[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 16 (Monday, February 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S987-S991]
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.

  Pending:

       Clinton amendment No. 2906, to establish a residual ballot 
     performance benchmark.
       Dayton amendment No. 2898, to establish a pilot program for 
     free postage for absentee ballots cast in elections for 
     Federal office.
       Dodd (for Harkin) amendment No. 2912, to provide funds for 
     protection and advocacy

[[Page S988]]

     systems of each State to ensure full participation in the 
     electoral process for individuals with disabilities.
       Dodd (for Harkin/McCain) amendment No. 2913, to express the 
     sense of the Congress that curbside voting should be only an 
     alternative of last resort when providing accommodations for 
     disabled voters.
       Dodd (for Schumer) modified amendment No. 2914,to permit 
     the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of 
     verifying the identity of voters who register by mail.
       Dodd (for Kennedy) amendment No. 2916, to clarify the 
     application of the safe harbor provisions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment no. 2915

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
second-degree amendment be temporarily laid aside, and I call up 
amendment No. 2915.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Burns, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Brownback, 
     Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2915.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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 provide an initial payment to States filing a State plan 
   and submitting applications for the grant programs under title II)

       On page 28, strike lines 12 through 16, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Payments .--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall pay to each State having an application 
     approved under section 203 the cost of the activities 
     described in that application.
       (2) Initial payment amount.--The Attorney General shall pay 
     to each State that submits an application under section 203 
     an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under section 209 for the fiscal year during which such 
     application is submitted to be used by such State for the 
     activities authorized under section 205.
       (b) Retroactive Payments.--
       On page 38, strike lines 15 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall pay to each State or locality having an 
     application approved under section 213 the Federal share of 
     the costs of the activities described in that application.
       (2) Initial payment amount.--The Attorney General shall pay 
     to each State that submits an application under section 212 
     an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under section 218 for the fiscal year in which such 
     application is submitted to be used by such State for the 
     activities authorized under section 214.
       (3) Retroactive payments.--The Attorney
       On page 45, strike lines 4 through 7, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall pay to each State or locality having an 
     application approved under section 223 the Federal share of 
     the costs of the activities described in that application.
       (2) Initial payment amount.--The Attorney General shall pay 
     to each State that submits an application under section 222 
     an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under section 228 for the fiscal year in which such 
     application is submitted to be used by such State for the 
     activities authorized under section 224.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
bipartisan election reform legislation. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Jeffords, Burns, Leahy, Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Presiding 
Officer Ben Nelson, and Senators Nickles, Dorgan, Johnson, and Enzi in 
offering this commonsense addition to the Voting Rights Act.
  First, let me commend Senators Dodd, McConnell, Bond, and Schumer for 
working together to find common ground on what could have very easily 
turned out to be an issue that foundered on partisan politics. They 
refused to allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the 
fundamental and much-needed safeguards included in this election reform 
bill. I applaud their efforts, and I believe the amendment I am putting 
forward is consistent with their efforts and will pose a modest 
improvement to their legislation.
  This legislation makes substantial improvements that will help 
improve the voting system in every single State in America, and I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of it. The bill asks States to make major 
strides toward assurance that all people who are eligible to vote are 
allowed to vote, that voting locations are accessible to our citizens 
who are disabled, that a person is notified if his or her vote is 
incorrectly cast and given the opportunity to correct the error, and 
that each person's vote is counted.
  These voting safeguards are fundamental. They deserve Federal 
support. And since all States will be required to implement these new 
voting standards, no State should be denied Federal financial 
assistance in complying with these new requirements.
  The election reform bill authorizes $3.5 billion in grants to States 
and localities to help cover the costs associated with meeting the new 
standards. While the grant amounts are generous, there is a flaw. There 
is no guarantee in the bill that each State will receive a meaningful 
portion of the total allocation, even though each and every State must 
meet the same voting system requirements. Indeed, for a smaller State 
such as Nebraska or Maine, it may well be more burdensome to meet those 
voting requirements because those States may well have fewer resources 
to do so.
  For that matter, there is no guarantee that Congress will appropriate 
all or even a substantial portion of the authorized funds. Election 
officials in my home State of Maine, including our secretary of state, 
are concerned that the nature of the grant program would make it 
difficult for Maine to compete for funds with larger States, as well as 
potentially thousands of local governments. Maine currently has its 
hands full addressing a structural budget shortfall of approximately 
$160 million. Its financial difficulties would be exacerbated if it did 
not receive a meaningful portion of the grant funds included in this 
bill but nevertheless were required to comply with the statutory 
requirements for improving voting systems, preparing the statewide 
voting lists, and making voting places accessible to our disabled 
citizens--all very worthy but costly goals.
  Formula grant programs guarantee States a certain share of 
appropriated funds, but the grant program created by this bill does 
not. Rather, the legislation creates three different project grant 
programs to which States and local governments can apply for 
assistance. The grant programs are somewhat unusual in that once an 
application is approved, the Attorney General is required to award the 
applicant funds covering the ``cost of the activities described in that 
application.'' In other words, the legislation authorizes a specific 
sum of money to cover an unknown and perhaps unknowable amount of 
costs. Thus, no State is guaranteed the funds necessary to make 
progress toward this bill's voting system requirements.
  Again, let me emphasize that I think the voting requirements set 
forth in this compromise legislation are reasonable, are fundamental, 
are worthwhile. But I am concerned that some States may not receive any 
Federal funds to assist them in meeting these worthwhile new standards, 
and that does not strike me as fair. Conceivably, moreover, the funds 
could run out before a State has a chance to even complete and submit 
its application.
  My amendment addresses these concerns in a straightforward way. It 
would guarantee each State that submits the required application a fair 
portion of the funds that are eventually appropriated for election 
reform. My amendment would guarantee each State one-half of 1 percent 
of the total grant funds. These State minimums would only account for 
about 25 percent of the total appropriated grant funds, thus leaving 75 
percent of the funds to be allocated through the application process 
originally set forth by this legislation. It would, however, remedy the 
problem of a State, particularly a small State, receiving no funds 
whatsoever. If we are going to mandate these requirements, we should 
ensure that each and every State receives some Federal assistance to 
comply with them.
  My amendment is both fair and consistent with similar grant programs 
created by Congress. For example, the National Flood Insurance Program 
administered by FEMA provides each State with a base funding amount of 
one-half of 1 percent of appropriated

