[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1142-S1149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 systems of each State to ensure full
participation in the electoral process for individuals with
disabilities.
Dodd (for Schumer) modified amendment No. 2914, to permit
the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of
verifying the identify of voters who register by mail.
Dodd (for Kennedy) amendment No. 2916, to clarify the
application of the safe harbor provisions.
(The text of amendment 2894, as modified and agreed to on February
25, is as follows:)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY STUDY.
(a) In General.--In carrying out its duty under section
303(a)(1)(G), the Commission, within 6 months after its
establishment, shall provide a detailed report to the
Congress on the advisability of establishing an election day
holiday, including options for holding elections for Federal
offices on an existing legal public holiday such as Veterans
Day, as proclaimed by the President, or of establishing
uniform weekend voting hours.
(b) Factors Considered.--In conducting that study, the
Commission shall take into consideration the following
factors:
(1) Only 51 percent of registered voters in the United
States turned out to vote during the November 2000
Presidential election--well-below the worldwide turnout
average of 72.9 percent for Presidential elections between
1999 and 2000. After the 2000 election, the Census Bureau
asked thousands of non-voters why they did not vote. The top
reason for not voting, given by 22.6 percent of the
respondents, was that they were too busy or had a conflicting
work or school schedule.
(2) One of the recommendations of the National Commission
on Election Reform led by former Presidents Carter and Ford
is ``Congress should enact legislation to hold presidential
and congressional elections on a national holiday''. Holding
elections on the legal public holiday of Veterans Day, as
proclaimed by the President and observed by the Federal
government, or on the weekends, may allow election day to be
a national holiday without adding the cost and administrative
burden of an additional holiday.
(3) Holding elections on a holiday or weekend could allow
more working people to vote more easily, potentially
increasing voter turnout. It could increase the pool of
available poll workers and make public buildings more
available for use as polling places. Holding elections over a
weekend could provide flexibility needed for uniform polling
hours.
(4) Several proposals to make election day a holiday or to
shift election day to a weekend have been offered in the
107th Congress. Any new voting day options should be
sensitive to the religious observances of voters of all
faiths and to our Nation's veterans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes to review the bidding
and give our colleagues a status report on the election reform bill--
where we are, what we have accomplished, and what we can look forward
to during the remainder of the day.
This could be a very historic day if we can finish work on this bill
today. My hope is we can. We still have a little less than two dozen
amendments that I know of. A couple of them will require some debate.
There are many I think can be resolved without much debate, and many of
them could actually be accepted if we can work out some language.
After three full days of debate on the bill, over a week ago on
Thursday and Friday and then yesterday, we have disposed of 22
amendments. To give my colleagues an idea of the bipartisan nature of
this measure, we have adopted a total of 16 amendments by voice vote--8
by the majority, 8 by the minority--to indicate the balance we have
been able to achieve so far.
We will be working through the remainder of these amendments today,
and my hope is we can finish this bill this evening or by tomorrow--
hopefully this evening. We still have a couple of very important
amendments that will have to be debated and will probably require roll
call votes.
It would be my expectation that most of the amendments that are
either pending or filed can be agreed to perhaps with some minor
modifications.
I again thank my colleague from Kentucky for his assistance and that
of his staff in helping us move this product along. I know there are a
number of other measures awaiting Senate action. I encourage my
colleagues to complete debate on this bipartisan election reform
compromise today so we can get to those other issues, including
campaign finance reform and the energy bill.
In that spirit, let me, if I may, tell my colleagues what I think we
will do. Senator Gramm of Texas has an amendment to which we are going
to agree. In fact, he has asked me to offer it on his behalf, and I
will be happy to do that. Then Senator Dayton has an amendment which he
is modifying which will be a study amendment, for the information of my
colleagues on the other side. He will be coming over with that
amendment. We can adopt the Dayton amendment because I believe by
making this a study, it becomes acceptable to the minority.
Senator Harkin has an amendment--I am not sure which one of his he is
bringing over. It is the pending amendment which may require very
limited debate.
I know Senator Clinton is presently meeting with the First Lady. She
will be back as soon as possible. We then can debate her amendment.
My goal is to dispose of as many amendments as we can over the next
hour and a half, and then if a couple of amendments require debate and
votes, we will stack those votes just prior to the respective
conferences for the traditional Tuesday luncheons. So we may have some
votes just prior to lunch, but we will not ask people to break up the
hearings they are engaged in this morning. We will not interrupt the
hearing flow that is going on in a number of committees. That is the
goal.
[[Page S1143]]
I see my colleague and friend from Kentucky wants to make some
opening remarks. He can offer the Gramm amendment, or I will be happy
to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I reiterate that it is our intention to
finish the bill today, and I believe we are on a glidepath to do that.
I fully support the effort of the chairman to move this along.
