[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1166-S1171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Amendment No. 2934
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendment is set
aside. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. Ensign,
and Mr. Burns, proposes an amendment number 2934.
Mr. HATCH. 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 apply the election technology and administration
requirements to States only after funding is made available to meet
such requirements)
On page 22, after line 25, insert the following:
SEC. 105. COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND
ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONED ON
FUNDING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no State
or locality shall be required to meet a requirement of this
title prior to the date on which funds are appropriated at
the full authorized level contained in section 209.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to S.
565, the Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act of 2001.
First of all, I thank my friends Senator Ensign and Senator Burns for
cosponsoring this important amendment. Let me also commend my
colleagues, Chairman Dodd and Senator McConnell, for undertaking an
extremely arduous process leading to consideration today of legislation
that is supported by half the Senate. I know this was not easy for the
committee, nor their staffs, and I appreciate the hard work that led to
this compromise.
That being said, I do have a concern about the impact that enactment
of this legislation could have on states and localities, most of whom
are experiencing extreme budget shortfalls. Let me explain.
Title I of the Dodd-McConnell bill includes seven new uniform and
nondiscriminatory requirements for election technology and
administration. These are requirements, for example, pertaining to
certification of votes cast, audit capacity, and accessibility for
individuals with disabilities. If enacted, these requirements would
apply to each voting system used in an election for Federal office.
Obviously, this language has far-reaching consequences.
I appreciate the intent underlying the sponsors' legislation, which
is that the system must be uniform in nature, across the entire
country, if it is to be successful in accomplishing the goal of
election reform.
I also appreciate the committee's stated desire that the program be
fully funded. That being said, the question I ask my colleagues is
this: ``What if it isn't?'' What if a future Congress fails to provide
adequate funding for this legislation?
That goes to the heart of my amendment.
My amendment is simple. It states that only fully-funded mandates
will be enforceable. In other words, if Congress does not provide the
funding, the States and localities won't be left holding the bag for a
Federal mandate.
Let me hasten to make clear that my amendment does not seek to change
the mandates in this title. What it does is ensure State and local
governments that we will keep our commitment in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995. At that time, we promised the States that we would
not saddle them with new mandates without providing them with the
resources to implement and enforce those laws.
While I believe my good friends Senator Chris Dodd and Mitch
McConnell are well intentioned in their approach to election reform, as
now drafted, this bill fails to protect states and localities from
unfunded mandates. Adoption of my amendment would guarantee we keep
this promise to our States and localities. I also believe that this
amendment seeks to codify the author's intent of meeting our promises
to the states.
Some may argue that the Dodd-McConnell bill will fund every title in
the bill. However, this argument does not hold water when weighed
against the text of the bill. This bill authorizes payments to the
states. Note the key word--authorizes. It does not appropriate the
resources to get the job done. Given the numerous competing Federal
priorities, not to mention the funding required in our fight against
terrorism, there is good reason to question whether those resources
will be available.
I have great faith in the future of this country and in our future
leaders. I do not have faith, however, that future congresses will
allocate required resources for every State to purchase new equipment
and to retrofit existing structures where citizens vote. S. 565 sets
three hard deadlines, and the States will be held accountable for the
mandated changes at each of those deadlines. Although the changes will
be phased in over 4 years, all States will be responsible for
implementing all provisions by 2006.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the Dodd-
McConnell bill at $3 billion. That is billion, with a ``B.'' I know
that my friends Senators Dodd and McConnell fully expect this bill to
be funded. I truly hope that is the case.
[[Page S1167]]
But let us look at the hard realities. It is ethnical for us, at a
time when the majority of our states are facing serious financial
difficulties, when some, such as my home State of Utah are cutting off
health care benefits to children and closing prisons, to even suggest
they foot the entire bill for these new mandates? I think not.
Our amendment simply declares that States will not be held
accountable for any mandated provisions in S. 565 until sufficient
funds have been appropriated. I think it would be prudent, even if we
are able to fully fund these mandates, to have this provision in the
bill as a safety net.