[[Page S989]]

funds. The remaining 75 percent of the Flood Mitigation Assistance 
funds is allocated by FEMA on the basis of applications. I could give 
many other examples of Federal grant programs that include minimum 
State allocations so that every State can be helped in achieving the 
Federal goals set forth by the programs.
  The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act makes changes that will 
improve the integrity of our State voting systems. All States will be 
partners in this effort, which is why no State should be denied a share 
of Federal funds. The amendment I offer ensures that just and fair 
result. It will help each and every State meet the goals and the 
requirements of this important reform legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Maine for 
offering this amendment. We talked about it. I think I offered the 
amendment on behalf of my colleague from Maine when the Senate was not 
voting, but we were in session and considering amendments at that time.
  I think this is a good amendment. It is one that we probably should 
have written into the bill initially. It is not unprecedented for us to 
try to do this. Coming from a small State myself, I know what can 
happen in this area.
  I want to ask, if I could, my colleague only one question. She is 
talking here about States and not localities. There are thousands of 
localities, obviously, in the 50 States, and we want to keep this 
focused on the States themselves.
  So my question is: The language of this amendment, the one-half of 1 
percent, would apply to the respective States because there may be 
applications coming from localities for grants, and to that extent you 
would have to accommodate that in terms of the total amount for that 
State?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague, his 
interpretation is correct. The minimum amount applies just to the 
State.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that clarification. 
Again, I think this is one way of getting the resources out.
  I point out, one of the issues raised is whether or not there will be 
an adequate amount in the authorization to meet all of the demands not 
only of grants but also the minimum requirements in the bill. I inform 
my colleagues that number is not selected out of thin air. We went and 
asked the Congressional Budget Office and others to give us an analysis 
of what would be needed if every single State in the country wanted to 
completely change their voting systems, what would be the ballpark 
figure if that would occur--not that anyone would believe that is going 
to be the case. Many people are very satisfied with the election 
equipment they have and feel no need to change it at all.
  But the number we have incorporated in the bill works on the maximum 
extent; that is, all jurisdictions in every single State wanting to 
replace every voting system. If that were to occur, we would reach the 
number that is in the authorization of this bill. So we are more than 
satisfied that the number we have identified as an authorizing figure 
would accommodate virtually every jurisdiction in the country should 
they so desire to exchange their present equipment. Nothing in this 
bill mandates that to occur at all, as we have repeated over and over.
  Again, we believe very strongly that States ought to be allowed to 
decide what works best for them. Many jurisdictions have come up with 
unique means of casting ballots, modernizing their systems completely. 
We know about the States of Oregon and Washington, for instance, with 
mail-in voting. We took into consideration a week or so ago what 
Senator Cantwell, Senator Wyden, Senator Murray, and Senator Smith were 
all interested in: making sure that we do nothing in this bill that in 
any way impinges upon those two States being able to continue their 
present voting system. Of course, we never intended to eliminate 
absentee mail-in voting systems, and the language is as clear as it 
could be here that would not be the case.
  So, again, I state for the Record I think what the Senator from Maine 
has offered is a very sound proposal. It would ensure that no State 
would receive any less than $17.5 million. There may be an occasion, 
actually, when a State might not need that amount of money. And we are 
not encouraging them necessarily to apply for $17.5 million unless they 
actually need it. But certainly it would guarantee, at the very least, 
they would get that amount with respect to expenditures under the 
incentive grants.
  So I commend the Senator from Maine for her proposal.
  I see the arrival in the Chamber of my colleague from Kentucky. I 
will listen to his comments on this amendment. We might even be able to 
accept this amendment today.
  I prefer to clear up as many amendments as we could, to move them 
through the process so we can limit, to the maximum extent possible, 
the number of rollcall votes we would ask our colleagues to cast 
tomorrow.
  So with that, I thank my colleague from Maine for her proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine. I 
think it is an excellent amendment that ensures that smaller States are 
able to obtain grant funds to improve their voting systems.
  This amendment secures truly minimal amounts for each and every 
State, obligating only 25 percent of the overall amount authorized. So 
every State, it seems to me, wins under this amendment.
  I commend the Senator from Maine for her suggestion. It certainly is, 
as far as I know, agreeable on this side of the aisle.
  I say to the Senator from Connecticut, I support the amendment and 
hope maybe we can accept it.
  Mr. DODD. Yes. I urge we accept the amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2915.
  The amendment (No. 2915) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. 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 Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and 
the Senator from Kentucky for agreeing to the amendment and working so 
closely with us in its drafting. I very much appreciate their support 
as well as the tremendous work they have done on the underlying bill. I 
thank them both.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 2922

