[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 20 (Friday, March 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1379-S1387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 565, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 565) to establish a Commission on Voting Rights
and Procedures to study and make recommendations regarding
election technology, voting, and election administration, to
establish a grant program under which the Office of Justice
Programs and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice shall provide assistance to States and localities in
improving election technology and the administration of
Federal elections, to require States to meet uniform and
nondiscriminatory election technology and administration
requirements for the 2004 Federal elections, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Clinton amendment No. 2906, to establish a residual ballot
performance benchmark.
Dodd (for Schumer) modified amendment No. 2914, to permit
the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of
verifying the identity of voters who register by mail.
Dodd (for Kennedy) amendment No. 2916, to clarify the
application of the safe harbor provisions.
Hatch amendment No. 2935, to establish the Advisory
Committee on Electronic Voting and the Electoral Process, and
to instruct the Attorney General to study the adequacy of
existing electoral fraud statutes and penalties.
Hatch amendment No. 2936, to make the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 permanent.
[[Page S1380]]
Schumer/Wyden amendment No. 2937, to permit the use of a
signature or personal mark for the purpose of verifying the
identity of voters who register by mail. (By 46 yeas to 51
nays (Vote No. 38), Senate failed to table the amendment.)
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2933, to prohibit the
broadcast of certain false and untimely information on
Federal elections.
Bond amendment No. 2940 (to amendment No. 2937), to permit
the use of signature verification programs to verify the
identity of individuals who register to vote by mail.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator from
Oregon may need.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut,
who has just done yeoman work on what I think is a critical question;
that is, finding common ground and the bipartisanship that is needed to
pass this election reform bill.
I think the Senate has a clear choice this morning. A vote for
cloture strengthens this Nation's greatest freedom--the right to vote.
A vote against cloture weakens that freedom and it weakens a freedom
that is critical for this country and leaves that freedom unprotected.
I believe this morning's vote is a choice between affirming the
pioneering spirit of this country--the spirit that led my State of
Oregon to champion new voting reforms, such as vote by mail, motor
voter laws--and stamping out that spirit with what could end up to be
repressive antivoting rules.
So the choice is between election reform and gridlock. I want to be
fair with the Senator from Connecticut and we are going to continue to
work nonstop, relentlessly, to find a bipartisan approach to this
issue. We want to blaze a real trail in meaningful election reform and
get this bill on the President's desk.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides to continue to work on this
critical effort, to join the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator
from Kentucky in an effort to get a bipartisan solution.
I don't want to see this bill derailed. S. 565 is the vehicle that
can enfranchise the thousands, perhaps millions of voters who will cast
their ballots in every election. But we also need to make sure that
there is a fix to S. 565. The photo identification requirement, in my
view, would disenfranchise millions of first-time voters by requiring
identifying documents to be presented along with their vote--not their
registration, but their vote--before that vote could be counted. This
would have applied to first-time voters even if they had cast ballots
for 50 years in a jurisdiction and then moved down the street to
another.
The amendment approved by the Senate allows the signature
verification system used by 27 States and the District of Columbia as
one option for identifying first-time voters. The amendment I drafted
with the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, protected successful vote-
by-mail systems such as the one in my home State and ensured that
Americans who may not have access to driver's licenses, bank accounts,
and utility bills would still have access to democracy.
There doesn't seem to be any point to rehashing the Schumer-Wyden
amendment this morning. A majority of this body acknowledged that
allowing signature verification would protect the voting rights of 24
million seniors in this country who disproportionately vote by absentee
and mail-in ballot.
The majority of this body agreed with the eloquent assertion of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that ``requiring voters to
present photo ID or other documentation when voting in person or by
mail results in discrimination''--that it ``would undermine successful
vote by mail programs--such as Oregon's . . . and . . . make voting
more difficult for millions of elderly and disabled Americans.''
A majority of this body refused to overturn the will of Oregon voters
and scores of others across this country. In my home State, 70 percent
chose to institute a vote-by-mail system based on signature
verification, a vote-by-mail system that has boosted turnout to record
levels--without deterring voting.
A majority of this body refused to return to the bad old days when
only Americans who were already enfranchised could be assured that
their vote could be cast and counted.
Most importantly, a majority of this body recognized that being tough
on fraud doesn't have to make it tougher to vote. Since approval of our
amendment, I have worked with Senator Schumer, Senators Dodd, Bond, and
McConnell to continue to find a way to meet our colleagues halfway. I
have said that I think the framework for a compromise is to strengthen
antifraud measures at the front end of the process, when people
register and when you do the most good in terms of deterring fraud. I
think tougher identification standards at that point in the
registration--something the Senator from Missouri has felt strongly
about--makes sense and I want to see that happen.
I believe compromise is possible, that we can, on a bipartisan basis,
come together, put the voting rights of Americans first, whether they
vote by mail or in person, and find ways to stop fraud without putting
up roadblocks to democracy.
I ask unanimous consent to have a number of editorials and letters
printed in the Record supporting the amendment that I and Senator
Schumer authored.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
Senate Democrats Aim for Compromises To Save Bill Overhauling Voting
System
(By David Rogers)
Washington.--In a last ditch effort to save election-law
overhaul legislation, Senate Democrats will seek to
compromise on Republican demands for provisions to prevent
voter fraud, despite protests from civil-rights and Hispanic
groups.
At issue is a proposal to require people who register by
mail to present photo identification or other documentation
when they first vote in a jurisdiction. Democrats won a 51-46
roll call Wednesday to ease the proposed rules, but the
outcome so angered some Republicans that the entire bill was
put in jeopardy by a threatened filibuster.
After hours of sometimes tempestuous discussions with
civil-rights groups, Senate Rules Committee Chairman
Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) said last night that he is
prepared to give ground to the GOP in hope of completing
debate and moving to the next step: negotiations with the
House and the Bush Administration. Talks continued into the
evening with Republican staff in hopes an agreement can be
taken to the full Senate this morning.