Let me also note that this amendment has the support of state and
local governments.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from various
State and local officials be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of Secretaries of State, National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National
Association of Counties
February 13, 2002.
Dear Senator Hatch: The national organizations listed
above, representing state and local elected officials,
express our support for your proposed amendment to ensure
that full federal funding accompanies federal election reform
legislation.
We have reviewed the text of your proposed amendment and
endorse it as a mechanism to guarantee that federal mandates
be accompanied by full funding. We look forward to working
with you to ensure that states and local governments are
equipped to provide fair and open elections and to maintain
and improve the process by which we conduct elections for
local, state and federal office.
Sincerely,
Ron Thornburgh,
Kansas Secretary of State, President, National Association
of Secretaries of State.
Larry Naake,
Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
William Pound,
Executive Director, National Conference of State
Legislatures.
____
State of Utah,
Office of the Governor,
Salt Lake City, UT, February 25, 2002.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing to express my support for
your proposed amendment to ensure that full federal funding
accompanies federal election reform legislation.
As you are aware, many states, including Utah, are
experiencing budget shortfalls. It would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to make budget allocations to
purchase new voting equipment at this time. Unfunded federal
mandates would also place a financial burden on our 29
counties. We are dedicated to providing the best equipment so
that every individual has an equal opportunity to vote, but
we cannot accomplish this without federal funding.
As the Chief Election Official for the State of Utah, I
endorse your proposed amendment. I feel that the only way
states and localities can accomplish the many aspects of
election reform is to provide full funding for all federal
mandates. I look forward to working with you to ensure that
all elections are fair, open and efficient.
Sincerely,
Olene S. Walker,
Lieutenant Governor.
Mr. HATCH. I urge my colleagues to remember your commitment to your
State--no more unfunded mandates. I urge an affirmative vote on this
important amendment.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, as I understand my colleague--I appreciate
his points about what we have tried to do in this legislation,
obviously. There are some minimum requirements in the area of access,
to make it possible for millions of disabled Americans who have never
been able to cast a vote in private, independently, to be able to do
so; the anti-fraud provisions of statewide voter registration; and
provisional voting. Those are the three minimum requirements here--and
fully fund it.
I agree with my colleague from Utah. I happen to believe when there
are mandates such as this, minimum requirements, no matter how minimum
they may be, we ought to have the resources to make it possible for our
States to do those things.
I have committed to my friend and colleague from Utah that we are
going to do everything possible to see to it that is the case. So, in
terms of the language of this amendment, I inquire of my friend from
Utah whether or not the understanding is we are going to see to it--the
President has already put $1.2 billion in his budget as a kind of
indication of the administration's good faith on this issue.
I found that to be a remarkable commitment in light of the fact the
bill has not been adopted yet. Obviously, we don't have the power to
appropriate as an authorizing committee. But because my friend from
Kentucky, the Senator from Missouri, and the Senator from Illinois--all
of whom are principal sponsors of this bill--sit on the Appropriations
Committee, along with conversations with others, we feel very confident
that the resources are going to be there on a bipartisan basis.
Amendment No. 2934, As Modified
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, from our previous conversation, I
understand that the Senator requests that I withdraw this amendment.
Let me just say that I am reluctant to withdraw this amendment. I am
very concerned that without a concrete assurance in the bill, our
states will be saddled with requirements that are clearly out of their
financial reach. I hear what my friend, Senator Dodd, is saying and I
would like to believe that there will be adequate funding for all of
the provisions in S. 565. On the other hand I have received countless
entreaties from local governments who are, simply put, skeptical that
the federal government will provide them with adequate funding. Without
that funding, obviously, an unfunded mandates. That is what I would
like to avoid.