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2922.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. 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 that the criminal penalties retain the current 
     specific intent standard contained in the underlying statutes)

       On page 68, strike lines 5 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Conspiracy To Deprive Voters of a Fair Election.--Any 
     individual who knowingly and willfully gives false 
     information in registering or voting in violation of section 
     11(c) of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973i(c)), or conspires with another to violate such section, 
     shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in accordance with 
     such section.
       (b) False Information in Registering and Voting.--Any 
     individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly makes a 
     false

[[Page S990]]

     statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or 
     alien registry of such individual in violation of section 
     1015 of title 18, United States Code, shall be fined or 
     imprisoned, or both, in accordance with such section.

  Mr. DODD. This is the amendment we raised earlier. I thought it was 
going to be accepted. This is the one that references the criminal 
statutes in the bill specifically and repeats the words ``knowing'' and 
``willful.'' I talked about this earlier as a way of reemphasizing the 
point that there is a standard used on existing criminal statutes that 
is applicable here, to which we had agreed. It should be accepted.
  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, pending the arrival of one of our colleagues 
who wants to look at the amendment, let me address the status of play 
as to where we are, coming back from the Presidents Day recess.
  It is my privilege once again to be managing the pending matter 
before the Senate, the Equal Protection Voting Rights Act, as amended 
by the bipartisan compromise substitute. Let me advise colleagues and 
others where we stand.
  Last Thursday, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement 
governing the remaining amendments to this measure. That agreement 
provides for a finite list of first-degree amendments which can be 
offered to this bill; relevant second-degree amendments are in order. 
Upon the disposition of the ordered amendments, the Senate would 
proceed to third reading of the bill and final passage. That was done, 
my colleagues may recall, to expedite matters for Members who wanted to 
get back for the Presidents Day break to their respective States. 
Rather than carry votes on into Friday and Saturday to finish the bill, 
we agreed to that unanimous consent request that the distinguished 
majority leader and the Republican leader worked out.
  We adopted an amendment by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire that was 
incorporated as part of the bill and then agreed to this unanimous 
consent request to have a finite list of amendments and then go to 
third reading of the bill to complete the matter.
  My hope is we can complete consideration of this bill by tomorrow 
afternoon or tomorrow evening. It may go into Wednesday, depending upon 
the schedule. My hope is we can get it done soon.
  Let me tell my colleagues where we stand with the number 
of amendments. Having said we will get through by tomorrow, when I tell 
them how many amendments have been introduced, they may wonder what I 
could possibly be thinking of to suggest we might get through by then. 
There are 105 amendments. This is one of the dangers of asking for a 
finite list. All of a sudden you get a finite list.

