has found a reasoned way to resolve this issue and avoid some of the 
concerns that the Senator from Missouri expressed.
  As we mentioned during the conversation we had in the Senator's 
office about 10 days ago, Senator Nelson and I are very supportive of 
the underlying legislation. We do not want to be, in any way, an 
obstacle to its successful passage.
  We do have this issue. I might say, Florida is not the only State 
where there are unresolved allegations of irregularities.
  Mr. DODD. No.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The amendment we offered was not State specific. We are 
requesting wherever there is yet an open file of an allegation of 
irregularity in the Department of Justice, the Department periodically 
report as to how they are progressing so that eventually there will be 
closure. We do not want to get to 2004 and still have open cases from 
the year 2000 election.
  The Senator's committee is the committee that has jurisdiction over 
these issues. Witness the fact you produced this excellent piece of 
legislation. So if your committee could accomplish what, frankly, 
Senator Nelson and I have been frustrated in our efforts to do for the 
last several months, which is to get a status report--I would hope you 
would be asking for all States, but we would particularly urge that you 
do it for our State--that would satisfy our goal, which is to get to 
closure, not to do so in a particular process, whether it is 
legislation or otherwise.
  The Senator has suggested a process that seems very reasonable. If 
you think you would be willing to do so, we will be pleased to accept 
the Senator's generous offer and leave.

  Mr. DODD. I appreciate my colleague's comments.
  I turn to my colleague from Kentucky for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, 
the chairman of the committee, for an excellent suggestion.
  I also thank the Senators from Florida for being willing to take this 
particular path. It certainly simplifies our lives and hopefully gets 
the response the Senators are seeking as well.
  I have talked to Senator Bond. He also agrees.
  So it seems to me that is a good solution to the issue.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.


                      Amendment No. 2904 Withdrawn

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment based on the representations by the Rules 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. What we are looking for are some answers. We 
thank you for helping us achieve that.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, they have every right to those answers. We 
will do everything we can to craft a request to see to it they get 
those answers.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Kyl amendment, as I 
understand it. And we made a request earlier that Senator Kyl of 
Arizona come to the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Lieberman 
amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Lieberman is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Connecticut, we may be in a 
position to dispose of the Kyl amendment. I am sure that Senator 
Lieberman would not mind if we set his amendment aside in order to 
achieve that.
  I understand Senator Kyl is on his way and should be in the Chamber 
momentarily.
  Mr. DODD. Why don't we wait for Senator Kyl to come. He is going to 
be here shortly.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy with him about some concerns 
about his amendment, ones I think he may be able to address in a 
colloquy. We might be able to then accept that amendment and then go to 
the Lieberman amendment and then the Burns amendment and vote on those. 
I think that is where we would be at that point. We would have cleaned 
up at least existing matters.
  We still obviously have outstanding issues. I made the point earlier, 
and would ask my colleague from Kentucky to join me in this request to 
our colleagues, please bring over or have your staff bring over 
amendments, if you care about them.
  We have a long list. It may be that you have decided you do not 
particularly want to offer your amendment, but I have it here. If I do 
not hear from you by 5 o'clock, I am going to assume you decided you 
will wait for another day.
  We can get a list made up so that either tonight--we may not have 
votes after 5:30, 6 o'clock, but that will be up to the leaders, but at 
least we will be able to dispose of some amendments that we can get an 
agreement on, or set up a schedule tomorrow, very early, so we might be 
able to dispose of this bill. I still hope that is possible. I realize 
that diminishes as each hour passes, but that may be the case.
  So unless you feel a burning, overwhelming desire to bring your 
amendment up--and if that is the case, please let us know immediately--
we are going to assume that you have decided to defer to another time.
  My colleague may want to join me in that request while we are waiting 
for Senator Kyl.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I say to my friend from Connecticut, we 
originally hoped we would finish today. That may be fading on us, but 
hope springs eternal, and I suppose the possibility of having the 
recess begin tomorrow is not completely over but looking unlikely.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lieberman 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. What is the pending business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McConnell second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Let me describe what I think may occur. One is to accept 
the McConnell amendment to the Kyl amendment, first of all. That would 
be routine. Then I would like to engage my friend from Arizona in a 
colloquy about his amendment and what it does--there was some confusion 
about what the effect of the amendment would be in the earlier debate--
and to raise some issues which he and I have already discussed in 
private around this amendment. He is very sensitive to these questions.
  My intention is to accept this amendment with the McConnell second-
degree amendment and then have a colloquy as to what the effect of this 
amendment would be, with the further understanding that between now and 
the completion of this bill, we may not be able to get all the answers 
we would like from the Social Security Administration of their views on 
this and what the effect of it could be. We will try and do that before 
we get to conference. If there are problems we can't identify at this 
moment that may emerge, we will try to address those in conference. 
That is really the gist of what I want to get to.
  Let me turn to my colleague to once again briefly describe his 
amendment. We will have a colloquy, and then we can move to accept 
that, my hope is, and then have the two recorded votes on the Lieberman 
and Burns amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2891

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the comments of the 
Senator from Connecticut. I will describe again what we intend this to 
do. The language does do it, especially with the second-degree 
amendment that has been accepted that the Senator from Kentucky 
offered.
  This amendment allows what 11 States currently are allowed to do and 
7 actually do do, which is to use Social Security numbers to validate 
people for voter registration purposes. When the Privacy Act was 
adopted, those States were grandfathered. The other States were 
prohibited from doing this. There are several States that request

[[Page S830]]

