[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 20 (Friday, March 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1402-S1405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ELECTION REFORM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I see the manager of the election reform 
bill coming into the Chamber. He has

[[Page S1403]]

worked so hard on it. In fact, he worked last night and is still 
working on it. I am glad he has come out of the bowels of the Senate 
where he has been working and has come to the Senate Chamber. I would 
be glad to hear from the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, the 
distinguished Democratic majority assistant floor leader, for yielding.
  To give some flavor and idea about where this is, let me thank, first 
of all, Senator Daschle, the majority leader. His patience--I may be 
testing it. I hope I am not. I have such deep affection for my leader, 
and he has been generous beyond belief, and his staff's cooperation has 
been just stunning. I want to publicly thank them.
  I thank my Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Lott as well. I 
know he is feeling a certain amount of pressure from his Members, too. 
I know there are other issues with which this body needs to grapple in 
debate on. I am very in tune with that desire. It certainly was not our 
intent that this matter end up taking as long as it has. In fact, I had 
predicted it might take substantially less time. However, how we ended 
up--when we have a matter such as this one cannot accurately predict 
with any certainty what is going to happen. Actually, we ended up in a 
logjam earlier this week on the Schumer-Wyden amendment, with Senator 
Bond and other Members.
  I am prepared to say we are literally attempting to resolve this 
issue as I speak. We do not have it in writing yet in final form. It 
appears that we are not going to have it this afternoon based on my 
conversations. I thank the staffs of Senator McConnell and Senator 
Bond. Both Brian Lewis and Leon Sequeira of Senator McConnell's office 
and Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's office have been 
very supportive and helpful. I thank particularly Senator Bond's staff, 
Jack Bartling, who worked with me last night until almost midnight to 
try to work out appropriate language. Again, today we have spent any 
number of hours in our cloakrooms trying to come together with some 
bipartisan language that is very important to those of us who are 
interested in completing action on this compromise election reform 
bill.
  There has been concern this bill might die because we have not been 
able to resolve certain issues. That is not going to happen today. This 
bill is going to be resolved, in my view, by Monday night or Tuesday 
morning at the latest. Then we will be able to get on to other business 
in the Senate.
  We do not have a unanimous consent request to that effect, and I have 
urged not to propose one. I do not want to find myself having the UC 
become a vehicle for some people taking advantage of these 
circumstances.
  I think the managers of the bill on the minority side are committed 
to getting this bill done. I thank them for that. We have come a long 
way. We have some amendments yet to resolve. We have not voted on 
everything. However, we will on Monday consider remaining amendments 
and work on some compromise where needed. Over the weekend, the staffs 
will be finalizing some language, and then on Monday night we have a 
cloture vote, as I understand it, at 6:15 p.m. My hope is that, 
regardless of the outcome of that cloture vote, we will then consider 
amendments that evening with the possibility of stacking some votes 
Tuesday morning. This will be considered in light of the fact that some 
Members may not be back even for the cloture vote on Monday night.
  We would accommodate them in such a way that we would have the 
stacked votes, go to third reading, and complete work on this bill by 
Tuesday morning. That is my desire. I further believe it is the desire 
of Senator McConnell and the desire of Senator Bond and others who have 
been involved with this process. That is not a suggestion that they 
would accept the unanimous consent request to provide for such. 
However, I believe their intent and their desire is to mutually achieve 
the same goal as I seek to achieve.