  One hundred five amendments are in order under the unanimous consent 
agreement. I don't expect all of these to be offered. In fact, many are 
duplicative amendments or issues we had already resolved with previews 
amendments that were adopted or rejected in the debate a week and a 
half ago. It is my hope we can complete action by tomorrow evening or, 
at the very latest, on Wednesday.
  There will be no rollcall votes today, as the distinguished majority 
leader indicated. I expect tomorrow to be a busy day if we are unable 
to resolve some of these outstanding amendments.
  There are six amendments pending at this time. In the week of our 
departure, we disposed of 15 amendments in 1 day. Nine amendments were 
adopted; four amendments were debated, subject to rollcall votes--all 
rejected--and two amendments were offered and withdrawn. All in all, 
that is not a bad work effort for a day and a half.
  The majority and minority Rules Committee staff worked over the 
weekend to try to clear those amendments for which we have language, 
and there are about 40 amendments--about half the 105 I mentioned--that 
are unknown. They are called relevant amendments. That could be any 
subject matter, other than being relevant to elections. So to the 
extent those relevant amendments may have some text to them, I urge the 
authors to let us know as soon as possible what those relevant 
amendments are. Some we may actually be able to clear today; others, we 
may not. I suspect many of them may just be placeholders, so that the 
105 number is substantially less. And when we get down to the number 
that actually require some votes, we may be talking about 10 or 12. My 
hope is that there are far fewer than that.
  If there are authors of relevant amendments who want them to be 
considered, they should let us know today. I hope we can also clear the 
six pending amendments. These are amendments that we could hopefully 
adopt or modify in some way, if they require such for acceptance to 
both sides. That would leave tomorrow with only those matters that 
require some debate.
  That is where we stand. Again, I thank the majority leader and 
minority leader, my colleague from Kentucky, and others for getting us 
to this point.
  I ask unanimous consent that a lead editorial of the New York Times 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 2002]

                         Electoral Repair Work

       In the next few days, senators will have a chance to 
     greatly strengthen America's democracy. Beyond approving the 
     House version of the campaign finance reform bill and sending 
     it directly to the White House, the Senate should hasten to 
     pass the election reform legislation it is scheduled to 
     consider. Overwhelming support for these twin moves would 
     send a strong signal that cleansing democracy is not a 
     partisan issue, and would counter public cynicism about 
     Washington's priorities.
       The Senate's election reform bill is a fitting federal 
     response to the public's widespread outrage at the breakdown 
     of the electoral machinery in the 2000 presidential election. 
     The closeness of the vote in Florida and elsewhere revealed 
     an array of deficiencies in how local officials administer 
     elections. While many were stunned by this, minority voters 
     and those with disabilities were not. They have long been 
     marginalized by arbitrary rules, less reliable equipment and 
     voting booths that are inaccessible.
       The legislation would establish mandatory federal standards 
     for voting procedures and technologies that state and local 
     election officials would have to meet when administering 
     national elections. All voting systems would have to conform 
     to a set error rate, be accessible to people with 
     disabilities and allow voters a chance to correct ballots 
     improperly marked. States would have to establish a 
     computerized voter registration list and offer people whose 
     registration is questioned at the polls a provisional ballot 
     pending a clarification of their status. The bill makes 
     available $3.5 billion in grants over five years for states 
     to meet these federal mandates.
       The franchise is the primary right by which all other 
     rights are protected, as Thomas Paine wisely said. A ballot 
     cast for president anywhere in Florida ought to be recorded 
     and counted as rigorously as one cast in Alaska, not to 
     mention in an adjacent county. Democracy is diminished when 
     millions of ballots are discarded due to faulty technology or 
     a lack of clear voting guidelines.
       Senators should not lose sight to these guiding principles 
     in any last-minute wrangling over amendments. If is 
     refreshing that a number of Republican senators, including 
     John McCain and Mitch McConnell, have joined with Democrats 
     to support the notion that to protect the franchise, the 
     federal government must encroach on the states' traditional 
     prerogative of running elections.
       There is cause to be hopeful that states will start 
     receiving federal assistance this year to upgrade their 
     voting systems. The Senate's election reform bill is 
     preferable to one passed by the House last December, which 
     does not impose strong enough national standards, but their 
     differences can be bridged at a House-Senate conference. 
     House Speaker Dennis Hastert has indicated his willingness to 
     seek supplemental funds for election reform, and President 
     Bush's budget includes $400 million in each of the next three 
     years. That won't be enough, but it is a clear indication 
     that the White House is counting on reform legislation. So 
     too are the American people.

