[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 19 (Thursday, February 28, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1330-S1332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ELECTION REFORM

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not need an additional 10 minutes. I 
have said all the things I need to say.
  It is not just my view that signature affirmation or verification 
does not work. Professor Melody Rose of Portland State University in 
Oregon has pointed out the significant numbers, 60,000 to 80,000, 
perhaps, who signed someone else's ballot or had someone else mark it 
for them. There were problems in Oregon.
  The Carter-Ford commission said signature verification and 
affirmation is not adequate, it is inaccurate. Check page 31 of the 
report. Why? You sign a mail-in registration which cannot be checked 
under motor voter; you put a signature on it--it could be a dog, a dead 
alderman, a neighbor, a fictitious brother--and every time you vote as 
that person, your signature will match the signature that you put on 
fraudulently when you registered that person.
  I knew when we took on fraud, fraud would fight back. I want to make 
sure everybody understands that the deal we worked out was widely 
praised. The Senator from New York said we ought to come together 
because we have a good bill. I agree. I thought we had a good bill. We 
made a lot of compromises. There is money there to improve the voting 
system and get statewide registration to make it easier for those with 
disabilities to vote, to cut down on fraud, to have provisional voting. 
That is a reasonable, rational system.
  I believe this body cannot go down the road saying we are making it 
easier to vote and harder to cheat. They blow a huge hole in the voter 
fraud section by saying all you have to do is sign your name or sign a 
dog's name or sign a dead person's name or sign a fictitious brother or 
sister's name. That is what this is all about.
  I am not the one trying to torpedo this bill. We had a torpedo in 
midship, yesterday, from people who had been part of the compromise on 
grounds I do not think were legitimate. I think there was some 
misunderstanding by many. We talked to staff people who did not realize 
the aspects I just pointed out, the fact that it is a one-time 
registration, only for people who register after this goes into effect. 
They said, maybe people will be disenfranchised. We will do everything 
in our power to make sure that does not happen.
  Fraud has been proven. Fraud is alive and well in Missouri. There is 
a whole list of other places where fraud exists.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield the floor, and I am happy to respond to 
any of my colleagues.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have been listening to the Senator as we had a debate 
on the amendment. The Senator from Oregon and I have added to his 
proposal. I have been very mindful of the passion of the Senator from 
Missouri about fraud. I respect it, appreciate it, and do not belittle 
it in any way. He has been through it.
  If the Senator says there has been a large amount of fraud in 
Missouri, I am not here to quarrel with that. He knows his State better 
than I do. All I ask is to understand where this Senator is coming 
from. The Senator from Oregon and I are coming from slightly different 
places because our systems are different. In New York--and I checked 
again yesterday; we called around the State, people not just of one 
party or another--there has been almost no allegation of any kind of 
fraud with our system, which is a signature system.
  Yet I do know one thing. If we were to adopt the section he proposed, 
it would make it more difficult for many of our citizens to vote. We 
have 8 million people in New York. About 6 million, a little over than 
that, are above voting age. Only 3 million have driver's licenses. Half 
the people in New York City don't have driver's licenses. A good number 
of those--there are no statistics, as there are no statistics, really, 
on fraud in our State; it is what you hear and know of your State--a 
good number of those do not have a utility bill to exhibit.
  Having spent a lot of time at polling places, which I do in New York, 
as does the Senator in Missouri, I know how worried and scared lots of 
our voters are--new voters, people who voted for the first time, even 
if they are 30 or 40 years old.
  I say to the Senator, I respect his passion to try to deal with 
fraud. Fraud is terrible for the system. As the Senator knows, except 
for this provision, I have been fully supportive in our meetings of all 
the other items--the registration lists and everything else--that the 
Senator has added to the bill. I believe he has made it a better bill.
  My question to the Senator: Is there a way we can deal with the 
problems in Missouri and still deal with the problems in New York and 
move this bill forward? That is what I would like to do. I know the 
Senator from Connecticut has some ideas and others have some ideas. I 
ask the Senator if he has any thoughts about that. Perhaps we are not--
I pray, we are not--on an irreconcilable course.
  I yield.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to hear that fraud does 
not exist in New York. That is reassuring.
  I pointed out yesterday that 14,000 New York City residents were also 
registered to vote in south Florida. Would