That being said, Senator Dodd does raise a good point when he reminds
us that many of the cosponsors of the Election Reform Act serve on the
Appropriations Committee. On the other side, one of the great fears of
those who I represent with this amendment is that future congresses
will not share the same commitment. It is my hope and I'm sure the hope
of all of the cosponsors of this amendment that the appropriators will
endeavor to fund fully all of the provisions within the bill. I accept
the assurances of my colleague address this concern more fully in
conference. To that end, I'm willing to work with my colleague on this
issue and modify my amendment. I am sending the modification to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2934), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTION
TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
It is the sense of the Senate that full funding be provided
to each State and locality to meet the requirements relating
to compliance with election technology and administration
pursuant to this Act.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this modification expresses the sense of
the whole Senate to do what both Senator Dodd and I are so concerned
about. It shows that all 100 Senators agree with Senators Ensign,
Burns, Thomas and me that full funding of this act must be guaranteed
to states and localities. While this is not the version of the
amendment that I would have preferred, I believe that it will assure
the supporters of the original amendment that there will be appropriate
funding. I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I agree. I thank my friend from Utah, the
Senator from Nevada, and the Senator from Montana. Everyone feels very
strongly about this in the difficult times for all of our
jurisdictions. That is why we have not made this a percentage mandate
but a 100-percent Federal budget, and becoming a far better partner
with our States and localities in the conduct of elections.
I enthusiastically support this modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2934), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
[[Page S1168]]
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2935
Mr. HATCH. Madam 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 clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment
numbered 2935.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment, No. 2935, is printed in the Record under ``Amendments
Submitted''.)
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to offer another amendment to the
bipartisan Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act of 2002. First let me
thank my colleagues Senators Dodd, McConnell, Bond, Schumer, McCain,
Torricelli, and others for all the hard work that they have put into
this bill. I also want to thank Senator Leahy for cosponsoring this
amendment, which will lay the groundwork for integrating new technology
into the political process. Senator Leahy's knowledge and support of
technological issues made his input invaluable.
As Americans, we have the right to participate in the greatest
democracy in the world, and most will agree that the act of voting is
the bedrock of our democratic society. Americans take pride in the role
they play in shaping issues and determining their leaders, and yet, we
see that voter participation in recent years has decreased among people
of all ages, races, and gender. I find these statistics both
disappointing and tragic because, as Thomas Jefferson stated, ``that
government is the strongest of which every man himself feels a part.''
Why is voter turnout so low? Of the 21.3 million people who
registered but did not vote in the 1996 election, more than one in five
reported that they did not vote because they could not take time off of
work or school or because they were too busy. Can technological
advances, like the Internet, increase participation in the electoral
process by making voter registration easier or by simplifying the
method of voting itself? As the elected representatives of the people,
we should consider every option available that might help involve more
of our country's citizens in America's democratic process. Federal,
State, and local governments are duty bound to encourage all eligible
Americans to exercise their right to vote.
In the past, attempts have been made to increase voter registration
and turnout. Unfortunately, these attempts have met with limited
success. The Motor Voter Act of 1993, for example, attempted to
increase voter participation by permitting the registration of voters
in conjunction with the issuance of driver's licenses. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, 28 percent of the 19.5 million people who have
registered to vote since 1995 have done so at their local Department of
Motor Vehicles, the single highest method compared to any other form of
registration. Notwithstanding this simplified voter registration
procedure, voter participation continues to decline. Although
registering to vote at the DMV generally is more convenient than other
methods of registration, a substantial portion of registered voters
nevertheless continue to fail to register to vote and fail to go to the
polls on election day.
Voting via the Internet has been suggested as one possible solution
to the problem. The Internet has revolutionized the way people
communicate and conduct business by permitting millions of people to
access the world instantaneously, at the click of a mouse. The Internet
has already increased voter awareness on issues of public policy as
well as on candidates and their views. In the future, the Internet may
very well increase voter registration and participation, and thereby
strengthen our country's electoral process.
As many of us have seen in the recent past, more and more states are
looking at ways to utilize the Internet in the political process.
