Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5050-S5061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, which the clerk will report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2611) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until
9:30 will be equally divided between the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, or their designees.

Amendment No. 4085

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4085.

[[Page S5051]]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 4085.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To implement the recommendation of the Carter-Baker
Commission on Federal Election Reform to protect and secure the
franchise of all United States citizens from ballots being cast
illegally by non-United States citizens)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Requirement for Identification Cards to Include
Citizenship Information.--Subsection (b) of section 202 of
the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs (9) and
(10), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (7) the
following new paragraph:
``(8) An indication of whether the person is a United
States citizen.''.
(b) Identification Required for Voting in Person.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating
sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively,
and by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

``SEC. 304. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
section 303(b), each State shall require individuals casting
ballots in an election for Federal office in person to
present before voting a current valid photo identification
which is issued by a governmental entity and which meets the
requirements of subsection (b) of section 202 of the REAL ID
Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note).
``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after
May 11, 2008.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking
``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 304''.
(c) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--Subtitle D of
title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made
under this subtitle, the Election Assistance Commission shall
make payments to States to promote the issuance to registered
voters of free photo identifications for purposes of meeting
the identification requirements of section 304.
``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant
under this part if it submits to the Commission (at such time
and in such form as the Commission may require) an
application containing--
``(1) a statement that the State intends to comply with the
requirements of section 304; and
``(2) a description of how the State intends to use the
payment under this part to provide registered voters with
free photo identifications which meet the requirements of
such section.
``(c) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this
part shall use the payment only to provide free photo
identification cards to registered voters who do not have an
identification card that meets the requirements of section
304.
``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State
under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this
part for the year under section 298; and
``(B) an amount equal to--
``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported
in the most recent decennial census); divided by
``(ii) the total voting age population of all eligible
States which submit an application for payments under this
part (as reported in the most recent decennial census).

``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts
authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for
the purpose of making payments under section 297.
``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authority of this section shall remain available until
expended.''.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, throughout this debate on immigration,
we have been discussing what to do about illegal immigrants in the
country today and what to do about those who will illegally pass our
borders every day in the future. We have heard very valid concerns,
which I share with my colleagues, about how best to deal with the
security of the Nation. The number of illegal immigrants who currently
reside in the United States has been estimated, as we all know, to be
about 12 million people.
I rise today to express another area of concern which has not yet
been addressed by the amendments thus far--that is voting. The U.S.
Constitution secures the voting franchise only for citizens of our
country. As close elections in the past have made abundantly clear, we
must make certain that each vote is legally cast and counted. Imagine
the impact of 12 million potentially illegal registered voters.
This problem was recently tackled by a bipartisan commission on
election reform, which was chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and
former Secretary of State James Baker. This was referred to as the
Carter-Baker commission, named after these two American leaders.
They recognized that clean lists are key, but even more importantly
they note that ``election officials still need to make sure that the
person arriving at the polling site is the same one that is named on
the registration list.'' They note that ``Photo IDs currently are
needed to board a plane, enter Federal buildings, and cash a check.
Voting is equally important.'' Again, those are the words of Jimmy
Carter, James Baker, and their bipartisan commission.
Moreover, we not only need to ensure that those voting are those on
the rolls but also that they are legally entitled to vote. As we said
when we passed the Help America Vote Act a few years ago, on which I
was proud to be the lead Republican, along with my good friend from
Missouri, Senator Bond, and Senator Dodd, who was chairman of the Rules
Committee at the time, the leader on the Democratic side, we want
everyone who is legally entitled to vote to be able to vote and have
that vote counted but to do so only once. In short, we wanted to make
it easier to vote and harder to cheat. The key is to ensure that
everyone who votes is legally entitled to do so.
The Carter-Baker commission's recommendations on voter identification
are, first, to ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling
places are the ones on the registration list.
The commission recommends that States require voters to use the REAL
ID card which was mandated in a law and signed by the President in May
of 2005, just a year ago. The card includes a person's full name, date
of birth, a signature captured as a digital image, a photograph, and
the person's Social Security number. This card should be modestly
adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether
the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an Election
Assistance Commission template identification with a photo to
nondrivers free of charge.
Second, the commission said the right to vote is a vital component of
U.S. citizenship, and all States should use their best efforts to
obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.
That is precisely what my amendment does--implements the
recommendations of the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election
Reform to protect and secure the franchise of all U.S. citizens from
ballots being cast illegally by non-U.S. citizens. Further, for those
who cannot afford an identification, I have included a grant program
within this amendment to make identifications available free of charge.
Former mayor of Atlanta, Andrew Young, supported the free photo
identification as a way to empower minorities and believes, in an era
where people have to show identification to rent a video or cash a
check, requiring an identification can help poor people who otherwise
might be even more marginalized by not having such a photo
identification.
This is an issue which an overwhelming majority of Americans support.
An April 2006 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll asked for reaction to
requiring voters to produce a valid photo identification when they go
to vote.
Only 7 percent of Americans oppose requiring photo identification at
the polls; 62 percent of Americans strongly favor requiring photo
identification at the polls; 19 percent of Americans mildly favor photo
identification at the polls; 12 percent are neutral; only 3 percent of
Americans mildly oppose requiring photo identification at the