[[Page S1331]]

the Senator care to make a friendly wager that none of them voted 
twice?
  Mr. SCHUMER. In answer to my friend's question, I would ask the 
Senator to give me a single instance of people who voted twice. Here is 
why: The way our voting rolls work, it would be cleared up by the bill. 
You must remain on the voting rolls for a minimum, I believe, of 8 
years once you stop voting. So every day probably 1,000 people from New 
York move to south Florida.
  My guess is there are more than 14,000 people on the voting rolls in 
New York and south Florida because you are not stricken from the rolls 
in New York even if you have not voted for 6 years. That is not an 
indication of any fraud whatever. If the Senator from Missouri could 
come forward and show me even 10 cases where this happened--maybe it 
has, but we don't have evidence of it, and we certainly don't have 
evidence that anyone is organized to do it. It is just the way our 
system works.
  I am sure there is occasional fraud in New York. I said to the 
Senator there is no instance of widespread or organized fraud, of large 
numbers of people who come in and vote fraudulently, organized by 
someone or not.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I make a friendly wager that maybe quite a 
few of those people voted twice.
  I think the Senator from New York has raised a point we did not 
adequately address. It was a point raised by the Senator from Montana 
who said there has to be a more effective way of getting those voters 
no longer living in the State off the rolls. That causes confusion.
  In Montana they have many people who come in and register while they 
are at college, then move away. If we are going to go back and 
compromise again, I told some people yesterday this compromise on 
election reform is like loading frogs in a wheelbarrow: I keep thinking 
I have a half wheelbarrow full, and I come back with the frogs and the 
wheelbarrow is empty.
  We need to be able to clean up those rolls. Eight years means there 
is a lot of confusion and a lot of opportunity. We will be happy to 
work on that.

  The second point the Senator from New York has pointed out is there 
may well be voters in New York who do not have a driver's license. 
Granted. When I lived in New York, I was scared to death to drive. I 
was scared to death of taxicabs, but I sure wouldn't take a bike. I did 
not keep a car in New York City when I lived there.
  They may not have a paycheck. Some of them don't even get a 
government check of any kind.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Right.
  Mr. BOND. Some of them don't even have a bank account. I think that 
is a rather small universe. But I am willing to make explicit what I 
believe is already in the law--staff on the majority side has assured 
us it is already in the law--that money can be used. But I will be 
happy to make it explicit. If you have Joe or Jane Doe, who do not have 
any of those things, we should be providing the money to the 
registration authority to give them a card or to ascertain their 
registration and get them registered. If they don't have any of those 
items, they ought to have a chance to be registered. We ought to 
identify them.
  The Carter-Ford commission says one should have an identifying 
number. That would help us a lot. Carter-Ford pointed out that, No. 1, 
signature verification doesn't work--and I can assure you, it doesn't 
work from our side, from what we have seen in Missouri.
  Those are the outlines that I think would work.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The additional time allotted to the 
Senator from Missouri has expired. The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized under the previous order.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Missouri is in the 
Chamber. I want to make a comment to address some of the concerns the 
Senator has voiced.
  In particular, with respect to the process that has been followed, I 
was not involved in any of the negotiations with the Senator from 
Missouri. I made it very clear I am interested in meeting him halfway 
in trying to find some common ground. We have been talking since the 
vote yesterday--Senator Dodd, Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, 
Senator Bond, myself--really, hour after hour since yesterday. I do 
believe at this point there is a framework for a genuine compromise 
that could allow this bill to go forward. I want to outline what I 
think that framework is because we all ought to try to come together 
and get a bill.
  I was asked yesterday by the press and others: Maybe those on the 
other side just don't want a bill? I stuck up for the Senator from 
Missouri. I said I believe he wants a bill. I think he wants us to come 
together. We have some differences of opinion.
  Here is the framework for what in my view is a genuine compromise. 
What we ought to try to do is tighten up at the front end of the 
process. Let's tighten up with respect to registration. That is the 
best way to deter fraud. Right now, the tough antifraud provisions with 
respect to registration don't kick in until a ways down the road. Let's 
figure out a way to make them kick in earlier. Let's tighten up at the 
front end so we all come together and make it clear we are interested 
in deterring fraud, we are not interested in deterring voting.
  But at the same time, what we would ask in return for our effort to 
meet the concerns of our colleague from Missouri with respect to the 
registration process and tough antifraud processes--at the front end we 
ask to let the signature be valid when people vote because on our side, 
and in the State of Oregon, we believe very strongly in the 27 States 
where that is used, it works. We know our colleague does not share that 
view. Sincere people agree with him. But I would say when he cites 
studies in Oregon, which I have not seen, the colleague that sits just 
a few seats from him, Senator Smith, made it clear--after a very 
difficult and contested election where he clearly could have said: I 
have some questions about how these votes were cast--Senator Smith, to 
his credit, said the system worked and there were not the problems the 
Senator from Missouri has found.