  In this body, the Senate works on comity. We look each other in the 
eye and we make commitments to each other to the extent we can fulfill 
them. I still believe this may be one of the few institutions left in 
America where you do not need a written contract to achieve those 
agreements. So I am working on the assumption that my colleagues are as 
committed as I am to seeing this unique and historic legislation become 
the law of the land with respect to the administration of elections for 
Federal office.
  I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much time. I am sorry it 
has gone to this length. However, when you are legislating in something 
this unique and this novel, that goes to the very heart of who we are 
as a democracy and how we cast and count our ballots for the most 
important offices in our land, then there are an awful lot of people 
who are at the table. Even the legislative process is inclusive, not 
exclusive.
  The Presiding Officer on several occasions has been in the chair. I 
say to my colleagues, he knows these matters that have been discussed 
over the last number of days. He is a former secretary of state. He 
knows these issues as well as anyone--in fact, better than anyone in 
the Chamber probably, given his most recent work in the area. So he 
knows when I speak that there is deep interest at a local level from 
all the local election administrators and officials in this subject 
matter. I do not have to mention that this is also the case for all the 
secretaries of state across the country, obviously all of us in the 
Senate, the people in the other Chamber, and people at the White House.
  There are a lot of people who are at the table when you are 
discussing the future of how elections are going to be conducted in 
light of what happened in the November 2000 elections for Federal 
office and what had occurred in previous Presidential elections. So 
this is a major undertaking. It is not an annual appropriations bill. 
It is a fundamental change in how we are going to do some things with 
respect to Federal elections. We think we have been inclusive and 
worked in a very cooperative fashion with our States and localities. I 
should have maybe anticipated it might have taken a bit more time. I 
guess my optimism for the bill exceeded my ability to see how many 
people would like to be heard and offer ideas to the underlying 
proposal we brought to the Chamber now 2 weeks ago.
  So I commit to my colleagues I will do everything I can to get this 
done at the very first of the week. I make this commitment to the 
distinguished assistant Democratic leader and to the majority leader 
and to others who I know are very anxious to get moving on other 
matters. I will not stand in the way of that occurring if you will give 
me a bit more of a window to try to achieve what I have sought to do 
over these last couple of weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator from Connecticut leaves, I say to him I 
have been involved in the legislative process a long time at a State 
level and in Congress. The Senator from Connecticut has been in the 
Congress longer than I, but I have been tremendously impressed the last 
several days by the Senator from Connecticut. I have to say I think 
most people would have given up by now, but the Senator from 
Connecticut has a vision as to what this legislation will do for our 
country, what it will do for the State of Nevada.
  The Senator from Connecticut has spoken to our secretary of state, a 
Republican, by the name of Dean Heller----
  Mr. DODD. He is a good man.
  Mr. REID. Who loves this legislation. This legislation for my State 
is very important.
  I spoke a little bit yesterday indicating in 1998 the nightmare of my 
election. Because the State has so few resources outside of Clark 
County, the very populous Las Vegas area, in Reno one registrar of 
voters tried to save a few dollars and printed their own ballots, 
causing all kinds of problems because of antiquated machines. With this 
legislation, that would be taken care of. The State of Nevada would 
have help to have elections, and all 17 counties would have fair 
elections.
  So, as I said, I think most people would have given up.
  I have to say the strength and the depth of feelings of the Senator 
from Connecticut is something we do not often see--a Senator sitting 
down at a table with not another Senator there, with only staff 
representing various

[[Page S1404]]

Senators in this institution. I have not seen that very often. That 
portrays, to me, how the Senator feels about this.
  The Senator and I have spoken off the Senate floor about the 
importance of this legislation. In the last few minutes of the 
Senator's statement today, he talked about this legislation being 
historic. This will give the opportunity to vote to people who have 
never had the opportunity to vote. It will cause people to go to the 
voting booth who will no longer feel demeaned because they cannot hear 
or see or they have some other handicap. They will be able to vote now.
  The Senator from Connecticut has shown tremendous courage in going 
forward with this legislation. I have to say I only hope, after the 
many times the Senator from Connecticut has tried to get this 
legislation passed, that it gets passed. In fairness and justice, it 
needs to pass. I hope over this weekend people reach out to the Senator 
from Connecticut and indicate how important it is that he stick to what 
he is doing because this certainly--the Senator has had many remarkable 
accomplishments in his career, while I have been in the Senate with 
him, not the least of which is being the quarterback of the campaign 
finance reform. But I hope this legislation is able to go forward 
because our country deserves it and the Senator from Connecticut 
deserves it.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the assistant leader and again I thank the other 
staff, Brian Lewis and Leon Sequeira of Senator McConnell's and Julie 
Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's staff. I thank my own staff 
as well, Ronnie Gillespie, Kennie Gill, and Shawn Maher specifically. I 
would also like to include in the record a special thanks and 
appreciation for two interns, Laura Roubicek and Candace Chin, who have 
both taken extraordinary measures to support election reform and bring 
the this landmark legislation to final passage. There are also many 
others in my office who have done a terrific job as well and I thank 
each and every one of them. I thank the people from the civil rights 
community. We spent about 5 hours yesterday going over what this bill 
does and what are its shortcomings and what are its strengths.
  Before this debate is complete, I will list all the groups around the 
country participating in this effort and have been at the table, 
including yesterday, who bring a passion and interest in fairness and 
justice that I wish America could have watched. We only have cameras in 
the Chamber and in committee rooms, but this was not a hearing, it was 
a group of people sitting down trying to figure out what was right for 
justice, for people who are in the corners, who fall through the cracks 
too often when we talk about legislation.