As outlined by Mr. Dodd, tougher voter-ID requirements
would be preserved under the compromise. But the effective
date would be delayed until 2004, when the bill also requires
states to take steps to better protect the rights of voters
who may be challenged at the polls.
The most important of those so-called insurance provisions
is the requirement that all states adopt provisional-voting
systems for people who claim to be eligible, but aren't on
the official registration list. Rather than be turned away
outright, an individual in this case would be given a
provisional ballot so that if his or her claim is later
verified, the vote would be counted.
Minority lawmakers and civil-rights groups were themselves
sometimes divided. At one juncture, Rep. Corrine Brown, an
African-American Democrat, delivered an emotional appeal for
the bill, given the balloting problems in her own state of
Florida during the 2000 election.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D., Texas), chairman of the House
Hispanic Caucus, lent crucial support to Mr. Dodd's decision,
which ran in the face of opposition from groups such as the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Mr. Reyes said the voter-ID provisions are the most
difficult for Hispanics because many lack photo
identification and don't have easy access to substitute
documents. For example, the bill would allow a voter to use
his or her utility bill as a form of identification. But Mr.
Reyes said that since many Hispanics live together as
extended families, not all household members would have a
utility bill in their name.
Under the bill, the federal government would for the first
time provide funding--$3.5 billion over five years under the
Senate version--to help states and localities buy new voting
equipment and address such problems as occurred in Florida.
____
American Association
of Retired Persons,
Washington, DC, February 12, 2002.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: We are writing to express our firm support
for the bipartisan election reform legislation (S. 565
substitute) that you jointly cosponsored with Senators Dodd,
McConnell, Durbin, Bond, Toricelli, McCain, Schumer and
Brownback. AARP urges you to support passage of the bill.
While the S. 565
[[Page S1381]]
substitute can be improved, it contains the critical building
blocks to reform and enhance the nation's voting system.
Enactment of S. 565 should minimize the likelihood of a
recurrence of the problems that plagued the Presidential
Election of 2000.
We support the Dodd/McConnell substitute because it
addresses the following core AARP concerns: Enhancement of
civil rights protections; improved registration & balloting
technology; improved elections administrative procedures; and
provision of Federal funds to encourage state & local
reforms.
Equally important, Dodd/McConnell establishes minimum
standards of accountability and enforcement.
The bill includes measures critical to older persons,
people with disabilities, and minority populations, such as:
The ability to verify that their ballots actually reflect
their voting preferences; enhanced access to registration
opportunities, polling places, and user-friendly equipment;
fail-safe provisional ballots to avoid erroneous voter
denials; centralized, statewide registration lists to assist
in voter confirmation; and funds for better election
administration, including voting equipment upgrades, poll
site access enhancement and poll worker training.
At the same time, some of the antifraud provisions in Dodd/
McConnell need modification in order to assure existing civil
rights protections and reduce technical loopholes that might
discourage or intimidate potential voters. The bill's photo
ID requirements are particularly problematic. Alternative
approaches such as signature match and verification, already
successfully used by many states, could enhance the anti-
fraud provisions without having a chilling effect on voter
participation. We strongly urge you to support both the
Manager's amendment and a floor amendment that would correct
these shortcomings in an otherwise strong, balanced and
comprehensive election reform bill.
We appreciate your support in making these reforms in our
elections process a reality. AARP look forward to working
with the Senate to further our most basic right as citizens--
the vote. If you have any questions, please feel free to call
me or have your staff contact Larry White of our Federal
Affairs staff at (202) 434-3800.
Sincerely,
William D. Novelli,
Executive Director and CEO.
____
National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2002.
Re the Dodd-McConnell Substitute Amendment to S. 565--The
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001.
Dear Senator: As members of the National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a non-partisan coalition of 39
national Hispanic organizations and distinguished
individuals, we are writing to urge you to support provisions
in the Dodd-McConnell bill which improve access to voting for
Latino voters and oppose the photo identification requirement
(Section 103(b)), which would have a discriminatory effect on
Latino voters. Unless Section 103(b) is fixed, the NHLA will
urge you to oppose the bill.
NHLA supports many of the bill's provisions, particularly
those provisions which set national minimum standards
regarding voting systems, provisional balloting, and
statewide registration lists. While some states already have
laws in these areas, too many states do not. It is time that
Congress step in and set some basic standards that ensure
that voting is more accessible to all eligible voters no
matter in which state they live. Voting is the cornerstone of
our democracy. By voting in favor of these provisions, you
are voting in favor of an inclusive democracy.
NHLA vigorously opposes Section 103(b) of the bill, which
would require voters who register and vote for the first time
in a jurisdiction to produce either a photo ID or one of only
five limited documents either in person or by including a
copy with their ballot. Latino voters are likely to be
subject to this provision frequently since we move often,
have a significant number of youth turning 18, and have a
high number of new citizens. Also, Latino voters are less
likely to have the documents required. A Massachusetts
federal court recently struck down a requirement similar to
the provision in the bill because it would have a
discriminatory impact on Hispanic voters under the Voting
rights Act (VRA). The Justice Department has also opposed
similar measures under the VRA.
We are truly befuddled as to why the Senate would want to
take steps to disenfranchise Hispanic voters at this time.
The 2000 Census showed the demographic power of the Latino
community, and the 2000 and 2001 election cycles demonstrated
that our demographic force is converting into a political
force. Also, the trends and polls indicate that Hispanic
voters are more open to voting for the best candidate to
represent them, regardless of party affiliation. At at time
when both parties are reaching out to this growing
electorate, it is the wrong time to adopt a measure that
would make it harder to vote.
We urge you to vote for an amendment to either strike
Section 103(b) or fix it by adding in the alternatives of
collecting signatures that can be verified or collecting an
attestation. We will score the vote on the amendment in our
NHLA congressional scorecard. If the provision is not fixed,
we urge you to oppose the bill, and we will score the vote on
the final passage of the bill.
