[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 21 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1414-S1417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6 p.m. 
having arrived, 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 the 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 election, 
     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.
       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.

[[Page S1415]]

       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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 6 
p.m. shall be equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Dodd, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote 
once again on cloture with respect to the election reform bill. I come 
to the floor to take a couple of minutes to say that, once again, 
Oregon's two Senators will be working together on a bipartisan basis to 
try to protect the voting rights of folks who, in a small State 3,000 
miles from here, have come up with a system that I think can be a 
national model. It has empowered Americans. It empowered the people of 
our State--like, essentially, no other--in the Senate special election 
that was held in 1996, when three times the level of voter interest was 
shown as was shown in the previous Senate special election.
  My colleague, Senator Smith, lost in that election by a small amount. 
He waged a valiant campaign. He has become a colleague with whom I have 
worked very closely. To his great credit, after an election that I won 
narrowly, he made it clear there were no instances of fraud or flagrant 
violations that tainted the election. That is why the two of us, on a 
bipartisan basis, feel so strongly about protecting Oregon's election 
rights.
  I see another northwesterner in the Chamber and currently presiding. 
I know the occupant of the chair feels strongly about protecting the 
rights of those in Washington State who vote by mail.
  We are willing to meet our colleagues on the other side more than 
halfway. We have said that from the very beginning. Northwesterners are 
not a part of the Rules Committee. We have tried very hard to work with 
our colleagues. I have believed for some time that there is the 
framework of a compromise that could address the concerns of those on 
both sides. The senior Senator from Missouri makes a good case that 
more does need to be done to address fraud. I think the appropriate 
time to do that is in the registration process--what is essentially the 
front end of the voters' involvement in the political process. I am 
willing to meet him more than halfway in addressing those concerns.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Dodd, has worked on a 
variety of compromises to try to address the concerns of our colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, and he and I are going to continue to do 
that. But we do have to voice our strong objection to gutting a system 
that is working, that has empowered thousands and thousands of voters.
  Unfortunately, if we go forward today with the bill as written, it 
will do great damage to those States that do vote by mail. Every review 
of the disputed 2000 election showed that there were a variety of 
errors with punchcard voting machines. But what we want to do is 
address those concerns and not roll back the clock, which is what you 
would do if you did damage to States that vote by mail. We think our 
signature verification process is a good one. It is one that has been 
in place to ensure that there are not those who would engage in fraud. 
At the end of the day, we think voting by mail--the process 
used exclusively in Oregon--is not one that should be thrown overboard 
to deal with problems of fraud in other parts of the country. We have a 
system that works. We have a system that empowers the people in our 
State. It is not a system riddled by corruption.

  I am going to yield the floor now because I see the chairman of the 
committee and ranking minority member here. Both of them have been very 
helpful in working with this Senator. I want them to know that, however 
the vote turns out, I am going to continue to work with them. I assure 
them, having just spoken with my colleague, Senator Smith, tonight as 
well, that he and I are working right now on ideas to address the 
concerns of both sides of the aisle to get over this Oregon issue. 
Oregon's two Senators are united on a bipartisan basis to address this 
concern.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at 6:15 this evening, the Senate will 
vote on cloture, that is to cut off debate on a pending amendment which 
would permit voting on a signature alone. This has been a contentious 
subject because there are those who contend that it ought to be that 
easy for somebody to vote, contrasted with others of us who believe 
that simply on a signature it is insufficient to avoid fraud.
  The underlying bill on election reform is a very important bill. 
There is no need to recount what happened in the Presidential election 
of the year 2000, with special emphasis on Florida, to emphasize the 
need for reform of the voting process, to bring modern technology into 
play, to avoid the chads and the dimples, and to find a way to have 
voters' intent recorded honestly and completely.
  The drafters of the underlying bill have worked very hard on all 
aspects of it, including ways to deal with this question of fraud. They 
came up with a compromise which said somebody could be accorded the 
right to vote if there was a photo identification, or if the individual 
had some other document which showed that person was in existence, such 
as a utility bill or a bank statement or a government check or a 
generalized provision or any kind of a document which is similar, to 
show that a voter, ``Mr. John Voter,'' ``Mrs. Jane Voter,'' actually 
was in existence.
  The reason for this procedure to avoid fraud is that many people have 
been on the rolls who were not in existence: names from decedents, 
names from nonexistent people, and animals that were represented to be 
named people. In an effort to be funny, I think the latter reference 
has sort of denigrated the subject, which is really very serious.
  But my view is, the requirement for some document to show that a 
person is in existence is minimal and necessary. I say that based on 
the experience I have had as District Attorney of Philadelphia in 
prosecuting vote fraud.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from the State of Delaware, 
which is pretty close to Philadelphia. It is widely known that in a 
rough, tough political city, such as Philadelphia, there is a lot of 
vote fraud. It happens to be a fact of life.
  During my 8 years as District Attorney of Philadelphia, from the 
1960s into the 1970s, I prosecuted many people for vote fraud in both 
political parties--Republicans and Democrats. It is a very serious 
problem.
  But if you have someone who can vote simply on a signature, then that 
person can register with a signature. Someone could register as ``Mr. 
John Voter'' with a signature, and it being on file on the voters' 
rolls, later they could mail in a vote, ``Mr. John Voter,'' which is 
the same signature and that person may not be in existence at all.
  I had a little discussion on Friday with the Senator from Oregon 
about this subject and made the point that, it is a case which cannot 
be successfully investigated or cannot be successfully prosecuted. You 
simply have to have an identity of a person whom you can locate to 
serve a warrant of arrest and to bring into court and to prosecute. But 
if there is no such person as ``Mr. John Voter,'' if it is a name which 
is fictitious, backed up only by the signature on registration or the 
signature on voting, you simply can't prove it.
  The Senator from Oregon brought up one illustration: Somebody who 
boasted about having done it. Well, if you have a confession, you can 
prosecute, if you establish the corpus delicti as well, but that is so 
highly unusual and so unrealistic in dealing with the underlying 
problem, as not to require extended refutation.
  On Friday morning, I heard on the radio the voice of the majority 
leader objecting to the position taken that there ought to be some 
document identifying the name with the voter, saying that Senator Bond, 
who has been the major proponent of the position I have articulated--
that Senator Bond was insisting on photo ID, which is not the