Proposals include online voter registration, online access to voter
information, and online voting. State and local officials around the
country are anxious to use the Internet to foster civic action. I think
that this is a positive step. Real questions remain, however, as to the
feasibility of securely using the Internet for these functions. How can
we be sure that the person who registers to vote online is whom he or
she claims to be? How can we ensure that an Internet voting process is
free from fraud? How much will this technology cost? There are also
important sociological and political questions to consider. For
example, will options such as online registration and voting increase
political participation or could the Internet be equitably used in the
political process? These and other questions deserve our attention.
The Hatch-Leahy amendment addresses these issues in two ways: No. 1,
it establishes an advisory committee that will provide a necessary
framework for discussing the possible uses and abuses of the Internet
in the voting process;
And No. 2, it directs the Attorney General to review existing
criminal statutes and penalties and to report to Congress and the
advisory committee whether additional penalties for interfering with
online registration and voting are needed.
No American who has exercised his or her rights to vote should ever
have to wonder if their properly cast vote will be counted. We must
preserve the integrity of the voting process and I commend the efforts
of those who have drafted this bill. The Hatch-Leahy amendment
complements the bill and will help to ensure the legitimacy of the
voting process. As we continue to address the current problems with our
voting process, we can and should take this opportunity to examine the
impact of new technologies on our elections.
Many States already allow for portions of the voter registration
process to be completed online. The Arizona State Democratic Party
allowed online voting in the 2000 presidential primary and nearly
36,000 Arizona Democrats took advantage of this opportunity. We can
anticipate that this trend toward online voting will continue. To make
clear our desire to hold elections free from fraud, this amendment
requests the Attorney General to study whether our criminal code
provides adequate penalties to punish and deter interference with
online registration and voting.
The Hatch-Leahy amendment will also create the ``Advisory Committee
on the Internet and the Electoral Process.'' This committee, comprised
of federal, state, and local officials, as well as representatives of
the high-tech industry and academia, will investigate the practicality,
feasibility, and advisability of using the Internet in the voting
process. The report generated by this committee will provide a much
needed framework for discussing important issues related to Internet
voting. New technology has enhanced many aspects of our lives, and
perhaps it can be used to enhance our civic lives as well.
Can registering and voting online really work? We must carefully
evaluate the issues that will arise as the civic privilege of voting
meets with technological advances. Proponents of ``electronic
voting''--so-called e-voting''--contend that there are numerous
advantages to this emerging type of ``cyber'' political participation,
including the immediate disclosure of campaign contributions, an
increase in the number of grassroots volunteers, and the creation of a
more accessible forum for political advertising. Skeptics assert, to
the contrary, that e-voting would only serve to decrease ``real''
electoral participation, place personal privacy at risk and pave the
way for election fraud. The late Senator Sam Ervin opposed simplifying
voter registration and voting, stating that he did not ``believe [in]
making it easy for apathetic, lazy people'' to vote. I do not know
whether online voter registration and e-voting will halt the decline in
voter participation; I do not know whether online voter registration
and e-voting even is wise. I firmly believe, however, that this issue
deserves serious examination as we seek to ensure that our democratic
republic engages as many citizens as is possible.
As we seek to ensure equal access to the voting place and the
integrity of the voting process, it would be irresponsible of us to
ignore the potential
[[Page S1169]]
effects, both good and bad, that new technology will have on the
political process. The importance of the issue demands we take the
opportunity to explore these possibilities. The Hatch-Leahy amendment
proposes important forward-looking measures that will ensure our
ability to properly integrate new technology in the political process.
Madam President, I yield the floor on this amendment. Then I will
bring up one more amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, this is a study to be done on Internet
voting. As my friend from Utah points out, there are jurisdictions
which are examining how this would work. Obviously, there are some very
serious problems one might face on privacy issues and the like with
Internet voting. We have accepted a number of amendments that look at
studies to be done to report back to us on this area.
Mr. HATCH. If you are willing to accept the amendment, that will be
fine.