Moises Perez, Exec. Director, Alianza Dominicana;
Gumersindo Salas, Vice Pres., Hispanic Association of
Colleges & Universities; Oscar Sanchez, Exec. Director, Labor
Council for Latin American Advancement; Jack Ienna,
Interamerican College of Physicians & Surgeons; Roger Rivera,
Pres., National Hispanic Environmental Council; Manuel
Oliverez, Pres. & CEO, National Association of Hispanic
Federal Executives; Alma Morales-Riojas, Pres., MANA, A
National Latina Organization; Zeke Montes, Pres., National
Association of Hispanic Publications; Manuel Mirabal, Chair,
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda & Pres. & CEO, National
Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.; Juan Figueroa, Pres. & General
Counsel, Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Educational Fund; Elena
Rios, M.D., Pres., National Hispanic Medical Association;
Gilbert Moreno, Pres. & CEO Association for the Advancement
of Mexican Americans; Delia Pompa, Exec. Director, National
Association for Bilingual Education; Brent Wilkes, Exec.
Director, League of United Latin American Citizens; Maria E.
Mills-Torres, Pres., National Conference of Puerto Rican
Women; Raul Yzaguirre, Pres., National Council of La Raza;
Syddia Lee-Chee, Latino Civil Rights Center; and Antonia
Hernandez, Press. & General Counsel, Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund.
____
The League of Women
Voters of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2002.
To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
From: Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, Ph.D., President.
Re: Election Reform.
The League of Women Voters urges you to support the
bipartisan election reform bill developed by Senators Dodd,
McConnell, Bond and Schumer. The legislation will be offered
as a substitute to S. 565. While the substitute is not
perfect, it contains the key elements needed to improve our
nation's election systems.
The 2000 election demonstrated that basic reforms are
needed at the federal, state and local levels to protect
voters and to improve election administration. It is also
clear that it is time for the federal government to pay its
fair share of the costs of administering federal elections.
The Dodd-McConnell substitute provides for basic national
standards in vital, but limited, areas. It provides
substantial federal funds for election reform efforts. And it
provides a blueprint on which federal, state and local
efforts can be built.
To protect voters and improve administration, the
substitute provides for minimum national standards in three
areas. First, voting systems standards will assure that
voters can verify and correct their ballots, as well as be
notified of overvotes. These standards also protect against
high voting machine error rates and enhance access for
persons with disabilities. Second, a national standard will
assure that voters can receive provisional ballots. This
fail-safe system means that if a voter's name is not found on
the registration list at the polls, or if other problems
occur, the voter can still cast a ballot that will be counted
if the voter's eligibility is confirmed. Third, statewide
computerized voter registration lists will be required. This
facilitates removal of duplicate registration across
jurisdictions, provides greater assurance that names will be
on the rolls, and streamlines administration while combating
possible fraud.
The substitute provides funding through state grants
programs that will be developed with public involvement.
Funds are provided not only for meeting standards, but also
for other vital areas of election administration, including
poll worker training and providing access to the polls for
persons with disabilities. The substitute sets up a new
federal commission that can provide effective guidance, while
Justice Department enforcement of voter protection laws, such
as the Voting Rights Act, is maintained.
While the substitute is a strong bill, it contains a photo
ID requirement that will result in discrimination and create
real administrative problems at polling places. Though the
requirement is described as an anti-fraud device, effective
alternatives exist to meet anti-fraud objectives that will
not undermine voter participation through absentee balloting
by persons with disabilities, seniors and others. We strongly
urge you to correct this provision. We are also concerned
that the so-called ``safe harbor'' provisions of the bill
will have unintended, deleterious consequences.
The League of Women Voters believes that the Senate must
act expeditiously on this important topic. We urge you to
move ahead with the Dodd-McConnell substitute, which is
clearly preferable to the House-passed bill in setting a
workable structure for reform and creating an effective
election commission.
America deserves an election system that will protect the
most basic and precious right of all citizens in a
democracy--the right to vote. Each citizen's right to vote,
and to have that vote fairly counted, is at state.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2002]
Fixing the Vote
Last December Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) helped broker a
bipartisan election reform bill in the Senate; ``this is a
bill that
[[Page S1382]]
works, this is a bill that can pass,'' he said. Now Mr.
Schumer has proposed an amendment to that bill, and
Republicans say he is damaging the chances of a post-Florida
fix for the nation's creaky voting system. But the truth is
that the Schumer amendment would improve the bill.
Republicans should contain their sense of betrayal and
support the measure in the procedural vote scheduled for
today. The electoral system will be the better for it.
The Schumer amendment fixes an anti-fraud provision in the
election bill. The provision says that new voters, including
those who have moved to a different county, must verify their
identity by showing a photo ID, a utility bill or some other
official document with their address on it. This provision
may have the good effect of preventing some fraud. But it
also may disqualify voters with no driver's license and no
utility bills in their own name--and this group of
potentially disqualified voters is much bigger than the
likely number of fraudulent ballots.
Some 3 million disabled people are thought not to have
driver's licenses or other qualifying picture IDs, and many
of them may live in homes where the utility bills go to some
other member of the household. Poor people without cars and
settled homes may be disenfranchised too. The anti-fraud
provision also threatens the vote-by-mail systems in Oregon,
Washington and Colorado. It would require voters to photocopy
proof of identity and send it in along with the ballot. But
some voters live out of convenient range of photocopiers.
Others may be put off by the sheer hassle.
The Schumer amendment would fix this danger by allowing
states to accept other types of proof of identity--for
example, a signature. It would also impose the identity
requirement on fewer people--only new voters and those who
have moved across state lines, and not those who have just
changed counties. This is a good amendment that would
significantly cut the risk of disqualifying eligible voters
while only marginally increasing the risk of fraud. The
Senate should adopt it, and then proceed quickly to pass the
election reform bill. The 2000 contest demonstrated that
hundreds of thousands of voters are deprived of their rights
by a system that is broken. It is past time to fix it.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I do believe that a vote for cloture
strengthens this country's greatest freedom--the right to vote--and a
vote against cloture leaves that freedom unprotected. A vote for
cloture is a vote for the millions of seniors in American nursing homes
who need to vote by mail and don't want new barriers to have their
votes counted and assured. Their generation saved this democracy and
they deserve to participate in it.