[[Page S1416]]

case. The underlying bill does not insist on photo ID. If it did, I 
would have a different position. It requires and insists only on a 
document which shows the identity and some document showing the person 
is in existence.
  I noted the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was quoted over the 
weekend saying that if his amendment, the one which is pending now on 
the cloture vote, is not accepted, that we go ahead and pass the 
underlying bill. It is my hope that the majority leader, who controls 
the calendar, will leave the bill up and have it passed.
  Democrats have had a majority on the committee. They reported this 
bill out in its current form, which, as I say, is a carefully crafted 
compromise. It is my view that the bill in that posture ought to be 
acted upon by the full Senate and ought to be enacted, even if the 
Schumer amendment is not part of the bill because cloture cannot be 
obtained on the amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 2937, WITHDRAWN

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am about to make a unanimous consent 
request on behalf of the Senator from New York and the Senator from 
Oregon, so we can move and get to the cloture vote. I thank all of 
those who have worked over the weekend and all day today. We are down 
to an issue or two--maybe one, frankly. I hope we can resolve that.
  In order to demonstrate the good faith we have in this effort, I ask 
unanimous consent--and I have spoken with Senator Schumer--that the 
Schumer-Wyden amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, we have made some great progress today. In 
fact, we have pretty much agreed on a package dealing with issues such 
as the uniform standards, the savings clause, and several other items. 
I will not go through them now. I will provide a litany of what we have 
agreed upon afterwards. We are down to maybe the issue of Oregon and 
Washington. In order to get us moving along, and rather than trying to 
write that last piece here tonight, we wanted to indicate to our 
colleagues where we were on this issue. This place works on comity, and 
we have to rely on good-faith commitments. I am satisfied that what we 
have agreed to today will be part of a final package. I turn to my 
colleague now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my good friend from 
Connecticut for withdrawing the Schumer amendment. That is certainly a 
step in the right direction. I echo his observations that even though, 
after the cloture vote, I understand we may be going to energy, we are 
close to passing an election reform bill of which I think Members on 
both sides of the aisle can feel proud. I have assured my friend from 
Connecticut that we are going to work to pare down the remaining 
amendments on our side. I know he is going to be doing the same thing.
  We believe there are only a few issues that are serious, and, 
hopefully, we will be able to say to the majority leader soon that we 
have the ability to put together a agreement that we can bring this up 
and, hopefully, dispose of it in half a day.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senator from Oregon may want to 
make additional comments. I agree with those sentiments, and our 
message would be to both sides and the media that this has been very 
productive. This is a complicated issue. It obviously involves local 
communities, States, up to the Federal Government, in the 
decisionmaking process.
  It has not been easy to pull this all together. We are on the brink 
of doing something very worthwhile, something very historic, as we both 
described over the last number of months. The decision to set this 
aside while we move to energy--normally one might say that is a death 
knell. I have been assured by the majority leader, who cares deeply 
about this issue, that as soon as we have a package that we can bring 
forward, which I am convinced we can, we will get to that matter and 
resolve it.
  This is not putting it on a side track where it will languish in the 
coming weeks. We intend to work intensely over the next several days to 
bring back an agreement, hopefully the end of the week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to mention to my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle the vote we are about to have at 6:15 p.m, 
hopefully, will be the same vote. It is a vote to oppose cloture, even 
though we are toward the end of this bill. The reason is, we have not 
been able to figure out which of our amendments will be shut out by the 
invocation of cloture. I urge my Republican colleagues to, once again, 
vote no on cloture, while at the same time saying I think we are very 
close to wrapping up this bill, as the Senator from Connecticut and I 
have previously outlined tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will be very brief.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to yield to our colleague from New 
York, whose amendment I just withdrew on his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky controls the 
remainder of the time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky controls the time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield a minute and a half to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I do not mind if the Senator from Oregon speaks first 
for 1 minute. He needs another minute, and I will take the remaining 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The remaining time I have I yield in equal division to 
the Senators from Oregon and New York.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kentucky. I will 
be brief. I want it understood tonight that in the withdrawal of this 
amendment, I am doing this as part of a good-faith effort to find 
common ground with my colleagues. The people of Oregon feel so strongly 
about this issue that I could not let this bill go to final passage 
until it protects Oregon's election rights, but I would like to advance 
the consideration of the legislation by this body. That is why I am not 
objecting tonight.
  Senator Smith and I will continue to work with our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to address this issue. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, if the Senator from Connecticut has not 
asked unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, I do, or concur in 
that request.
  I wish to make three points. First, it is the strong view of those of 
us on this side--certainly of me--that while this amendment has a great 
deal of merit, the bill is more important than the amendment. I am 
willing to withdraw it not because I think any deal was broken; it was 
clearly not. We all had agreed there would be amendments and, in fact, 
it is our side's understanding there was an agreement that the Gregg 
amendment would be accepted and there would be a vote without a 
filibuster. That was explicit. If anything, if any deal was broken, it 
was done on the other side.