Amendment No. 2927
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send and amendment on behalf of
Senators Gramm and Hutchison to the desk. It has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Gramm,
for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment
numbered 2927.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be disposed of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel,
merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and
local elections)
On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. 402. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY VOTING
RIGHTS.
(a) Registration and Balloting.--Section 102 of the
Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
1), as amended by section 1606(a)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1278), is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--''
before ``Each State shall--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State
shall--
``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use
absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee
ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for
State and local offices; and
``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election
described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter
registration application from an absent uniformed services
voter if the application is received by the appropriate State
election official not less than 30 days before the
election.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for title I of such
Act is amended by striking ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.
Mr. DODD. The majority accepts the Gramm amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2927) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are waiting for Senator Dayton to come
over with his modified amendment which I hope we can accept, and
Senator Harkin is coming over with an amendment that requires some
debate--not much, but some; he says he can do it in a brief amount of
time--and any amendments on the minority side as well, if they have
people coming over.
I urge those who have filed amendments to offer them. Some Members
approached me during the vote, and I am going to sit down and see if we
can agree to some of these so Members do not have to actually come
over, and we can offer them on their behalf.
Pending the arrival of Senator Dayton, 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. 2928
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment from the Senator from
California, Mrs. Feinstein, to the desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments will be set aside. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mrs.
Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2928.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To determine whether voting systems are able to accommodate
as many voters who have a limited proficiency in the English language
as possible)
On page 54, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
``(k) the technical feasibility of providing voting
materials in 8 or more languages for voters who speak those
languages and who are limited English proficient; and''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a study of the
technical ability of voting systems to accommodate multiple languages.
This bill potentially expands the number of languages which a voting
system must accommodate based on the number of people within a given
jurisdiction who speak those languages. It does not include every
language, but would recognize certain language groups that current law
does not recognize. It is a slight change from existing law. Obviously,
in places such as California the number of languages has been
increasing. We have all experienced this in our respective States, with
the number of immigrants who have come into the country.
This is a study proposal that Senator Feinstein suggests. We think it
is a good amendment. It is something the commission will look at
anyway. We urge its adoption.
Mr. McCONNELL. We are agreeable to this as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2928.
The amendment (No. 2928) 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.
Amendment No. 2912
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 2912.
This is a very simple amendment, a very short amendment. It is one
that is needed to improve full and equal access to the polls for people
with disabilities. The election reform bill sponsored by my colleagues
from Connecticut and Kentucky does indeed provide a good first step to
equal access. It requires every polling place to have at least one
fully accessible voting machine. That is a good start. What is the
benefit of these voting machines if people with disabilities--say,
those who are using wheelchairs--cannot get to the machines from
outside or from a parking lot?
We have an anomaly. We have a voting machine that is accessible and
usable; but what about from the sidewalk to the voting machine, from
the parking lot to the voting machine, if that is not accessible? The
bill requires nothing to ensure this access. Now, the bill does provide
$100 million in incentive grants. That is better than nothing. But I
believe we need to do more.
In each State there are nonprofit agencies called protection and
advocacy agencies which have been set up through the law. They work
with local communities to provide equal access for people with
disabilities in public places. They have been doing this for a long
time. Unfortunately, they can only do so much with Federal assistance
they receive. Last year, all of the P&As--as we call protection and
advocacy groups--in the entire United States received $15 million. That
is for all 50 States. That means they can only focus on a few access
issues. They do not have the resources to work on training or educating
local election officials on polling access requirements under current
law.
My amendment simply authorizes $10 million a year to the protection
and advocacy agencies to give additional focus to voting access for
people with disabilities.
A GAO report that Senator McCain and I requested found in the 2000
election more than 80 percent of the 496 polling places surveyed had 1
or more physical impediments. The GAO said 80 percent of the 496 that
they surveyed had 1 or more physical impediments.
Consider this: 28 States do not even have curbside voting
requirements. If you live in a State that does not have
[[Page S1144]]
a curbside voting requirement and you have a polling place that has
several physical impediments to get to the polling machine, what good
is it to have a polling machine that is accessible if you cannot get to
it and you don't have curbside voting?
Even in the States where curbside voting must be an option, the
rights of people with disabilities are still compromised. Curbside
voting does not allow private or independent voting, as it does for the
general public. For example, a poll worker meets the voter at the car
or in the parking lot. The poll worker provides the ballot to the
voter, or actually fills out the ballot for the voter, and the voter
must trust the poll worker to submit the ballot inside. That is an
unacceptable alternative to getting around current laws that require
physical disability access to the polls, unless the voter requests
curbside voting.
Again, we have a system we are about to vote on and pass that would
deny equal access to many people in our communities to vote as we
vote--in private, ensuring that your ballot is your ballot, making sure
you can go in the voting booth like everyone else. We are only setting
aside $10 million, a very small amount of money, to be used by the
protection and advocacy groups to work with local officials to help
train and educate them on how you make places accessible.