[[Page S5052]]

polls; only 4 percent strongly oppose. So collapsing those numbers as
we frequently do with polls, 81 percent of Americans favor photo
identification at the polls, across the philosophical spectrum in our
country.
As the chart indicates, only 7 percent are opposed. Not only is the
Carter-Baker commission on record as supporting photo identification at
the polls, the American people are overwhelmingly on the side of photo
identification at the polls.
There have also, interestingly enough, been some State-based polls
conducted which concur that Americans overwhelmingly support requiring
photo identification at the polls. In Wisconsin, 69 percent favor
requiring photo identification at the polls. In Washington State, 87
percent favor requiring photo identification at the polls. In
Pennsylvania, 82 percent favor requiring photo identification at the
polls. In Missouri, 89 percent favor requiring photo identification at
the polls.
The numbers make it clear the vast majority of Americans support
requiring photo identification at the polls. Why wouldn't they? As John
Fund pointed out in his piece in the Wall Street Journal a couple of
days ago, entitled ``Jimmy Carter is Right, Amend the Immigration Bill
to Require Voters to Show ID'':

Almost everyone needs a photo ID in today's modern world.

You need photo identification to drive a car, fly a plane, get a gun,
catch a fish, open a bank account, cash a check, enter a Federal and
some State buildings, and the list goes on and on.
This is not a new concept. Twenty-four States already require some
kind of photo identification at the polls. Further, thanks to the Help
America Vote Act, photo identification at the polls is required by
those who register to vote by mail and don't provide the appropriate
information at registration.
Some may ask, if States are doing it, why should the Federal
Government get involved? I associate myself with the answer to this
question given by Jimmy Carter and James Baker. Here is what they had
to say about whether we should simply leave this up to the States:

Our concern was that the differing requirements from state-
to-state could be a source of discrimination, and so we
recommend a standard for the entire country, Real ID Card.

I urge my colleagues to consider whether the protection of each and
every American's franchise, a right at the very core of our democracy,
is important enough to accord it equal treatment to getting a library
card or joining Sam's Club. Last I checked, the constitutional right to
rent a movie or buy motor oil in bulk was conspicuously absent.
However, the Constitution is replete, as is the United States Code,
with protections of the franchise for all Americans.
I will have three articles printed in the Record, but I will take a
couple of minutes to highlight some of the very important points raised
in these articles.
The first article, entitled ``Jimmy Carter Is Right, Amend the
immigration bill to require voters to show ID'' appeared Monday in the
Opinion Journal written by John Fund in which he notes:

Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador,
believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a
video or cash a check, ``requiring ID can help poor people
who otherwise might be even more marginalized by not having
one.

Mr. Fund goes on to note:

The Carter-Baker commissioners recognized that cost could
be a barrier to some and thus recommended that identification
cards be provided at no cost to anyone who needed one. They
also argued that photo ID would make it significantly less
likely that a voter would be wrongly turned away at the polls
due to out-of-date registration lists or for more malicious
reasons.

This amendment does just that, provides grants to States so that
anyone who wants an ID can get one free of charge.
Lastly, and most importantly for this immigration debate, Mr. Fund
states:

The man who in 1994 assassinated Mexican presidential
candidate Luis Donaldo Colosino in Tijuana had registered to
vote at least twice in the U.S. although he was not a
citizen. An investigation by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service into alleged fraud in a 1996 Orange
County, California congressional race revealed that ``4,023
illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election
between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta
Sanchez.

The second article is written by Andrew Young, former mayor of
Atlanta on September 30, 2005 for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in
which he states:

At the end of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against
the bondages of poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income
neighborhood sees the ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts,
which thrive because other establishments, such as
supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks without a standard
photo ID. Why not enfranchise the 12% of Americans who don't
have drivers' licenses or government-issued photo IDs.

The last article is co-authored by Jimmy Carter and James Baker and
appeared in the September 23, 2005, New York Times, in which they
observe:

In arguing against voter ID requirements, some critics have
overlooked the larger benefits of government-issued ID's for
the poor and minorities. When he spoke to the commission,
Andrew Young, the former mayor of Atlanta, supported the free
photo ID as a way to empower minorities, who are often
charged exorbitant fees for cashing checks because they lack
proper identification. In a post/911 world, photo ID's are
required to get on a plane or into a skyscraper.