  So as of right now, without the legislation that has been drafted by 
the Senator from New York and me, it seems what we are doing is 
discouraging people from voting now but not putting in place the 
toughest antifraud provisions until 2004. We ought to keep negotiating. 
We ought to continue the work.
  By the way, even when we were debating the Schumer and Wyden 
amendment, I suggested to my colleagues, and was very appreciative of 
what the chairman of the committee said--I went to him and said: We 
have the votes. We have the votes now. We have done our checking. We 
have the votes. But let's still reach out even before the vote and try 
to have a compromise.
  That was echoed by the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
Senator Dodd, who said even the night before the vote: Let's stay at 
it.
  I didn't have a chance to be part of the negotiations and the 
process. I know there are some who have concerns about that process. 
But I said from the very beginning, because I was not part of that 
process, I would have to take steps--I was inclined to put a public 
hold on the bill to make sure my State wasn't rolled.
  At every stage of the process that I had a chance to be part of, and 
this has been backed up by Senator Dodd and Senator Schumer and the 
leadership, we have been trying to find a way to meet in a genuine 
compromise. I think the framework for that genuine compromise is to 
tighten up on the front end, come down as aggressively as we possibly 
can on fraud where we can best deter it, which is at the beginning of 
the process, through registration, but then let those signatures be 
valid for a ballot, a system that we believe works in 27 States, and 
not create new obstacles.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BOND. First, the Senator is aware that we did take care of one of 
the Oregon problems. When he pointed out we could not send a second 
ballot, he is aware that we did agree to change the requirement in the 
underlying law. I understood it was at the request of the Senators from 
Oregon and Washington. We made the change.
  Your staff asked for it and we did make the change.
  Mr. WYDEN. I want to respond. The Senator clearly has been working in

[[Page S1332]]

good faith and we appreciate that. What I am trying to do this morning 
is to see if I can help get the rest of the way. I think in this arcane 
area of election law, where I think, frankly, the Senators from 
Missouri and Connecticut and New York know more about this nationally 
than do I, it is very complicated. But I think there is the framework 
for a genuine compromise. If we stick with that kind of outline, I 
think we can still get there and we ought to try with this bill which, 
as a result of efforts of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator 
from Connecticut, has a lot of good in it. It has a lot of useful 
provisions. I am for it, but we have to get over this particular 
problem.