Again, one might ask, why would we need someone from protection and
advocacy to meet with local election officials to make sure a place is
accessible when the local elected officials know how to do that? Maybe
yes, maybe no.
There is a lot of expertise within the protection and advocacy groups
throughout the United States as to how to do things, how to make things
accessible with the least interference with the general public and at
the least cost to the taxpayer.
I myself have seen instances in my State and others, because of my
work in disability rights, where local elected officials think they
have to do something that is going to cost several hundred thousand
dollars, to change this and do all this modification, and the
protection and advocacy people come up and say: You do not have to do
all that. Maybe just for a couple of thousand dollars you can change
some things.
One classic case that always comes to mind, and this happened some
time ago, is where a local school system decided that to be compliant
with the Americans With Disabilities Act, they had to change all the
drinking fountains in all the public schools, that they would have to
lower all of the drinking fountains so a kid using a wheelchair could
have access to them; all the other ones were too high.
This was going to cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in
all the schools, to go in and do all the plumbing and lower all these
drinking fountains. This created kind of a firestorm in the community.
They said: My gosh, we are going to have to spend all this money to
lower these drinking fountains for a few people using a wheelchair.
Finally, one of the P&A groups came through and said: You do not have
to do that. If you would just set a paper cup dispenser by the water
fountain with a wastebasket to throw it in, someone in a wheelchair
could roll up, take a paper cup, fill it with water, take a drink, and
throw the paper cup away, and that would not cost you very much. That
is what they did. It saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars. These
are the kinds of things the protection and advocacy groups can do.
A lot of local officials might think they have to do so much. Here is
an example. A local elected official says: We have to make our place
accessible. And they go to a local engineering group and say: What do
we have to do? The local engineering group says: Hey, this is taxpayer
money; we are going to knock out this wall, put in these doors, put in
this ramp, do all this; we have to shift this around and maybe take
this part of the lot out. All of a sudden you are into hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
A protection and advocacy group, knowing the law and knowing the
requirements of ADA, might come in there and say: No, you don't have to
do all that. There are other ways you can meet these requirements at a
much cheaper cost, and much more efficacious, not only for people with
disabilities but for the general public.
This is the experience we have had in the past in many places where
they have had problems of accessibility. The P&As, as we call them,
have just been great, working with local officials to train and educate
them about how to make places accessible. That is what this amendment
does. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I regretfully rise in opposition to the
Harkin amendment. This amendment proposes to add a new grant program of
$40 million to the cost of the bill over 4 years. Unlike the other
grant programs authorized by this bill, this amendment proposes to fund
just one organization with the $40 million. That one entity is the
protection and advocacy system, a federally mandated program currently
in place and functioning with an office in each State.
In Kentucky this office is a division of State government, but I
understand in other States the office functions as a nonprofit
organization. The protection and advocacy system is a federally
mandated program that receives funding from several different Federal
sources as well as funding from each State. This organization has
offices in each State, and they advocate on behalf of people with
disabilities. The protection and advocacy system can mediate,
intervene, counsel, investigate, and even sue on behalf of those it
represents.
I have a couple of concerns about this amendment. First, I can
appreciate the important work this group does. In fact, there are
numerous groups out there that provide important and meaningful
assistance to people with disabilities. I wholeheartedly support their
efforts. But the group singled out by this amendment is already well
funded by the Federal Government. They receive funding through Health
and Human Services, the Department of Education, and even the Social
Security Administration. I am not sure giving this particular group
another $40 million makes sense when we can just as easily spend $40
million on numerous other causes that are actually underfunded or not
funded at all.
The States are in dire financial straits. We could certainly devote
this money to helping them make additional election administration
improvements and upgrades.
Protection and advocacy systems do not need this amendment to broaden
their mandate to encompass accessibility. That is already included in
their broad statutory mandate. This amendment seeks only to increase
the funding of one organization, an increase that nearly doubles the
amount this group received last year. But as I said a moment ago, there
are many worthwhile groups out there that provide services to help
people with disabilities. They, too, would like an additional source of
Federal funding. Some of these groups have contacted my office, and I
am sure my colleagues have heard from them as well.
Other groups that help the disabled are calling my office and asking
the question: Why does the protection and advocacy system get
additional funding? We do good work, and we could use additional funds
to help ensure full participation in the electoral process.
These other groups are probably right. They do good work and could
use additional money. But if we proceed down that road, we will soon
deplete all the funds available under this bill. If we increase the
funding for every group out there that does good work and may in fact
need additional money, we will soon spend the entire Social Security
surplus.