Mr. DODD. I want to make sure my colleague from Kentucky is all right
on this amendment. I am fine with it.
Mr. HATCH. Shall we wait on that with the understanding you will
check and see?
Mr. DODD. Why don't we wait until he comes to the Chamber--I want to
give him a chance to respond to this--and temporarily lay this aside?
Mr. HATCH. That is fine.
Mr. DODD. And then come back to it.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be temporarily laid aside and I be permitted to bring up one more
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I send another amendment to the desk.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I discussed with the distinguished
manager an opportunity to speak for just a few minutes in morning
business. I could not be in the Chamber before. So I ask unanimous
consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, my colleague from Georgia
has been very patient. He has an amendment to offer on the bill. Can we
limit this statement? How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania
need?
Mr. SPECTER. Four minutes.
Mr. CLELAND. I yield.
Mr. DODD. The Senator from Georgia has decided the 4 minutes is an
appropriate time.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of
the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Georgia
be recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
Amendment No. 2936
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use one of
Senator McConnell's relevant amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment
numbered 2936.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
permanent)
On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. __. MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF
1965 PERMANENT.
(a) Permanency of Preclearance Requirements.--Section
4(a)(8) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
1973b(a)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) The provisions of this section shall not expire.''.
(b) Permanency of Bilingual Election Requirements.--Section
203(b)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-
1a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``Before August 6, 2007, no
covered State'' and insert ``No covered State''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. DODD. Just one moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Is this the amendment on the----
Mr. HATCH. Bilingual.
Mr. DODD. Could I urge my colleague, on this one, because there is
going to be objection raised by the Senator from Vermont, among
others--we have the Senator from Georgia waiting to offer an amendment.
This is going to take some work. So I would urge my colleague to maybe
withdraw the amendment temporarily.
Mr. HATCH. Why don't I make a very short set of remarks, and then you
can set it aside, and we can decide what to do later. Is that OK?
Mr. DODD. I urge the Senator to withdraw it temporarily so it is not
hanging out here, so we can try to work on it.
Mr. HATCH. Let me leave it, you can set it aside, and then we will
work on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I offer an amendment to a provision
of the Voting Rights Act that I introduced and we adopted in 1992. That
law required the States to provide for election materials in Spanish,
Asian languages, as well as Native American languages.
I am proud of that law. I am well aware of the excitement that new
citizens, often senior citizens, experience on the day they first leave
their home to vote as American citizens for the very first time,
sometimes accompanied by their English-speaking children and
grandchildren. Imagine that, Madam President.
But that excitement turns to terrible anxiety when they find that
they cannot understand English language instructions that we English-
speakers take for granted. Out 1992 amendment changed that for millions
of our newest Americans of Hispanic and Asian descent, as well as the
descendants of our first Americans.
The law has worked, and so today I offer an amendment to make
permanent the requirement of these bilingual facilities, and I urge my
colleagues to join me.
Similarly, my amendment also makes permanent provisions of the Voting
Rights Act that have withstood the test of almost 30 years of periodic
extensions. Rather than extend these civil rights protections
repeatedly, I think we should make them permanent.
That is all I have to say. I would be happy to have it set aside. We
can debate this issue later as necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand this amendment is going to
be set aside. I am glad to see that. This amendment is premature. It
would be an extension of the Voting Rights Act absent any hearings of
any sort.
We have the current difficulty, as we have seen, of an extremely
activist U.S. Supreme Court which basically acts as a kind of super
legislature and has been setting aside act after act of the Congress,
even some that have had years of hearings. I would be concerned that
when they set aside acts of Congress passed by very solid majorities,
both Republicans and Democrats, following years of hearings, what they
might do on something like this that has not had a hearing.