  I was deeply proud as an American to be sitting in that room 
listening to people who do not hold an elective office, do not run for 
office, but fight on behalf of the people they represent.
  I thank Corrine Brown, Congresswoman from Florida, for whom, as I 
said yesterday, this is not an intellectual issue alone. It is one she 
feels passionately about. She watched all that happened in her own 
congressional district in Florida. Others in attendance included Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus; 
Sylvestre Reyes, head of the Hispanic caucus in the House; and John 
Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-author 
of the original Dodd-Conyers election reform bill. They were all 
present at this gathering yesterday to talk about the importance of 
this compromise bill and how valuable it is to move forward and 
complete the legislative process.
  Even if it means, as part of what I think the arrangement will be, 
withdrawal of the Schumer-Wyden proposal, and consideration of a 
package of civil rights provisions that will protect and preserve 
existing civil rights laws as they are and administrative provisions 
dealing with some state and local issues as well. That is the way we 
are going to try to get through this Gordian knot that sits on the path 
to final passage of the legislation.
  There are a lot of people who were disappointed that the final result 
is going to be that the Schumer-Wyden amendment may be withdrawn from 
this bill at this particular point. However, there are others, such as 
Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who will tell you while she is 
disappointed about that, she understands there are a lot of other 
things to recommend in this bill, such as the very strong provisions in 
this bill.
  Congresswoman Brown spoke passionately about the compromise bill and 
moving forward, as have Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sylvestre Reyes, and 
John Conyers. That in no way should reflect their disappointment over 
the fact that Schumer-Wyden may not be part of this bill. It deals with 
the situation where a person who registers by mail but does not provide 
identification in the mail-in registration package, and then shows up 
in person to vote. Under our compromise bill, that voter would have 
three alternatives to cast a vote. First, that voter could provide a 
photo ID and then cast an actual ballot. Next, that voter could provide 
any of the documents listed in the bill, such as a utility bill, and 
cast an actual ballot. Finally, that voter could not present any 
identification and then be eligible to cast a provisional ballot, not 
an actual ballot. The Schumer-Wyden amendments permits two additional 
alternatives for that voter to cast a ballot on election day. The 
Schumer-Wyden amendment would add both the alternative of voter 
signature verification and attestation as legitimate methods for such 
first time voters who register by mail and want to come in to vote in 
person to cast a vote on election day. Under our compromise law, 
without the Schumer-Wyden proposal, that voter could still vote, but it 
would be a provisional ballot and would count only when the 
registration was corroborated.
  I don't know the approximate number of how many fit into that 
category. Even if it is a few, it is wrong, in my view. But I 
understand the passions and feelings of my colleagues from Missouri and 
others are such to stop this bill in its entirety from going forward.
  The Senator from Nevada mentioned those who are disabled. I have a 
sister who is blind. I have talked about her in the past. She 
represents the National Federation of the Blind in my State. Her 
eyesight is such she can see some things. She is a teacher and has been 
for 35 years. The idea that a person who is blind has never been able 
to cast a ballot in private, independently in the same manner as 
others, in the history of our country, is changed with the underlying 
law.
  If this bill becomes law, no longer will millions of Americans have 
to rely on somebody else to walk into a voting booth to be told how 
they will cast a ballot. For the first time in the history of this 
country we will have voting systems in every precinct in America that 
allows people to cast the independent and private ballot--for those who 
are disabled, those who are blind--and we do it by paying for it, not 
by asking local States and jurisdictions to do so because we think it 
is the right thing to do.
  For the first time in the history of our country, a person will be 
able to cast a ballot, and in fact check how they voted. They will know 
whether or not they overvoted. That is included in this legislation as 
well. There will be provisional voting process for every voter in 
America, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, so they can go 
in and if there is a battle over whether they are properly registered, 
they can cast the provisional ballot, and it will be counted and not be 
thrown out. We require statewide voter registration, which will go to 
the heart of the fraud issues in many respects. I mentioned the 
disabled provisions, the language minorities provisions. We expand the 
numbers of language minorities now included in the Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
  This bill establishes a permanent commission on elections at the 
request of Senator McConnell of Kentucky. We have never had one before 
charged with Federal elections. It will give a permanent place so that 
we will not have to go through this process of waiting for a crisis to 
occur and come to the Congress of the United States to fix something. 
We will have a place where we can reform and modernize our election 
process so it will serve the voters of this country over and over 
again, as well as the election administrators.