A vote for cloture is a vote for working families who use the vote-
by-mail system in my State and others as a way to have their voices
heard as they live the hectic lives that often present challenges to
their getting to the polls. This morning, I urge my colleagues to
affirm America's most precious right--the right of every citizen to
vote and to have that vote count. I want to wrap up--particularly since
my good friend from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber--by reemphasizing my
desire to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
Senator Bond and Senator McConnell. I have strong views about this
issue. We want to work with our colleagues and talk about whether those
on the other side of the aisle want a bill. I have stuck up for my
colleagues. I think they want a bill and I want to make it clear that I
think Senators Bond and McConnell are working very hard with us to try
to find the common ground. I hope we can get there, and I believe
cloture will help advance that.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. I yield to my friend for a question.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. My
question relates to the provisions of the underlying bill, as I
understand it, providing that a voter may establish identity by either
photo identification, a bank statement, utility bill, paycheck,
government check, or any other check, or any other government document
which shows the name and address. Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is right. It is the basic proposition that
there are a number of systems by which we can address this concern.
There is a reason that groups such as AARP still believe that, even
with the measure the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has
outlined, the legislation without the Schumer-Wyden amendment still
creates barriers. We have people in vote-by-mail systems--seniors, the
disabled--who find it awfully hard, physically, to get about and locate
the kind of documents the Senator is talking about.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. The further question is: The amendment offered by the
Senator from Oregon and the Senator from New York would put in the
disjunctive one other way of establishing identity and that is, by
signature alone--is that correct?
Mr. WYDEN. Of course, in my home State of Oregon, what we have tried
to do is to have a tough system at the front end. But, yes, when you
sign your ballot and mail it in, and there is a statement about the
tough criminal penalties that are involved in falsification there, we
prosecute people in the State of Oregon. You can send your ballot in by
signing it, and that is then checked against the original
signature. That is how it takes place in my home State.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, a further question I have of the
Senator from Oregon is: How do you prosecute someone where there is a
registration by signature and then subsequent voting by signature?
By way of background, I have had considerable experience in
prosecuting vote fraud cases, having been in the Philadelphia district
attorney's office for 12 years, 4 as assistant and 8 as district
attorney. Philadelphia is a rough town with political corruption, and I
have prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans.
When you talk about a signature alone, having been registered with
the signature and then a signature comes in, there is no way to find
that person. The difficulty is that it may be a dead person. Graveyard
voting is very popular in Philadelphia--voting people who have died. It
is also very popular to have people registered by signature who were
never in existence.
I ask my colleague from Oregon, how can you conduct a prosecution--I
could never figure out how to--how can you conduct a prosecution, if
you have a registration by signature and then you have a signature come
in on the card? You cannot find the person. To have a prosecution, you
have to have a defendant, you have to have a warrant of arrest
identifying somebody, and you have to pick somebody up. How can there
possibly be a prosecution for someone who sends in a signature of
somebody who never existed?
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania,
there have been a number of prosecutions. They, obviously, as my
colleague knows from his prosecutorial days, play out in a variety of
ways.
For example, I know of an instance where the person was out bragging
that they had skirted the law, they were evading the law, and when the
prosecutors learned about it, they came down very hard.
The point is--and my colleague makes a good point with respect to how
these systems may work in Pennsylvania--Senator Smith, my friend and
colleague, and I had a Senate special election. We generated three
times the level of voter participation than we saw in the previous
Senate special election. I won by a grand total of 18,220 votes after
more than 1 million were cast.
Mr. SPECTER. Any braggarts among those?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for 1 additional minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, to my colleague's great credit, he did
not assert there was any fraud. We prosecute aggressively in the State
of Oregon.
I see my colleague from Missouri is in the Chamber, and I want him to
be assured, however this vote turns out this morning, we are going to
continue to work relentlessly for a bipartisan compromise.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for 4 minutes.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, how many minutes remain on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twelve and a half minutes remain.
[[Page S1383]]
Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I increase my request to 6 minutes.
Mr. BOND. We will offer 2\1/2\ minutes. I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I engaged in a colloquy with the
Senator from Oregon to show we really cannot prosecute anyone
successfully on this signature arrangement. You register by signature,
nobody ever sees the person, and you vote by the signature. The person
could be dead or never in existence.
On the one case the Senator from Oregon cites of the braggart case,
if somebody admits it, you can prosecute anybody if you are going to
have confessions. But, that is not the way criminal law cases arise. In
the 12 years I was in the district attorney's office, I never saw
somebody who came in and confessed to having committed vote fraud. To
prosecute those cases, you have to have evidence and there is no
realistic way to obtain it.
I was listening to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, on the radio
this morning on a playback of a news conference he had yesterday in
which he said that the position staked out by Senator Bond requiring
photo identification was just too difficult, referring to people in his
own State.
But the fact of the matter is, the underlying bill which was worked
out in the compromise does not require photo identification. Photo
identification is one way. There could be a bank statement, a utility
bill, a paycheck, a government check, or any other government document
showing an address, showing a person is in existence. If the underlying
bill required a photo identification, I would say that is too
difficult. There are many other ways to establish that the person
actually is in existence, but the signature simply does not accomplish
that.
Nobody has a better record than I on voting rights. In my 22 years in
the Senate, I have pushed that consistently. Against many in my party,
I have supported motor voter. I want to see the ballot as widespread as
possible, but people who want to make it easy to register with motor
voter are going to lose it, if there is not some realistic way to
prevent fraud.
Frankly, I do not like to see filibusters, but we are on a very basic
proposition as to whether we can have widespread fraud without any way
to identify whether the person is in existence or not. I think the
Schumer-Wyden amendment simply cannot be accepted.
If there are overtones that the bill is going to be pulled if this
amendment is not accepted, it seems to me that very frequently--I ask
for an additional 25 seconds.
Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield half a minute to my colleague from
Pennsylvania.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Any suggestion that the whole bill is going to go down
over this amendment--the Democrats control the Rules Committee; they
have a majority. They have come out with a bill which they have
controlled, and that bill ought to be enacted if this amendment cannot
survive a cloture vote.
I thank my colleague from Missouri, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his excellent work on this
bill. As a former prosecutor in a State that has not been a stranger to
vote fraud, he knows how difficult it is, and he has made a very
compelling case for our efforts to eliminate fraud in this bill.
We have had an interesting dueling set of editorials today that have
come out in some of the papers on the east coast. We do not read a lot
of them in Missouri, but the Washington Post is the one that did not
get it. The Washington Post said:
Republicans should contain their sense of betrayal and
support the measure.
They go on to say that without the Schumer amendment, it would
disqualify a number of voters.
No. 1, Madam President, sense of betrayal counts for something here
and counts for something back home. It may not matter to editorial
board writers within the beltway, but when we make a deal, as we made a
deal, a bipartisan deal after accommodations on both sides, I expect
that people will stay with that deal.
Somebody said: You made a deal, but now we want you to start
negotiating again. I said: Wait a minute, we do not work that way.
We came in good faith to an agreement, and we agreed with the
proposition that we ought to make sure everybody who is eligible to
vote is registered and can vote.
The Washington Post just flat gets it wrong when it says there are
going to be people who cannot qualify. Ninety percent of adult
Americans have a driver's license. You have to show identification to
get on a plane, to rent a video, to buy cigarettes.
Why can't you have some minimal identification to assure that you are
a live human being entitled to vote, and entitled to vote only once in
every important election?
Well, we have agreed that with the money we are providing to States,
if somebody does not have a photo identification, a driver's license, a
government check, a bank account, a utility bill, a pay stub, we are
providing the money for the States to issue an election card.
We are worried about all the people in nursing homes. No. 1,
everybody who is registered is going to stay registered. The Senator
from New York pointed out the problems they had with crowded rolls. We
do need to work on purging. I voted against the amendment by my
colleague from Montana; he wanted to make it easier to purge no longer
active voters from the rolls. I think it was a good idea, but because
we had a deal, I voted against his amendment. We are, as the Senator
from New York pointed out, going to have to clean it up.
Incidentally, speaking of the Senator from New York, he assured us
yesterday--and I am glad to see he is in the Chamber --there was no
fraud in New York. Well, I do not know anything about New York, but the
Wall Street Journal this morning points out the doubledippers sign up
to vote in New York and Florida, and they report that an investigation
turned up 286 individuals who voted both in New York City and in
Florida last November in the 2000 election. Since you can figure that
New York City voters generally vote 3 to 1 Democratic, that means at
least 140 fraudulent votes for the Gore-Lieberman ticket in Florida.
One other thing. Somebody gave me a copy of the New York Daily News:
Double Take in Ballot Probe. Voters With Same Name and Birthday Expose
New York System.
Seventy-five voters with the same name and same date of
birth registered to vote in Brooklyn and either Rockland or
Orange Counties. Fourteen actually voted in more than one
county, sometimes in the same election.
It describes how the double voting and the double registration occurs
in some areas with heavy Democratic votes. So there are some problems,
but frankly we do not have time to go into it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
1 additional minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes fourteen seconds.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Daily
News article, the Wall Street Journal editorial, the Washington Post
editorial, and a New York Times editorial which says Americans should
be willing to verify their identity in order to exercise the right to
vote, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article on the famous dog Ritzy
Mekler, whose owner says she, Ritzy, does not want any other dogs
voting, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2002
Fixing the Vote
Last December Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) helped broker a
bipartisan election reform bill in the Senate; ``this is a
bill that
[[Page S1384]]
works, this is a bill that can pass,'' he said. Now Mr.
Schumer has proposed an amendment to that bill, and
Republicans say he is damaging the chances of a post-Florida
fix for the nation's creaky voting system. But the truth is
that the Schumer amendment would improve the bill.
Republicans should contain their sense of betrayal and
support the measure in the procedural vote scheduled for
today. The electrical system will be the better for it.
The Schumer amendment fixes an anti-fraud provision in the
election bill. The provisions says that new voters, including
those who have moved to a different county, must verify their
identity by showing a photo ID, a utility bill or some other
official document with their address on it. This provision
may have the good effect of preventing some fraud. But it
also may disqualify voters with no driver's license and no
utility bills in their own name--and this group of
potentially disqualified voters is much bigger than the
likely number of fraudulent ballots.
Some 3 million disabled people are thought not to have
driver's licenses or other qualifying picture IDs, and many
of them may live in homes where the utility bills go to some
other member of the household. Poor people without cars and
settled homes may be disenfranchised too. The anti-fraud
provision also threatens the vote-by-mail systems in Oregon,
Washington and Colorado. It would require voters to photocopy
proof of identity and send it in along with the ballot. But
some voters live out of convenient range of photocopiers.
Others may be put off by the sheer hassle.
The Schumer amendment would fix this danger by allowing
states to accept other types of proof of identity--for
example, a signature. It would also impose the identity
requirement on fewer people--only new voters and those who
have moved across state lines, and not those who have just
changed counties. This is a good amendment that would
significantly cut the risk of disqualifying eligible voters
while only marginally increasing the risk of fraud. The
Senate should adopt it, and then proceed quickly to pass the
election reform bill. The 2000 contest demonstrated that
hundreds of thousands of voters are deprived of their rights
by a system that is broken. It is past time to fix it.
____
[From the Daily News]
Double Take in Ballot Probe--Voters With Same Name & Birthday Expose
N.Y. System
(By Bob Port and Greg B. Smith)
Yitchok Levovits, whose birthday is Dec. 29, 1970, voted in
Brooklyn's Hasidic neighborhood of Williamsburg on Election
Day, November 1996.