If we had unlimited funds available, this amendment would be one of
several good uses for that additional money. If we had unlimited funds
available, I would propose additional funding for a host of
organizations that do good works, some of which are in my home State
and have said they could use the money. But we do not have unlimited
funds available, and for that reason I do not think we should earmark
additional money exclusively for this one organization, especially when
that organization already received millions--millions--in Federal and
State funds.
Other disability advocacy groups see this amendment as unfairly
benefiting
[[Page S1145]]
an organization that is already well funded by the Federal Government
and already effectively advocates on behalf of those with disabilities.
It seems these other advocates of the disabled have a very good point.
There is one other concern with the amendment that has been expressed
by my colleagues and by several election officials. Because the
protection and advocacy systems are authorized by Federal statute to
sue, many are concerned that this amendment would essentially fund
litigation against our State and local election officials.
There are at least two provisions in the Federal laws governing
protection and advocacy systems that govern suits against States. One
provision says:
Nothing in this title shall preclude a system from bringing
a suit on behalf of individuals with developmental
disabilities against a State, or an agency or an
instrumentality of a State.
The other provision says, in part:
. . . such system shall have the authority to pursue legal
. . . remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of, and
advocacy for, the rights of such individuals within the
State. . . .
Now it may be that some protection and advocacy systems do not sue
that often. But the fact remains that they can sue and they do sue. In
fact, their broad authorization allows them to sue a State and an
agency or instrumentality of a State.
Unfortunately, the election officials I have heard from are not
particularly comforted by claims that these groups ``don't sue that
often.'' These groups may very well need the ability to sue when they
advocate on behalf of disabled people who face illegal discrimination
in employment or in housing. But when it comes to elections, this bill
seeks to help States improve elections systems and comply with the law.
This bill makes great efforts to encourage States to upgrade their
systems and work in a cooperative manner with the Federal Government.
If this amendment is agreed to, we will essentially be giving money
to the States to help them upgrade their election systems with one hand
and we will be giving money to an outside group to help them
potentially sue the States with the other.
Of course, States will then have to devote even more resources to
defend against lawsuits, and the real cost of this amendment goes even
higher. Perhaps we should set up a separate stream of funding for
States to use to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits, or, if
we wanted to fund litigation, I am sure my colleague, the senior
Senator from Missouri, would suggest a few groups that could use some
Federal money to investigate instances of voter fraud and pursue
litigation.
As I said earlier, I support the important work done by the States
for the disabled, as we all do. I support making voting easier for the
disabled, which this bill does. And I think this bill makes great
strides for the disabled, thanks largely to the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who is very passionate about this issue. But I
think this amendment would do some harm to the delicate balance we have
achieved with the bill.
Folks with disabilities should be able to vote. There are numerous
groups out there that provide education and assistance to help make
that happen. In fact, this bill makes grant money available that States
can use for outreach and education for the disabled. But I do not think
it is wise to fund one group exclusively when there are so many other
similar groups that could benefit from a special earmark.
Nothing in the underlying bill prevents the protection and advocacy
system from consulting with election officials. They can and do already
consult with State governments on these issues.
For all of those reasons, I hope this amendment will not be agreed to
when we ultimately have the vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond a little to the
arguments made by the Senator from Kentucky regarding my amendment.
First, the Senator from Kentucky says the P&As can already handle
cases dealing with access to places that are already within their
purview to do so. I would say that is true. There is one P&A for each
State and they do receive some state assistance. We gave $15 million
last year for 50 States. Even with some of the small amounts they get
from the State or other sources, they have very little with which to
operate. The average P&A's budget is $1.2 million. Yet they have to
cover the entire State in terms of working with local officials on
accessibility. They have very small staffs.
Their purpose is to educate, train, and advocate for compliance under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no extra funding to work
on voting access. They are already strapped. But now we are saying with
this bill that we want to have voting access. Again, we have an anomaly
here. We have within the bill a requirement that there be at least one
voting machine that is acceptable for voting places. But there are no
minimum standards for accessibility to the machine from the parking lot
to the sidewalk from the outside. The bill is silent on that. It is
absolutely silent.
Rather than just setting a minimum standard, which I don't think we
ought to be doing right now, the best thing is to give a small amount
of funds--this is $10 million a year for all 50 States. An average of
maybe $150,000 per P&A to have them train, educate, and work with local
officials on how to make sure the voting place is accessible.
Again, the Senator from Kentucky said there are a lot of groups out
there that would like to do this. The protection and advocacy system is
set up under law--one per State. They have been there for a long time.
They have the expertise and the history. They are well integrated in
every State in terms of the State structure to do this.
The Senator from Kentucky went on at great length about litigation--
that he didn't want to give resources to P&As to litigate because that
would use money and the States would have to come up with the money to
defend it. Again, we have to look at the facts. What P&As do 99 percent
of the time is basically train and educate local officials on access
issues. I mentioned earlier about how we have reams and reams of
examples from every State on P&As, as they are called--protection and
advocacy--about how they have been able to help State governments and
local governments meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act at least cost and with the least interference with the
general public. This is well documented.