The Supreme Court's 1997 decision in City of Boerne v. Flores
provides an instructive example. In that case, the Court distinguished
between the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993--which it
invalidated--and the Voting Rights Act. The Court criticized the lack
of evidence of religious bigotry Congress had adduced to support its
passage of the RFRA. Conversely, it said, Congress had developed a
record of widespread bigotry to support its passage of the Voting
Rights Act. I believe the Court overstepped its bounds and thwarted
Congress' will through this decision, and I fear the same could happen
if we hastily make the Voting Rights Act permanent without establishing
an ample record of why such a decision is necessary. There is no need
for such haste--we should make the Voting Rights Act permanent, but we
should do it in a way that would withstand challenge before even the
most skeptical court.
Am I correct that the amendment has now been withdrawn?
[[Page S1170]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been withdrawn. The
Senator from Utah stated that it would be set aside.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am happy to have the amendment set
aside if I could work on it with my colleagues. I am happy to ask
unanimous consent that it be set aside so that we can work on it with
our colleagues and resolve any difficulties. I can't imagine any
difficulties, but if there are, we will try and resolve them. If not,
we will vote on it later today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be set
aside. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Amendment No. 2883
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment
along with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, who is a
cosponsor to S. 565, as amended by the Dodd substitute. I understand
the amendment has been sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], for himself and Mr.
Miller, proposes an amendment numbered 2883:
Amend section 1(a) to read as follows:
(a) Short title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Martin
Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of
2001''.
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, as read by the clerk, this is a simple
but important amendment. This amendment will change the title of the
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 to the ``Martin Luther
King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001.'' I believe
that it is appropriate to name this legislation after the man who
fought for equal voting rights for all Americans, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., a man who had a vast and distinguished record of public
service to the American people.
As one of the premier champions of basic human rights, Dr. King
worked tirelessly to combat segregation, discrimination, and racial
injustice. In 1963, Dr. King led the march on Washington, DC, that was
followed by his famous address, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Through
his work and reliance on nonviolent protest, Dr. King was instrumental
in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. Despite efforts to derail his mission, Dr. King acted on
his dream of America and succeeded in making the United States a better
place.
I believe this is an appropriate time and place to honor Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., the foremost leader of the civil rights movement, for
his contributions to this Nation in ensuring that all Americans have
the right to vote. I would like to thank Senator Miller for his support
of this amendment, and I thank Senator Dodd for the opportunity to
speak about this matter on the floor this afternoon.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and attach Dr. King's
name to this important bill during the month of February, a time when
we recognize the achievements of African Americans in this great nation
of ours.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At this time there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 2906
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment
to the important election bill that is being considered. I note that
the Presiding Officer has been deeply involved in the crafting of this
legislation, along with Senator Dodd, Senator McConnell, and others. It
does put us in a very good position to be able to tell Americans that
we have heard their concerns about our electoral system and we are
moving to address them.
I applaud the President for putting $1.2 billion in his budget to be
able to fund the requirements that will fall upon the States as they
attempt to bring their electoral system in line with what is really
required for a modern Federal election system to function.
I have introduced this amendment, referred to as the residual vote
error rates amendment, a rather complicated description that I will get
to in a minute, because I think it is imperative that we address what
were the legitimate concerns not only in this last Presidential
election, but in elections prior to it, because year after year, not
just in the year 2000, ballots have not been counted because of what
are referred to as ``residual votes.'' These are overvotes and
undervotes, and spoiled votes.
According to the definitive Caltech/MIT report:
Over the past four Presidential elections, the rate of
residual votes was slightly over 2 percent. This means that
in a typical Presidential election over 2 million voters did
not have their Presidential vote recorded for their ballots.
The percentage of discarded ballots is even higher in Senate
elections--approximately 5 percent.
In other words, almost 5 million votes are not recorded for other
prominent statewide offices.
Now, in the vast majority of these cases, voters actually believed
they were recording their votes, even though their ballots were
ultimately discarded.