  Mr. DODD. This lead editorial captured what we are trying to do. I 
note that the editorial writers specifically commended the Senator from 
Kentucky and point out the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
Arizona are together on this bill and talked about the bipartisanship 
of this proposal.

[[Page S991]]

  Many thought we could never actually come to the floor of the Senate 
with a proposal on election reform that would enjoy the cosponsorship 
of Democrats and Republicans, particularly when you consider what a 
partisan division there was in the country a year ago at this time 
coming off the November 2000 general election. So it is no small 
achievement.
  I know a lot of attention is being paid to campaign finance reform 
and the upcoming energy bill and other matters. Memories do fade, and 
certainly they have with regard to the emotions that ran so deeply and 
so passionately a year or so ago on one of the closest elections, if 
not the closest, in American history.
  Certainly there was the revelation that our system was in desperate 
need of repair. We are responding to that call a year later. But it 
took that long to sit down and work out differences and bring a product 
to the floor of the Senate. We could have come up here earlier with a 
partisan bill. I could have laid down a proposal that was just a 
Democratic proposal. In fact, I had one, with every single member of 
the Democratic side having cosponsored the bill, without a single 
Republican. My friends on the Republican side could have had their 
bill, and we would have been able to have a screaming match about 
partisan politics, and nothing would have happened. So it took a real 
effort to try to meld these ideas together to bring us to this point.
  We are not without controversy in this bill, and there will be some 
controversy in the remaining hours. We still have to go to conference 
with the House of Representatives and their proposal and then present 
it to the President for his signature. It is my hope that we can do 
that fairly quickly.
  This bill has $400 million in it for immediate authorization. The 
President, to his credit, put $1.2 billion in his budget for the next 2 
or 3 years for election reform. If we can get this bill done and signed 
by the President, there is a supplemental appropriations bill coming up 
quickly, and we can actually make moneys available to the States right 
away for them to modernize their election systems so they will be in 
place to work by the November elections of this year. That will be a 
singular achievement, in my view, if we are able to do that.
  I am hopeful that for the remainder of today, and tomorrow, we will 
be able to resolve these differences. I urge my colleagues to 
understand that I embrace some of their ideas. But we are interested in 
putting together a bipartisan bill. If I were writing it myself, it 
would look different than this bill looks. I know, without asking my 
friend from Kentucky to comment, if he could write the bill, it would 
look very different than it does today as well. But that is not how 
matters get resolved in a democracy and in an institution such as the 
Senate. You have to listen to the views of each Senator and try to 
accommodate them so you can put together a proposal that satisfies all 
of our needs and improves the American election system, regardless of 
party. That is what we have tried to do with this proposal.
  So I am very hopeful that that will be done in the next 24 hours and 
that we can then sit down with the other body and resolve the 
differences. Maybe this will not attract the same degree of attention 
as campaign finance reform, but this will establish permanent election 
commissions in this country--the idea of the Senator from Kentucky--
which will deal with the issue of fraud in the country. We will say to 
millions of Americans who have never been able to vote in private or 
independently, for the first time they will be able to do so, setting 
minimal standards for provisional voting and statewide registration. My 
hope is that in the next few days we can resolve that. This will not 
attract the attention that some other matters do, but it will be one of 
the singular achievements of the 107th Congress.

  My colleague from Arizona is on his way to the floor and will speak 
on an unrelated matter. When he does, I will be glad to yield to him. 
Let me make some points on this pending amendment so Members understand 
what I am suggesting here.
  I pointed out that in the compromise bill, the substitute, we wanted 
to keep the same criminal intent standard provisions that are in 
existing law when it comes to the fraud provisions. That language 
specifically refers to ``knowing and willful'' as the standard. What we 
have done is referenced those provisions very explicitly in the bill. 
This amendment is purely a technical amendment in that it clarifies the 
standard for criminal penalties in the same manner it was done in 
earlier legislation. It is accomplished under the cross-reference 
statute that we cite in the bill.
  Our stated intent under this compromise was to ensure that with 
regard to any false statements made under this bill, the provisions of 
titles 18 and 42 of the U.S. Code would apply. The standard for review 
under title 18 is a ``knowing'' standard. This amendment merely adds 
that word to ensure that the intent is clear. Similarly, with regard to 
potential allegations of conspiracy, the compromise references of title 
42 provide for criminal penalties and the standard for review under 
that act is ``knowingly and willfully.'' So this amendment merely adds 
the current legal standard of review to the existing provisions in 401 
and 402 of this bill.
  This is not a substantive amendment but merely restates what we have 
stated in the bill. That is the reason I proposed it this afternoon--to 
make that technical clarification.
  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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________