When people call in, they provide over-the-phone advice. This is
someplace where a local official can be out there, and someone could
come and say: You have to do this to make something accessible. The
local official does not know. They pick up the phone. They call the
P&A, and they say: I have been told I have to make all of these changes
to make something accessible. Do I have to do it? What do I have to do?
They can get that advice. All the P&As around the country sit on local
and State task forces and boards to ensure that accessibility is part
of all the project planning. Remember that you have public planning for
parks, recreational facilities, public buildings, courthouses,
whatever. They are part of the planning process to make sure that they
are accessible. They do handle individual cases. We do have data from
the 50 States.
The P&As are able to take about 1 of every 10 who ask for assistance.
For every 10 people who call up the P&As and ask for some kind of
assistance on a personal basis, they can take only 1 of them because
they typically don't have the resources. They do not have the staff,
and they don't have the money.
I have a listing of all of the intervention strategies used in
serving individuals by every State. Again, most of what they do is, as
I said, education and technical assistance. On a lot of it, they
negotiate and go to administrative hearings. But there is a column here
on litigation. Here are the facts:
The Senator from Kentucky went on and on about litigation. There were
43,092 cases that came into the P&A system last year, 2001. Out of
43,092 cases, 178 wound up in litigation.
And the simple truth is, the P&As get the most bang for their buck
through education and training and working with officials proactively--
not through the courts.
The reason they don't litigate is that they do not have the
wherewithal. I
[[Page S1146]]
can say without any fear of contradiction that each 1 of those 178
cases was an egregious case. This is where the P&As have gone through
negotiations, they have gone through mediation, they have gone through
counseling, they have gone through administrative hearings, and nothing
gets done. Yet, at that point in time they litigate.
I don't think the Senator from Kentucky would like to take that right
away from the P&As on the most egregious cases.
The facts belie the fear of this burgeoning litigation.
Again, just one of the things that P & A's do is handle individual
cases. They only take 1 out of every 10 complaints--and then they do
everything they can which is required by law--to remedy the problem.
And only in those most egregious instances--3 percent of those
individual cases--do they consider the courtroom as an option.
So again, what my amendment will basically do is give to a nonprofit
group that has a strong record in education, training and advocacy. It
is a nonprofit entity. It is recognized by the States. As I said, State
governments rely on them. They sit in on State boards and local boards,
work with them in the planning process, and give technical assistance
to help make sure we have accessibility for people with disabilities.
Again, my amendment has been pending for over 2 weeks. It has been
out there during the break and before the break. My amendment has been
out there. I have not heard one complaint from any group or any
election officials that this is a bad amendment. The disability
community, I can tell you, is united behind this amendment.
I think it is a modest approach. As I said, the more drastic approach
would be for us to demand a minimum standard on physical accessibility
to the voting place. Maybe that is what we should have done. But we
decided to take the perhaps more cautious approach, one that would
leave the maximum amount of flexibility for States to do what they
needed to do. And the P&A system can help them do that.
The funding will give the P&As the resources they need to focus on
voting accessibility, which they can't do now because of their limited
budgets.
That is what the P&As can do. It is not a cookie-cutter approach, but
to work with local officials, find the lowest cost, least interference
method of making sure we have accessibility for everyone: People with
disabilities and people without disabilities.
As I said, they have great expertise. They have been doing this for a
long time, going back to the 1970s, when they were created. Quite
frankly, as the former chair of the Disabilities Subcommittee, and one
who has been involved in this ever since, I keep close tabs on the P&A
system. They are funded under the Appropriations Committee that I am
privileged to chair.
So we keep pretty good tabs on the P&A groups in the United States.
With a meager amount of money, they do a great job. In fact, I hear
from my secretary of state in Iowa about what a great job they do in
Iowa.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me state for the
uninformed--and there may not be many on this particular point--there
has never been, in my view, a stronger or more articulate advocate on
behalf of the disabled in this country than the Senator from Iowa, Mr.
Harkin.
He and I have known each other for a long time. We have served
together for a quarter century. We arrived on the very same day in the
House of Representatives, back more than 25 years ago. We served
together there and now have served together here for almost two
decades.
But for his advocacy, but for his determination, millions of
Americans who suffer from one form of disability or another would not
enjoy as many of the opportunities that they do in our country. He has
made that much of a difference. When the issue is raised, Can one
person make a difference? you need go no further than the name of Tom
Harkin to answer that question. Truly, for millions of people, his
presence in public life has made a difference. And he is obviously
living up to that reputation by suggesting the amendment he has offered
to us on the election reform bill. So I commend him immensely for it.