  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. Of course.
  Mr. BOND. Just a further question. I stated very clearly that I 
applaud and support the Senator's premise that we ought to make sure 
the registration the first time is legitimate because that is where the 
problem begins. I will ask the Senator a two-part question: Does he 
understand that existing motor voter law does not permit effective 
ascertainment of the legitimacy of a registration upon registration, 
No. 1? And, No. 2, that the bill before us would not apply to anybody 
who is already registered?
  We had set up these requirements. Is the Senator aware we set up 
these requirements only for people registering after the date of the 
act, and they only have to meet the requirements to prove they are a 
live, qualified human being, one time--either upon registration or upon 
the first vote? Is the Senator aware of those two things?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator makes a valid point with 
respect to the first part. With respect to the second part, I and 
others think the motor voter law has been an important step forward. We 
are concerned about the implication that some of the spirit and 
substance of it could be unraveled. That is why we are trying to stay 
at the table with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and work this 
out.
  I think if we can get an acceptance of the proposition that a 
signature should be valid to the ballot--if that basic proposition can 
be accepted, which is something we believe works in 27 States--I think 
we can do a great deal to reach out on the other concerns the Senator 
from Missouri has. He has raised them consistently. He understands the 
substance of this very well. We are trying to reach out to him in an 
effort to get this compromise.
  But what we need in return is to know that when people actually vote 
after they have gone through what I would call a real gauntlet of steps 
to make sure there are antifraud provisions at the front end, then let 
us have a signature be valid for the ballot, a system which works very 
well in our State.
  I will close by way of saying I think people are stunned by this. In 
the Senate special election in 1996, we trippled the rate of voter 
participation from the previous Senate special elections in this 
country. This is a system that has empowered voters.
  That is why it is so important in those 27 States to seniors, the 
disabled, minorities, and others. With record turnouts, people are 
being prosecuted now in a small number of instances. Where there is 
fraud, we would like to find a way to protect against that as it 
relates to having a signature be valid to the ballot.
  In return, we are willing to meet the Senator from Missouri halfway 
and more on the front end so that we come down aggressively on fraud in 
the area where we believe it can do the most.
  My time has expired. I am inclined to get back to the negotiating 
table with the Senators from Missouri, Connecticut, and New York so we 
can get a bipartisan compromise.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my chief of staff and my counsel negotiated 
4 to 5 hours a day for 6 months, and they thought they had reached the 
end. If the Senator from Oregon and I are now talking about different 
things than what he has outlined, it would seem to make very good 
sense. No. 1, he says make sure there is a real, live person qualified 
to vote when they register. Hallelujah. If we can do that, then I agree 
that they sign a registration, and any time they go to vote, all they 
have to do is sign, whether it is a mail-in or whether it is voting in 
person.
  But what I want to make sure of is when that first registration comes 
in, there is something to identify it. It is not a gauntlet. It is 
picking one of the pieces of evidence that shows they are a real, live 
human being, or, if we can find a better way, that we can even task the 
local election authorities to use money we provide them to verify.
  If they confirm that the registrations are legitimate, and if they 
deal with the problem that the Senator from New York and the Senator 
from Connecticut laid out about the 8 years full of clogged rolls, 
there is no problem that I have with letting people vote by signature 
once it is proven they are real, live human beings at the beginning of 
the registration process. If that is the basis, we can start over 
again, and see all of you in July, maybe.
  But the Senator from Connecticut is good humored, equally determined, 
and is willing to go at it again.
  If what the Senator from Oregon laid out is what I said, then I think 
there is some good possibility that we can get agreement. But sending 
in a signature alone is not going to cut the mustard.
  We will get back to the Senator from New York on the number of people 
doubledipping. The December 19th issue of the New York Post reports on 
doubledippers. We will get back with the information on that. That is a 
good reason to clean up the registration rolls. I hope we can do that 
as well.
  I thank the Chair. I thank particularly my colleague from Connecticut 
for his good humor throughout this.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning 
business for about 9 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1974 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________