  Two, the amendment is an important amendment because there are, as I 
mentioned in my speeches, hundreds of thousands of people, if not 
millions, for whom it will be much harder to vote. This amendment would 
have made it easier for them to vote without increasing fraud by very 
much. We believe in the amendment, and we will try to deal with this 
issue in some other way, in some other form.
  Third, the bill is an excellent bill. The Senator from Connecticut, 
the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Missouri, and myself have 
spent a great deal of time on it. It will improve elections. It will do 
a lot to prevent the Floridas from happening and the 2000s from 
happening. I think it would be wrong to let the entire bill go down 
because of this worthy amendment. Therefore, I have no problem in 
withdrawing it to move the bill forward. That is something each of us 
is called upon to do: To see things go forward for the legislative 
process and avoid gridlock.
  I will withdraw the amendment if it has not been withdrawn already. 
If it has, I concur in the withdrawal.

[[Page S1417]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been withdrawn.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time of 6:15 
p.m. having arrived, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 
Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. 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, 
the election reform bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and 
nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Allen
     Hutchinson
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 44. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am sure I share the disappointment of 
a number of our colleagues in our inability to come to some closure on 
this legislation. But I will say the good news is the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut, the manager of the bill, and the Senator from 
Kentucky, his co- manager, have agreed to continue to attempt to work 
out what remaining differences exist.
  I will also say, because so much good work has been done, it is my 
strong desire to bring this bill to a successful completion. We are 
going to do that. I have made a commitment to Senator Dodd and to all 
of our colleagues that at such time as we have been able to work out 
procedurally a way to resolve these final matters, we will bring the 
bill back under a unanimous consent agreement.
  So when that unanimous consent agreement is reached, it is my desire 
and my commitment to renew the debate on this issue. This is too 
important to let go. It is too important not to find some final 
resolution to the remaining questions.
  We spent a lot of time on this bill. I don't want to lose that 
investment in time and effort. Obviously, the stakes are quite high. We 
recognize those stakes. We recognize the effort made. We recognize the 
progress we have made in the last couple of weeks. We are just not 
quite there yet.
  But as I have noted on several occasions, it is my strong desire to 
go to the energy bill. That will be what we do tomorrow. I hope 
Senators will be prepared to come to the floor midmorning, 10 o'clock. 
We will begin the debate on energy. I am sure there will be opening 
statements, and we will begin entertaining amendments. I hope Senators 
are prepared to have a good debate about energy. We will hopefully 
resolve that issue and move to other questions.
  It is my expectation that if some agreement has not yet been reached 
on the campaign finance reform bill, I will be asking unanimous consent 
to take that up as well. It will be the only thing that would take us 
off the energy bill prior to the time we complete it. But my hope is we 
can reach some agreement procedurally on the campaign finance reform 
bill as well. If not, of course, when we resolve these issues, if we 
can resolve them, on energy, my intention is to move to the campaign 
finance reform bill.
  So we have a full agenda over the course of the next 3 weeks. Energy 
begins tomorrow. Hopefully campaign finance reform and election reform 
can also be addressed successfully before we complete our work in this 
work period.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________