[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.

                          ____________________