Social Security numbers but don't require them. This would simply allow 
but not mandate States to request or to require Social Security numbers 
as one of the methods of identification.
  To the two specific points Senator Dodd raised, it is our intention, 
I reiterate--it is clear in the amendment language--that this is 
voluntary, not mandatory. No State would have to do this. And, of 
course, any State that did do it would have to meet all constitutional 
requirements, could not violate any privacy requirements, and so forth.
  Secondly, it is not our intention that this would be in any way an 
exclusive method of identification and that States should not, as a 
result, use Social Security numbers as the only way of validating the 
identity of the person being registered or the person whose name is 
being expunged from the rolls or for whatever purpose they would use 
it.
  The Senator from Connecticut is correct in his understanding. I think 
the language is clear. We need to work with the Social Security 
Administration or others during the continued progress of this bill. It 
is certainly our intention to do that to ensure that this intention is 
carried out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I have 
said it already--he has repeated it--but just to clarify, there is 
nothing in this amendment that would mandate the use of the Social 
Security identification number by any State; is that correct?
  Mr. KYL. The Senator from Connecticut is exactly correct.
  Mr. DODD. Secondly, any State that would use only a Social Security 
number as a means of identification would also be prohibited under the 
law; is that not correct?
  Mr. KYL. It would be our intention to ensure that is the case, with 
only one caveat. The seven States that currently do this legally, I am 
not sure exactly what their laws say, and it is not our intention here 
to deal with those one way or the other. Those are all grandfathered 
in. I suspect they at least require an address, if not something else. 
The State should require something else.
  It is our intention, at least prospectively, with our amendment, that 
they should and would.
  Mr. DODD. If we look at this, maybe if it is in conference or before 
the conclusion of the bill, with a technical amendment to accomplish 
whatever it may be, I ask my colleague if he would be willing to accept 
such language in order to clarify that.
  Mr. KYL. For that explicit purpose, yes.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for his answers to those questions.
  I point out, the Social Security Administration doesn't like the 
Social Security card being used for identification purposes. I know 
people do it, but it makes them nervous. Obviously, there are a lot of 
problems with it. I gather my colleague from Arizona, before coming 
over to the floor, was engaged in a hearing dealing with the issue of 
stolen Social Security numbers, the problem of 9-11 where people 
actually voted in the last election who, I am told, at least in some 
cases may have been terrorists themselves who were using Social 
Security identification numbers.

  There are real problems with this. We have tried to solicit from the 
Social Security Administration why they have, beyond what I have 
expressed, reservations about the use of the Social Security 
identification. I can understand from the secretary of state's 
standpoint why this identifier is attractive. It is there. It is one 
that is easily used. It is national in scope. But there are concerns 
about it.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, as we solicit from the Social 
Security Administration what these additional concerns may be, that we 
will certainly take that into consideration in conference as we craft a 
final version of this bill. And if there are some reasons with which I 
am not familiar, I would say we would certainly be amenable to 
listening to those concerns to modify this amendment so as to 
accommodate, to the extent possible, if it is reasonable, the Social 
Security Administration's concerns.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, obviously, we will listen to those concerns. 
I need to go back and mention one thing I mentioned when I introduced 
it earlier. There is a long list of things for which the law permits us 
to use Social Security numbers precisely because the Federal Government 
does need to verify identity. If you apply for food stamps, if you 
apply for Medicaid, if you apply for a green card, a passport, a lot of 
things that the Federal Government and in some cases State governments 
do, we really need to be sure that the person who is applying for the 
benefit or applying for the activity involved is in fact who he says he 
is.
  We don't have a national ID card, and the card that has more closely 
approximated a government identifier than anything else of uniform use 
is the Social Security card. That is why the Federal Government does in 
fact require it. Obviously, our right to vote is one of our most 
sacred. We don't want that diluted by people who should not be voting. 
We want to ensure that people who are voting are in fact who they say 
they are. This is one of the better ways of doing it, through the 
Social Security card.
  It can be stolen. There are fraudulent Social Security cards in 
circulation, to be sure. It is not a perfect identifier. The Social 
Security Administration is concerned that the more uses there are to 
which the Social Security card is put, the more incentive there is to 
steal cards or make invalid cards. Until we have a different kind of 
identifier, perhaps one that involves biometric data or some other way 
to ensure that the person appearing before the Federal agency 
requesting the benefit is in fact the person he says he is or she says 
she is, the Social Security card is about the best thing we have.
  If nothing else, this points up the fact that the Government, for all 
kinds of purposes, needs to know who people really are. We need to 
consider what kind of identifier would work best.
  The argument is not that we should not have it, it is what will be 
the best one. For our purposes today, about the best we can do is the 
Social Security card. Some States already use it. We want to make that 
opportunity available to the other States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut 
for agreeing to accept the amendment and say to the Senator from 
Arizona, when the secretaries of state were asked what is the single 
most effective thing they could be given to combat fraud and to pare 
down lists and remove from those lists people who are not supposed to 
be there, they said the Social Security number. So while the Social 
Security Administration may have some reservations, the secretaries of 
state have no reservations.
  They think it would be an extraordinary step in the right direction. 
I commend the Senator from Arizona for offering the amendment. I thank 
the Senator from Connecticut for accepting it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have the McConnell second-degree 
amendment, which we are going to accept, and then we are accepting the 
Kyl amendment, as amended, by the McConnell amendment. How do you want 
to proceed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment of Senator McConnell?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2892) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the----
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we go to the pending amendment, I 
have some comments.
  These will be the last two votes of the evening. I wanted to give 
ample opportunity for our colleagues to spend some time with their 
spouses tonight and wish them a happy Valentines Day.
  We will be in session tomorrow, of course. There will be no votes on 
Monday when we come back. I am not sure what day that is. But on Monday 
we will not have votes.




                          ____________________