[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.

                          ____________________