He has been a great friend, a great advocate for so many years.
I guess sometimes the personal experiences in life are what sort of
galvanize one's attention. I know in both of our cases--different kinds
of cases--siblings of ours have suffered from physical disabilities. We
both grew up in a family knowing of the tremendous efforts our parents,
respectively, made to see to it that our respective siblings would
enjoy the full opportunities of life. I do not know of any more
courageous a person than my sister. And I am sure the Senator from Iowa
might say the same about his brother, God rest his soul, whom the
Senator lost a couple years ago.
So, in fact, had the Senator not come forward and advocated this, we
might wonder what was wrong here in some ways. So his standing here
advocating these positions is as normal as anyone might expect. I thank
him for his kind comments, and the Senator from Kentucky for his
generous comments as well, on what we have tried to do in this bill.
I know there will be some efforts, to some degree, to suggest maybe
we ought to make these provisions dealing with the disabled less than a
requirement. But we did not do that in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act,
and there are millions of Americans who do not vote because of the
inaccessibility of the ballot. What we have done in this bill is to
make that an accessible ballot for the blind, the manually disabled,
and others with disabilities. If we did nothing else in this bill but
that, I think we can call it a major achievement in providing
additional resources to everyone, make polling places more accessible,
given the fact, in many places, there are still polling places that are
not accessible. The discretionary grant money of $100 million in this
bill, which I know the Senator from Iowa appreciates immensely, is
going to help.
So I commend the Senator for this proposal and thank him for his
continuing efforts on behalf of millions of Americans who have no
greater voice than his in the Congress of the United States, and I
thank him for that.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his very kind
and overly generous remarks. We have been, as he said, close friends
for a quarter century now. We first came to the House together. We were
sworn in on the same day. But I think the Senator is being overly kind
in his comments about this Senator.
As we all learn, as we go through life, the famous saying, no man is
an island, around here, no man or woman gets legislation through by
himself or herself. It takes a team effort and takes people working
together.
On all the legislation we have passed that has made lives better for
people with disabilities, Senator Dodd of Connecticut has been in the
forefront of the fight every single time from day one. We have served
together on the Labor, Health, and Human Resources Committee all these
years. He is senior to me on that committee. I have been proud to
follow his lead on so many of these issues that make life better for
our citizens with disabilities.
I respond in kind by thanking the Senator from Connecticut. As he
said, both of us, in our own individual families, have had personal
experience with siblings who have had disabilities. We bring those
personal experiences here. It gives us a better feel for what is
happening to a lot of people around the country who want a full and
fair life, want accessibility, want to be integrated in society, want
education and travel, employment, and, yes, one of the most fundamental
of all rights that make us uniquely American--the right of the secret
ballot.
The bill before us that Senators Dodd and McConnell have put together
is a great bill. But like anything else, there are little parts that
may need to be tweaked. This is considered one of those little things
we need to do to help ensure that access from the curbside or from that
parking lot to that voting machine, which they have rightly done in
this bill, so there has to be at least one in every voting place. I
applaud the Senator from Connecticut for taking the lead on that. But
this is just something that will help ensure that we are able to have
the access at the least cost, least interference, and the best method
possible.
[[Page S1147]]
Again, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on
this issue and for his friendship for a quarter of a century to me
personally, but to all Americans with disabilities. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Iowa.
We have a couple of amendments we can work on that may be accepted.
There is a possibility that we might have a vote on the Harkin
amendment before we break for lunch. What I would like to do, with my
colleague's permission and agreement, is to go into a quorum call.
Mr. McCONNELL. I wanted to make a couple more observations about the
amendment of Senator Harkin.
Mr. DODD. I was trying to restrain debate a bit so we might get to a
couple other matters.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill 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. 2869
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 2869. I believe that is the
amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I
inquire of the Chair, is that the amendment that is a sense of the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 2869.
Mr. DODD. Mr. 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 express the sense of the Senate regarding State and local
input into changes made to the electoral process)
On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING STATE AND LOCAL INPUT
INTO CHANGES MADE TO THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Although Congress has the responsibility to ensure that
our citizens' right to vote is protected, and that votes are
counted in a fair and accurate manner, States and localities
have a vested interest in the electoral process.
(2) The Federal Government should ensure that States and
localities have some say in any election mandates placed upon
the States and localities.
(3) Congress should ensure that any election reform laws
contain provisions for input by State and local election
officials.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Department of Justice and the Committee on Election
Reform should take steps to ensure that States and localities
are allowed some input into any changes that are made to the
electoral process, preferably through some type of advisory
committee or commission.
Mr. DODD. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I commend
the Senator from Louisiana for offering the amendment. I urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2869.
The amendment (No. 2869) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2931
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the second amendment cleared by both sides
is the amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein. I send the amendment to 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. Dodd], for Mrs.
Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2931.
Mr. DODD. Mr. 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 ensure the security, confidentiality, and integrity of
personal information collected, stored, or otherwise used by the free
access system established for the purpose of permitting individuals
casting provisional ballots to determine the final disposition of their
vote)
On page 14, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
The appropriate State or local official shall establish and
maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the
security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal
information collected, stored, or otherwise used by the free
access system established under paragraph (6)(B). Access to
information about an individual provisional ballot shall be
restricted to the individual who cast the ballot.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment provides that the States and
localities must ensure the security and confidentiality of information
made available on the free access system established for the purpose of
permitting individuals casting provisional ballots to determine the
final disposition of their vote. It is a privacy amendment.
I thank the Senator for offering it, and I thank my colleagues on the
minority side for accepting this amendment. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2931.
The amendment (No. 2931) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I think
we may take care of at least one or two more amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill 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. 2898, As Modified
Mr. DODD. I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
modified Dayton amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 2898), as modified, is as follows:
On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. __. STUDY AND REPORT ON FREE ABSENTEE BALLOT POSTAGE.
(a) Study on the Establishment of a Free Absentee Ballot
Postage Program.--
(1) In general.--The Election Administration Commission
established under section 301 shall conduct a study on the
feasibility and advisability of the establishment by the
Federal Election Commission and the Postal Service of a
program under which the Postal Service shall waive the amount
of postage applicable with respect to absentee ballots
submitted by voters in general elections for Federal office
(other than balloting materials mailed under section 3406 of
title 39, United States Code) that does not apply with
respect to the postage required to send the absentee ballots
to voters.
(2) Public survey.--As part of the study conducted under
paragraph (1), the Election Administration Commission shall
conduct a survey of potential beneficiaries under the program
described in such paragraph, including the elderly and
disabled, and shall take into account the results of such
survey in determining the feasibility and advisability of
establishing such a program.
(b) Report.--
(1) Submission.--Not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Election
Administration Commission shall submit to Congress a report
on the study conducted under subsection (a)(1) together with
recommendations for such legislative and administrative
action as the Commission determines appropriate.
(2) Costs.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
contain an estimate of the costs of establishing the program
described in subsection (a)(1).
(3) Implementation.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall contain an analysis of the feasibility of
implementing the program described in subsection (a)(1) with
respect to the absentee ballots submitted in the general
election for Federal office held in 2004.
(4) Recommendations regarding the elderly and disabled.--
The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) include recommendations of the Federal Election
Commission on ways that program described in subsection
(a)(1) would
[[Page S1148]]
target elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities;
and
(B) identify methods to increase the number of such
individuals who vote in elections for Federal office.
(c) Postal Service Defined.--The term ``Postal Service''
means the United States Postal Service established under
section 201 of title 39, United States Code.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for this
amendment. Briefly, the Dayton amendment asks for a study of
eliminating the need for postage requirements on absentee ballots. The
suggestion initially had been that it be a pilot program to be
instituted at the 2004 elections on a Federal level, utilizing some 3
million voters to determine whether or not such a pilot would be
worthwhile. There were concerns which States would be included.
The commission, if this bill becomes law, would want to look at this
issue. By recrafting the amendment calling for a study, it will
guarantee that will be done. Then we will try and figure out the best
way to conduct that study. For those reasons, the amendment is
acceptable, I am told, on both sides.
I thank the Senator from Minnesota. This is a very worthwhile
suggestion. It is exactly the kind of issue at which the permanent
commission on elections wants to look. Because he has proposed this
amendment the way he has, it will guarantee that will be done. With
this modification calling for a study, rather than a pilot program, the
amendment is acceptable by both sides. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified, of the Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment (No. 2998), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted we finally have the
opportunity to consider election reform. I am especially glad we are
doing so in a way that is probably as close to bipartisan as anything
we will work on this year. I commend Senator Dodd. I commend Senator
McConnell and a number of other colleagues from both sides of the aisle
who have worked diligently for a year now to hammer out this compromise
we are considering today.
As we all know, the 2002 elections brought to light a number of
problems in the way we run elections. While Florida got a lot of
attention, we found out the problems do not reside solely in Florida
but persist in a number of other States as well. The bill that we will,
hopefully, adopt this week goes a long way toward fixing not all those
problems but a number of them. Let me mention a few.
This legislation sets strong standards that State voting systems must
meet so that all voting technology that American voters use allows them
to correct mistakes and meet set error rates, acceptable lower error
rates. This ensures voting machines are accessible to handicapped
voters and voters with limited English proficiency. Third, this
legislation provides for provisional balloting so voters mistakenly
left off official registration lists are still allowed to vote. Fourth,
this legislation provides for balanced antifraud measures to ensure
voters are not disenfranchised.