Forty miles away in the Rockland County Hasidic community
of Monsey, Yitchok Levovits, whose birthday is Dec. 29, 1970,
voted in the same election.
The question of residence came up again in November when
Yitchok Levovits voted in the general election in Monsey even
though last week he was found living in Brooklyn.
Levovits is one of 75 voters with the same name and same
date of birth registered to vote in Brooklyn and either
Rockland or Orange counties, a Daily News investigation
found.
Of that number 14 actually voted in more than one county
sometimes in the same election according to a computer
analysis of voter registration records.
Several registered in one county shortly before voting in
another. Some registered to vote in one county then voted in
another.
The Daily News reported yesterday that during the last
election, there was evidence of similar voting irregularities
in the Rockland County Hasidic community of New Square. That
contributed to an overwhelming 1,400-to-12 New Square vote
for Sen. Hillary Clinton that is now under investigation by
federal prosecutors.
But the irregularities appear to extend beyond New Square
into other Hasidic communities in Brooklyn's Williamsburg,
Rockland County's Monsey and Orange County's Monroe.
The New found that in New York it's easy to pull off double
voting because--unlike many other states--New York has no
nationwide system for registering voters.
Each country has a separate registration system, and no one
checks to see if a voter is registered and voting in two
spots.
``There is no computer link. Some of the upstate counties
aren't even on computer,'' said Steven Richman, general
counsel to the New York City Board of Elections.
For instance, Jacob Fligman, whose birthday is July 29,
1953, voted in the general election of 1998 in both Brooklyn
and Monsey. He also voted in November in Monsey, but this
week he was found at his apartment in Brooklyn.
In all, seven men voted in elections in both Brooklyn and
Rockland County throughout the 1990s, raising questions about
whether they properly voted in November's election.
Israel Reich voted in Brooklyn in 1997 and 1998, and this
week he was found at his apartment on Wythe Ave. in
Williamsburg. He voted in Monsey in November.
Chaim Pinkasovits voted in November in Monsey, though his
name was listed this week on a mailbox at his apartment on
Hooper St. in Brooklyn's Williamsburg.
Jacob Weber voted in the November election in Monsey, but
last week a neighbor said he lived in an apartment on Heyward
St. in Williamsburg.
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has called for a
statewide voter registration system that would make it easier
for voters to register, but also ``enable election officials
to curb election fraud.''
Spitzer's report, issued in February, specifically noted
state wide registration would ``curb multiple voting.''
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2002]
Vote for Voting Reforms
All week, partisan wrangling over the question of
preventing electoral fraud threatened to kill the Senate's
sensible election reform bill, though a compromise seemed
within reach late yesterday. Differences over the fraud issue
do not justify scuttling the overall bill, the product of
year-long, painstaking negotiations. The resulting bipartisan
legislation goes a long way toward curing the deficiencies in
the nation's balloting process that became manifest in the
2000 presidential election. Senate leaders must ensure that
the vote on electoral reform proceeds, and should encourage
members to support it overwhelmingly.
The legislation establishes federal standards for voting
procedures and technologies that state and local election
officials would have to meet when administering national
elections, and it provides $3.5 billion over five years to
pay for the upgrade. The bill forces states to meet federally
mandated error rates for their voting equipment, provide
provisional ballots when someone's eligibility is questioned
at the polls and allow people an opportunity to correct
improperly marked ballots. The bill's anti-fraud provisions
were necessary to gain key Republican support late last year
for such a forceful federal intrusion into the states'
traditional prerogative of running elections. When Senators
Charles Schumer and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, offered a
last-minute amendment to remove the bill's requirement for
first-time voters who register by mail to identify themselves
at the polls, the measure's Republican sponsors, Christopher
Bond and Mitch McConnell, felt their Democratic colleagues
were reneging on the deal, and they threatened to filibuster
the legislation.
Both sides would be foolish to allow the fight over this
amendment to kill the legislation. Republicans should know
that forcing states to maintain computerized statewide voter
lists, a key item in the bill, does more than the disputed
provision itself to combat fraud, eliminating as it does
duplicate registrations in several counties.
The Schumer-Wyden amendment was strongly supported by a
coalition of civil rights groups that say the burden of
having to produce a photo identification card or an
alternative proof of identity, like a utility bill,
disproportionately hurts minority voters, recent immigrants,
students and people with disabilities. Their legitimate
concerns must be balanced against the need to safeguard the
integrity of the process.
Americans should be willing to verify their identity in
order to exercise their right to vote. Senators Schumer and
Wyden are wisely seeking an accommodation with Republicans,
even if it means leaving much of the original provision
intact. The Senate must move ahead now and pass this needed
reform.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2002]
Should Dogs Vote?
Dogs and dead people don't have a constitutional right to
vote, but more of them are going to start turning up at the
polls if Senate Democrats, led by New York's Charles Schumer,
have their way.
It wasn't supposed to come to this. Following the Florida
2000 debacle both parties were eager to fix the system. The
House did its part by passing a bipartisan bill last year.
And then in December, after months of negotiations, Senator
Christopher Bond (R., Mo.) and Mr. Schumer announced that the
Senate, too, had reached a compromise. Their bill, said Mr.
Schumer, would allot $3.5 billion for states and localities
to upgrade voting systems, improve registration procedures
and educate voters about ballots.
It would also target voter fraud, which has been on the
increase since the 1993 Motor Voter Law allowed people to
register to vote while applying for a driver's license.
Unfortunately, some 95% of Motor Voter registrants don't
vote, but their names are available for political operatives
and others to misuse. A St. Louis dog once registered. The
Senate bill requires those who register by mail and are
voting for the first time to prove their identity.
Acceptable proof of identity would include photo ID, a
utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a pay
check, or any government document showing the name and
address of the voter. This is not a requirement that every
voter show up at the polls with a photo ID. The measures
would apply only to first-time mail-in registrants.
These antifraud measures, which were acceptable to
Democrats two months ago, are somehow now unacceptable; Mr.