  The antifraud provisions, the open access of the voting process for 
others,

[[Page S1405]]

as well as the provisions for the disability community and our language 
minorities are major achievements. These are the reasons why Corrine 
Brown, why Eddie Bernice Johnson, and why John Conyers, why Sylvestre 
Reyes all believe this is the right thing to do. Even though there is a 
provision in this bill with which they will end up disagreeing, their 
view is, go forward, get to Senate-House conference, see if we cannot 
work out other differences and pass landmark legislation.
  The White House will be involved. We are not done with this. I 
believe we can get out of the Senate with a good bill, as I believe we 
can get to conference, resolve it with the Ney-Hoyer bill, and come 
back for the 2002 elections this year.
  The President has put $1.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2003 budget for 
election reform issues. There is no reason the $400 million provided in 
the bill cannot be drawn down by States so voters who vote this fall 
can see changes they never would have imagined occurring as quickly as 
they can.
  That is what is at stake. That is how we hope to resolve the 
roadblock in this process. We are aware and are working on the Oregon 
and Washington issue. Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith and Patty Murray 
and Maria Cantwell have spoken eloquently on behalf of their unique 
situation on how they conduct vote by mail Federal elections and cast 
and count ballots. We are trying to accommodate them. Our goal in this 
bill has never been to deprive a State of the ability to conduct its 
elections in the unique way they do. We are trying to accommodate their 
interests.
  I apologize for reviewing where things are. I want people to know how 
much is at stake. This is not another bill we are dealing with, as the 
Senator from Nevada has graciously pointed out. This is fundamental. 
Thomas Paine said more than 200 years ago, this is the primary right to 
vote, upon which all other rights depend. If you get this one wrong, it 
is awfully hard to get the other ones right. We are talking about 
something that is so important to the long-term health and well-being 
of our Nation. We saw how much harm was done, how many people were hurt 
in the 2002 elections when things went wrong. We bear a responsibility 
as the national legislative body to come up and respond to what 
occurred in this country in 2002 and occurred before that. We only 
became aware of it to the extent we did because of what happened in the 
Presidential race.
  The country believes we need to make this process work better. It is 
in shoddy condition. To engage in this Congress and not engage this 
question would be a shortcoming we should not endure. We must accept 
and meet this challenge. I apologize to my colleagues, particularly the 
leadership, for the time this has taken. It is my fervent hope we are 
coming down to the final few hours of this. This is the last major 
hurdle. It is not to minimize the significance of other amendments that 
Members have, but this is a major battle between a House divided in 
many ways, as we saw by the vote that occurred on the tabling motion, 
almost 50-50 in terms of how people felt. If we get beyond that and 
deal with the other issues, I am fairly hopeful by Monday night or 
Tuesday morning Members will have an opportunity to vote on the first 
election reform proposal before this body of this size almost in 40 
years, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

  I don't know what else we will accomplish in this Congress, but I 
hope at the end of the day when we look at the 107th Congress we can 
point to this landmark election reform bill as one of the significant 
achievements of this Congress.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________