Fortunately, in my State of Delaware there were few problems on
election day in 2002. Delaware has uniform electronic voting machines
with good error rates. All of our precincts are called election
districts. The machines were purchased during the time that I served as
Governor of our State. Delaware also has a computerized statewide voter
registration list put in place under the leadership of our former
Election Commissioner, Thomas Cook.
We have some work still to do in Delaware to assure our machines
allow the handicapped to vote in privacy and to put a provisional
voting system into place. Some States need to do a whole lot more than
that. I am happy to see the bill provides the money to enable them and
Delaware to do the work that needs to be done. This bill includes no
unfunded mandates. This bill provides $3 billion in grants to pay 100
percent of the costs to States for implementing the voting machines or
provisional balloting and for antifraud requirements.
We must work hard to ensure, however, that the money we are
promising, the money we propose to authorize, actually gets to the
States and that there are enough dollars at the end for the States to
meet the requirements we are placing on them, especially now that a
number of States, including my own, are faced with very tight budgets.
According to the National Governors Association, combined State
budget shortfalls are at $15 billion and could go higher if State
unemployment, health care, and homeland security costs continue to
rise.
Most States have balanced budget requirements in their constitution
and face the prospect of having to raise taxes or make budget cuts to
cover the budget shortfalls.
Having said that, this is a good bill. In fact, this is more than a
good bill; it is a very good bill. I am pleased to urge my colleagues
to join me and others to pass it overwhelmingly. I hope at the end of
the day if we begin to see in the future that States continue to have
problems meeting these new standards for budgetary reasons that emanate
more from Washington than our State capitals, we find a way to get
those States the resources they need or, if necessary, to amend the
timing of requirements so that States can meet those requirements
responsibly.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 2912, As Modified
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2912, the Harkin
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator
Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2912), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funds for protection and advocacy systems)
On page 28 of the amendment, after line 23, add the
following:
(c) Protection and Advocacy Systems.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments made
under this section, the Attorney General shall pay the
protection and advocacy system (as defined in section 102 of
the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights
Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)) of each State to ensure full
participation in the electoral process for individuals with
disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a vote
and accessing polling places. In providing such services,
protection and advocacy systems shall have the same general
authorities as they are afforded under part C of the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15041 et seq.).
(2) Minimum grant amount.--The minimum amount of each grant
to a protection and advocacy system shall be determined and
allocated as set forth in subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5),
(e), and (g) of section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. 794e), except that the amount of the grants to
systems referred to in subsections (c)(3)(B) and (c)(4)(B) of
that section shall be not less than $70,000 and $35,000,
respectively.
On page 30, strike lines 23 through 25, and insert the
following:
(b) Protection and Advocacy Systems.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated under this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and
for each subsequent fiscal year such sums as may be
necessary, for the purpose of making payments under section
206(c): Provided, That none of the funds provided by this
subsection shall be used to commence any litigation related
to election-related disability access, notwithstanding the
general authorities of the protection and advocacy systems as
are otherwise afforded under part C of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 15041 et seq.)
(c) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authority of this section shall remain available until
expended.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and our friends on the
Republican side for working out this modification. Senator Harkin
raises a very good amendment. There was concern raised by Senator
McConnell, and
[[Page S1149]]
maybe others, that we would be utilizing some of these dollars to
promote litigation in this bill. That has never been our intent. There
is nothing in this bill that would do that.
Because it was possible that some small percentage of these dollars
could be used for that purpose, there were concerns raised by the
amendment. Senator Harkin has modified his amendment with language that
would explicitly prohibit any of the funds provided under this bill
from being used for purposes of litigation. It does not, however,
otherwise affect the use of existing funds.
That being the case, our friends on the Republican side have
withdrawn their objection to this amendment. I urge its adoption as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2912), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. 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.
Mr. DODD. I think we have done some good work. I thank Senator
McConnell and his staff. We are going to be breaking for the weekly
luncheons by both caucuses. I think we have adopted some six amendments
this morning, debated the Harkin amendment, and modified that. We are
getting this list down. I am beginning to think we might actually be in
a position to adopt this legislation by this evening.
We are going to be talking over lunch to see if we can't work out
these amendments. Staffs will meet over the luncheon period to see if
we can resolve some of the differences. But I thank the individual
Senators for their cooperation. Senator McConnell and I are grateful
for their cooperation.
When we come back, there will be a special order period between 2:15
and 3:15, but after that we will be back on this bill--I believe that
is the case--in which case we will try to line up some amendments to be
debated at that time so we can move the product along a little further.
I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas who is here, I believe,
not just to listen to the Senator from Connecticut but he may have
something to say. I yield the floor.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 2 minutes as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
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. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes even though it may be a few minutes beyond 12:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I was afraid you might object, Mr. President.
____________________