Schumer this week introduced an amendment that strips away
the mail-in registrant requirements. And on the Senate floor
yesterday he announced that his home state is practically
fraud free.
``In New York,'' said Mr. Schumer, ``We have not had--I
checked again yesterday, we called around the state. We
called people, not just on one party or another . . . There's
been almost no allegation of any kind of fraud with our
system.'' Perhaps he thinks that all of the political cheats
in the Northeast live in New Jersey.
[[Page S1385]]
Alas, the Senator failed to call one of his hometown
newspaper, the New York Post, which reported two years ago in
a story headlined ``Double-Dippers Sign Up to Vote in N.Y.
and Florida'' that ``New York City [alone] has 11,642 voters
with illegal dual registrations.'' An investigation of voting
records in New York and Florida by the Republican National
Committee, which the Senator also apparently failed to ring,
has turned up 286 names of individuals who double-voted in
November 2000.
Mr. Schumer would prefer that states verify voter
identities through signature matching. Not only would this be
a costly provision--34 states currently don't use signature
verification and would have to purchase the technology--but
it would also require that the nation's 1.4 million poll
workers double as hand-writing experts.
The truth is that Senate Democrats are trying to torpedo a
bill they helped write due to pressure from civil rights
groups such as the NAACP and La Raza. The activists claim
that requiring proof that a voter is a real person is an
``undue burden.'' They expect us to believe that the same ID
requirements for, say, renting a video or buying a pack of
cigarettes somehow disenfranchise the poor and elderly when
it comes to casting a ballot.
Mr. Schumer's amendment passed in a largely partisan
preliminary vote Wednesday, but Senate Republicans are
planning to filibuster and we'd encourage them to do so.
Someone has to make the case that the integrity of the ballot
box is just as important to the credibility of elections as
the access to it.
____
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 1, 2002]
Spaniel Makes Senate Appearance in Support of Bond's Reform Efforts
(By Deirdre Shesgreen)
Washington.--Ritzy Mekler has given new bite to Sen.
Christopher ``Kit'' Bond's election-reform crusade.
Ritzy, a 13-year-old English springer spaniel, was Bond's
Exhibit A on the floor of the Senate this week as the
Missouri Republican pressed his case for anti-fraud
provisions in legislation to overhaul the nation's voting
system. The reason: When she was a younger pup, Ritzy was
registered to vote in St. Louis.
The dog's 1994 registration is one reason, in Bond's view,
that St. Louis has a reputation for vote fraud. Other reasons
are recent efforts to register several dead St. Louisans,
including a prominent former alderman.
What does Ritzy think about her sudden celebrity status?
``Ritzy would like for their to be reform,'' deadpanned her
owner, Margaret Mekler, a retired teacher who lives in St.
Louis. ``I don't think she wants any other dogs, including
the ones in her own household, voting.''
Mekler seconded her pet's position. ``Our dog is very
intelligent,'' she said, ``but I'm not sure I want her voting
on who's going to be the president.''
Bond was pleased.
``I'm glad to have Ritzy's support,'' he said. ``I just
don't want her votes.''
Bond hoped to eliminate the animal vote through a provision
in the legislation that would require first-time voters who
register by mail to show a photo ID or other verification of
their identity, such as a utility bill, before they vote.
But Democrats said that requirement would disenfranchise
many voters--such as the elderly or immigrants--who don't
have the necessary identification cards. Sens. Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., offered an amendment
that would allow voters to prove their identity by providing
a signature that could be matched with a signature on record
with local election authorities.
Bond said the amendment would ``gut'' his anti-fraud
provisions.
He promptly trotted out a blown-up copy of Ritzy's 1994
registration card to the Senate floor. With the card on
prominent display, Bond said Schumer's amendment would do
nothing to keep the pooch from casting a ballot.
``I have a feeling that whoever wrote Ritzy Mekler on that
registration form probably could duplicate that `Ritzy
Mekler' signature each and every time they wanted to vote,''
said Bond as the debate opened earlier this week.
Schumer responded that there was no law Congress could pass
to keep all dogs from voting.
``Ritzy, whom we have heard a lot about, is going to find a
way to vote illegally, incorrectly, whether we have this
amendment or not,'' Schumer said. ``All the owner of Ritzy
has to do is put a photo ID in that envelope.''
Democrats won a preliminary vote on Schumer's amendment,
prompting Bond and other Republicans to hold up the bill,
which is now stalled.
Just how Ritzy got onto the St. Louis voter rolls is still
a mystery.
Mekler suspects it started when she and her husband put
their phone number under Ritzy's name because they didn't
want their own names listed in the phone book.
Then they received a notice from the election board.
``. . . We got a voting notification that said that Ritzy .
. . had been registered, unbeknownst to us,'' Mekler said.
``The registration said she had moved here from California,
she was 21, and had a Social Security number.''
``We got the letter and we said `Well, wait a minute, What
is this?' '' Mekler recalled.
Mekler, 56, suspects someone must have seen Ritzy's name in
the phone book and decided to register her, not knowing she
was a dog.
As soon as they realized the mistake, the Meklers notified
the election board.
St. Louis election officials said nobody by name of Ritzy
Mekler ever voted. ``Ritzy was removed (from the voting
rolls) as soon as we received a call from Mr. Mekler,'' said
Jeanne Bergfeld, assistant director of the Election Board.
Bergfeld also said she knew of no second attempted dog
registration last year, as previous elections officials had
reported after 3,800 suspect cards were dropped off at the
Election Board just before the mayoral primary last March.
The cards included the deceased, but no canines, she said.
Mekler said she'd like stricter rules for voter
identification, though not all members of her household
agree.
``I hope (we) get some reform,'' she said. ``If not, we
have two other dogs and a cat who would like to register.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Wall Street Journal editorial
this morning has accurately captured the essence of our vote this
morning--``Dogs and dead people don't have the constitutional right to
vote, but more of them are going to start turning up at the polls if
Senate Democrats, led by New York's Charles Schumer, have their way.''