I ask unanimous consent those three articles to which I just referred
be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2006]

Jimmy Carter Is Right

Amid all the disputes over immigration in Congress, one
amendment is being proposed that in theory should unite
people in both parties. How about requiring that everyone
show some form of identification before voting in federal
elections? Polls show overwhelming support for the idea, and
there is increasing concern that more illegal aliens are
showing up on voter registration rolls. But the fact that
photo ID isn't likely to pass shows both how deeply emotional
the immigration issue has become and how bitter congressional
politics have become with elections only 5 1/2 months away.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican whip, is proposing
the photo ID amendment. He notes that Mexico and many other
countries require the production of such identification in
their own elections, and that the idea builds on the
suggestion of last year's bipartisan election reform
commission headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former
secretary of state James Baker.
The Carter-Baker commission issued 87 recommendations to
improve the functioning of election systems. One called for a
national requirement that electronic voting machines include
a paper trail that would allow people to check their votes,
while another would have states establish uniform procedures
for counting provisional ballots.
But the biggest surprise was that 18 of 21 commissioners
backed a requirement that voters show some form of photo
identification. They argued that with Congress passing the
Real ID Act to standardize security protections for drivers'
licenses in all 50 states, the time had come to standardize
voter ID requirements. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom
Daschle joined two other commissioners in complaining that
the ID requirements would be akin to a Jim Crow-era ``poll
tax'' and would restrict voting among the poor or elderly who
might lack such an ID.
Mr. Daschle's racially charged analogy is preposterous.
Almost everyone needs photo ID in today's modern world.
Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador,
believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a
video or cash a check, ``requiring ID can help poor people''
who otherwise might be even more marginalized by not having
one.
The Carter-Baker commissioners recognized that cost could
be a barrier to some and thus recommended that identification
cards be provided at no cost to anyone who needed one. They
also argued that photo ID would make it significantly less
likely that a voter would be wrongly turned away at the polls
due to out-of-date registration lists or for more malicious
reasons. In any case, the tacit acknowledgment by Mr. Carter
and most of the other liberals on the commission that the
integrity of the ballot is every bit as important as access
to the ballot was a welcome one.
The photo ID issue is being joined with the immigration
debate because there is growing anecdotal evidence that voter
registration by noncitizens is a problem. All that it takes
to register is for someone to fill out a postcard, and I have
interviewed people who were still allowed to register without
checking the box that indicated they were a citizen. Several
California counties report that an increasing number of
registered voters called up for jury duty write back saying
they are ineligible because they aren't citizens,
The man who in 1994 assassinated Mexican presidential
candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio in Tijuana had registered to
vote at least twice in the U.S. although he was not a
citizen. An investigation by the Immigration

[[Page S5053]]

and Naturalization Service into alleged fraud in a 1996
Orange County, Calif., congressional race revealed that
``4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed
election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat
Loretta Sanchez.''
It's certainly true that new ID rules alone wouldn't
eliminate all the potential for fraud. Much of the voter
fraud taking place today occurs not at polling places but
through absentee ballots. In some states party officials are
allowed to pick up absentee ballots, deliver them to voters
and return them, creating opportunities for all manner of
illegal behavior. Other states allow organizations to pay
``bounties'' for each absentee ballot they deliver, which
provides an economic incentive for fraud. The Carter-Baker
commission recommended that states eliminate both practices.
In a politically polarized country, photo ID for voting is
a rare issue that enjoys across-the-board support among the
general public. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last month
found that 80% of voters favored a photo ID requirement, with
62% favoring it strongly. Only 7% were opposed. Numbers that
high indicate the notion has overwhelming support among all
demographic and racial groups.
Skeptics argue that in some states the effort to impose
such a requirement seems to emphasize the ID requirement
while not making a serious effort to ensure everyone has such
a document. Robert Pastor, executive director of the Carter-
Baker commission, claims that some Republicans supporting
voter ID ``are not really serious about making sure that
voter ID is free for those who can't afford it.''
Some analysts say a photo ID law could pass on the national
level only if it is seen to satisfy both sides. ``As part of
an overall bipartisan package of election reform--which would
include universal voter registration conducted by the
government--national voter identification makes sense,
especially if structured to limit absentee vote fraud, and so
that identification can be checked across states,'' says Rick
Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School. But he says that
excessive ``partisan jockeying is not going to increase
public confidence in the outcome of elections.''
Sen. McConnell's proposed photo ID requirement is a good
idea, but it may be able to move forward only if he puts some
real money on the table to ensure that everyone who wants to
vote can get an ID. In that, the photo ID issue resembles the
immigration debate itself. The only immigration bill that is
going to pass both houses is one that combines beefed-up
border enforcement with steps that regularize the growing
demand for labor from Mexico via some kind of legal guest
worker program. But sadly, in the case of both photo ID and
immigration, political jockeying appears to be the order of
the day. It may take a lame-duck session of Congress after
this year's election for members finally to address both
issues seriously.
____