Because of this pattern of discarded votes, so-called residual votes,
based on unintentional human error, the Ford-Carter commission, chaired
by former President Gerald Ford and former President Jimmy Carter,
recommended unanimously that Congress focus not just on machine errors
in improving our election system but on the unintentional human errors
that make up the bulk of what denies our citizens their vote from being
counted. The commission, acting unanimously--Republicans, Democrats,
independents, academics, people with political experience, all walks of
life--made this unanimous recommendation because they concluded that
only by measuring the rate of residual vote errors will we be able to
assess effectively whether the voting process as a whole is giving
citizens an equal opportunity to have their votes counted.
That is why I have offered this amendment, which would require the
Office of Election Administration--which is called for in the
underlying bill--to set a residual vote error rate standard, or
benchmark. In other words, just as we are asking the Office of Election
Administration to set a standard for mechanical errors--you know, you
pull the lever, put the punch card in a machine, and something goes
wrong, and the machine, because of mechanical error, doesn't count your
vote--in the bill we are asking the Office of Election Administration
to set a benchmark, so that we will make sure that mechanical errors
are corrected. Well, similarly, I am asking in this amendment that we
set such a standard or benchmark for the residual errors, votes that
are never counted, so that we keep those votes to the barest possible
minimum.
This proposed standard is 100 percent in keeping with the other
voting standards in the bill, including the voting system standard that
requires the Office of Election Administration to make sure that we
have a system nationwide that, in Federal elections, ensures that
mechanical errors for people in one State are counted in the same way
as for people in another State. Similarly, these unintentional human
errors should be held to the same standard.
Now, a mechanical error rate standard, I agree, will certainly be
helpful in improving the election system; but, unfortunately, it does
not address the most significant cause of discarded votes.
Just think back to those weeks, those torturous weeks when we had to
go through the recounting of votes to try to determine what was the
voter's intent. Most States have such a standard in State law, and the
States use their systems to determine the outcome once a challenge is
made and
[[Page S1171]]
then to figure out how they are going to appropriately address it by
counting those votes and trying to meet the standard that the State
sets.
We need a similar standard for Federal elections. This amendment will
provide greater assurance that all voters in any Federal election are
protected.
Some people have said in discussing this amendment with me that this
may result in suits being brought against States. As I understand the
bill, it gives the Attorney General the authority to bring a civil
action against States that fail to comply with any standard. This
amendment is no different. It does not put an additional burden on the
States, nor does it put an additional burden on the Attorney General.
In any event, States will have more funding and more than 7 years to
comply since jurisdictions that receive grant funds to meet voting
system standard requirements will be deemed in compliance until the
year 2010.
We are not asking any different process than what has already been
established in the bill for the mechanical error rate.
I also think it is important to recognize that this amendment does
not address what happened solely in the Presidential election of 2000.
In fact, on the contrary, both the Caltech-MIT report and the Ford-
Carter commission have told us that we discovered a problem that has
been, unfortunately, widespread throughout our country for many
elections.
That is why this amendment is supported by the AARP, the League of
Women Voters, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the AFL-CIO,
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, and many other groups that are concerned that if we leave
this particular issue unaddressed, we have not given our citizens the
assurance they deserve that their votes will count.
In closing, I hope we are able to obtain the support needed for this
residual vote error amendment so that we can be sure we are not only
taking care of the machines that break down, but we are taking care of
those unintentional errors that may cause a breakdown in the individual
citizen being able to have his or her vote counted.
I hope for the sake of all Americans we will ensure that we can have
the utmost faith in our election system, and I hope my colleagues will
support this amendment. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in consultation with the two leaders and
with my colleague from Kentucky, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate vote in relation to the Cleland amendment No. 2883 at 4:55 p.m.,
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to that vote.
As a source of information for my colleagues, there will be two votes
based on an earlier unanimous consent agreement. There will be a vote
on a judicial nomination immediately following the vote on the Cleland
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I believe the hour of 4:55 p.m. has
arrived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has correctly
announced the time.
Vote on Amendment No. 2883
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2883. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Thurmond) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Ensign
Jeffords
Thurmond
The amendment (No. 2883) was agreed to.
____________________