The cloture vote today is not about whether we support election
reform; clearly everyone in this Chamber does. The cloture vote today
is about ensuring the integrity of our elections--do we want to make it
harder, or easier, to cheat.
Over 2 months ago Senators Dodd, Bond, Schumer, Torricelli, and I
introduced a bipartisan bill to make it easier to vote and harder to
cheat. This compromise was the result of months and months of
negotiations among the five of us.
Two weeks ago this bill was brought before the entire Senate for its
consideration. But, on Tuesday night, after 5 days of debate on the
bill, the Senator from New York, one of the principal negotiators and
cosponsors of this compromise, offered an amendment which would
eviscerate one of the key antifraud provisions of our deal.
The antifraud provisions in the compromise are due to the hard work
of the Senator from Missouri, which I thought we all supported. He
sought to ensure that when one talks about the Spirit of St. Louis they
are referring to an airplane, not a dead voter.
This amendment was put to a vote on Wednesday morning and the three
Democratic cosponsors of the bill voted in favor of gutting the
antifraud provision. After months of negotiations, after more than 2
months between introduction and bringing it up on the floor, and after
5 days of debate, it appears our cosponsors did not really support the
agreement after all.
The Senator from Missouri and I voted to support the compromise we
had reached. That is what this vote today is all about.
This vote is as much about the sanctity of a compromise deal as it is
about a person's right to vote, and do so only once.
A vote today against cloture is not a vote to kill election reform.
To the contrary, it ensures effective and balanced reform.
Over the course of this 8-day debate we have addressed issues
important to individuals Senators and their home States.
However, the Schumer amendment which brought this debate and this
Chamber to a grinding halt, takes us all back to the first days of our
negotiations over this compromise.
We already discussed, debated, and decided these issues once, and now
my colleagues want to do it all over again but this time on the floor
of the Senate.
My colleagues on this side of the aisle have serious concerns about
some provisions of this bill, but we have been willing to work with the
Senator from Connecticut to preserve the key provisions of the
compromise.
This vote is all about the Schumer amendment, which would make it
easier to cheat, impose the most expensive mandate on the states, and
require 1.4 million poll workers to become handwriting experts.
Quoting again from the Wall Street Journal:
[[Page S1386]]
Someone has to make the case that the integrity of the
ballot box is just as important to the credibility of
elections as the access to it.
I commend the Senator from Missouri from doing exactly that.
The Schumer amendment unravels the core agreement we had reached on
election reform and has turned what we had hoped was going to be a
largely bipartisan exercise into a partisan split, which will be
evident in a few moments on the cloture vote.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. A vote against cloture is
not a vote against election reform. It gives us the opportunity to
continue to discuss the matter and hopefully work out this problem.
The Senator from Connecticut has spent an enormous amount of time on
this issue, and so have I and other Senators, and we still would like
to see a bill passed, but this is a critical point. The whole crux of
this bill is to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. What the
Senator from Missouri has offered and has discussed--and the provision
that was in the underlying bill is quite simply understood--is this
deals with first-time registrants by mail only, that they be required
to provide some identification so we can eliminate dead people and dogs
from the rolls all across America. I do not think that is asking too
much.
The sanctity of the vote is important to everyone, and to the extent
dead people and dogs can vote, it diminishes obviously the votes of all
the rest of us. So that is really what this is about. A vote no on
cloture will give us the opportunity to continue to discuss this matter
and hopefully get back to the original core compromise that brought us
all together in the first place. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to
vote no on the cloture motion that will be before us momentarily.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Connecticut be given 1 minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, so my colleagues know, we had hoped as a
result of hours of negotiation--and I am not exaggerating--over the
last 48 hours, we would resolve the issue at hand. I mentioned the
other day the efforts have gone on for several weeks. Unfortunately,
not everybody has seen every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t,'' and
obviously if that is the case, then we cannot get the unanimous consent
necessary to either vitiate cloture or to withdraw amendments and
consider others.
So we are in a situation where the rules of the Senate make it very
difficult, if there is not complete agreement on everything, to move
forward.
Let me say to those who are interested in where this debate is going,
we are very close to a resolution of this particular issue that has
caused the stall on this bill. It is my fervent hope and belief that
come the first of next week we will be able to complete action on this
bill. When we get beyond this issue, there are several remaining issues
that will need to be voted on. My view is none of them is of such a
nature, whether adopted or defeated, that would go to in any way derail
the process.
On the cloture vote, Members will vote for or against. At this point,
it is a matter on which we are going to vote, but it does not go to the
issue of whether we are voting for dead dogs or live people or dead
people and live dogs. The issue is whether or not we are going to get
to an agreement, and I believe we can.
I regret we did not have it done by this morning. I thought we had,
but obviously we do not, and so I am disappointed by that fact. I am
optimistic we can get there in the next couple of days.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 30
seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I add my remarks to those of the
Senator from Connecticut. We are willing to compromise. We have worked
fully. We have moved on the amendment that Senator Wyden and I have to
virtual agreement with what the Senator from Missouri wants. Let us not
hold up this bill. We think that having the overall bill is more
important than the amendment the Senator from Oregon and I offered. We
want to try as best we can to protect voters, but we do not want the
bill to go down. We do not want to use that as a pretext for killing
this bill.
Cloture Motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close the debate on S. 565, the election reform bill:
Christopher Dodd, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden,
Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, Tom Daschle, Jeff
Bingaman, Daniel Inouye, Carl Levin, Max Baucus, Joe
Biden, Pat Leahy, James M. Jeffords, Barbara Mikulski,
Bob Graham, Edward M. Kennedy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the
Senate that debate on S. 565 relative to election reform shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, on this vote, I have a pair with the
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. If he were present and voting, he
would vote nay. If I were permitted to vote, I would vote yea. I,
therefore, withhold my vote.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Texas
(Mr. Gramm), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) and the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--39
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1
Reid, yea
NOT VOTING--11
Brownback
Burns
Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Gramm
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Miller
Nickles
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote
by
[[Page S1387]]
which cloture was not invoked on S. 565.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________