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 30, 2005]

Voter IDs Only Part of Elections Solution

(By Andrew Young)

There is an understandable, visceral reaction by many
people against the use of a photo ID card for voting. But how
we vote and voting in general must be seriously examined, and
we cannot let partisanship take place over citizenship.
America ranks 139th out of 172 countries in voter turnout
worldwide.
How do you create a fair voting system, with access to all
who deserve it, with a required photo ID without
disenfranchising or penalizing Americans? We know, a photo ID
requirement can be used as a latter-day equivalent of the
poll tax--that has happened in Georgia, which has added a fee
to get the appropriate ID.
So why did I give at least conditional support to the
Carter-Baker Commission for its recommendation of a required
photo ID?
First, I accepted the two pillars of the commission's own
recommendation: There already is a photo ID requirement in
federal law--the new Real ID requirement imposed by Congress
as part of homeland security policy. If everyone will
eventually be required to carry a Real ID card, why not use
it to improve the voter registration and election system?
Encode the cards with voter data, and that will protect
voters from being wrongfully turned away from the polls.
The second pillar is that any required photo ID must be
made widely available, easily accessible and free.
Time will tell whether Georgia is effectively executing its
plans through its mobile vans and, for the indigent, a waiver
of the fee for a photo ID.
At the end of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against
the bondages of poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income
neighborhood sees the ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts,
which thrive because other establishments, such as
supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks without a standard
photo ID. Why not enfranchise the 12 percent of Americans who
don't have drivers' licenses or government-issued photo IDs?
Given these two pillars, I have no objections to an ID
requirement, even though I do not believe that fraud is
widespread or that the ID is the key to election reform.
But there is another condition: The ID has to be made part
of a package that includes bolder solutions that expand
access to large numbers of voters who are now seriously
handicapped by the way we run elections.
Imagine you are a working poor person. Election Day,
Tuesday, comes. You have to be at work at 8 a.m.--your
employer doesn't give you time off to vote, and you will have
your pay docked or be fired if you are late. You check out
your polling place at 7 a.m.--there is already a long line,
with many there because they have the same problem. So you go
to work, finish at 6 or 7 p.m. and head to the polls again.
Another long line awaits, with no guarantee you will get to
the front of it before the polls close.
I firmly believe that the surest fix to our anemic turnout
is in the calendar, not the cards.
Having Election Day on a Tuesday was a decision made 160
years ago, for reasons that were appropriate to Colonial
times but are no longer relevant. According to the 2002
census data and other polls, the inconvenience of Tuesday is
the single reason people most cited for not voting.
So I asked the members of the Carter-Baker commission when
I met with them, ``Why Tuesday?'' having personally observed
that historic weekend in South Africa when Nelson Mandela was
elected president. Regrettably there is nothing in the
Carter-Baker report on federal election reform that addresses
why Tuesday voting remains a good idea.
If America is to remain the world's beacon of democracy, we
can no longer tolerate an evergrowing class of permanent non-
voters.
A simple act of Congress moving Election Day to the weekend
is what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. truly envisioned when
he said ``the short walk to the voting booth'' is the most
decisive step for our democracy.
____

[From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2005]

Voting Reform Is in the Cards

(By Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III)

We agreed to lead the Commission on Federal Election Reform
because of our shared concern that too many Americans lack
confidence in the electoral process, and because members of
Congress are divided on the issue and busy with other
matters.
This week, we issued a report that bridges the gap between
the two parties' perspectives and offers a comprehensive
approach that can help end the sterile debate between ballot
access and ballot integrity. Unfortunately, some have
misrepresented one of our 87 recommendations. As a result,
they have deflected attention from the need for comprehensive
reform.
Our recommendations are intended to increase voter
participation, enhance ballot security and provide for paper
auditing of electronic voting machines. We also offer plans
to reduce election fraud, and to make the administration of
elections impartial and more effective.
Most important, we propose building on the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 to develop an accurate and up-to-date
registration system by requiring states, not counties, to
organize voter registration lists and share them with other
states to avoid duplications when people move. The lists
should be easily accessible so that voters can learn if
they're registered, and where they're registered to vote.
Some of our recommendations are controversial, but the 21
members of our bipartisan commission, which was organized by
American University, approved the overall report, and we hope
it will break the stalemate in Congress and increase the
prospects for electoral reform.
Since we presented our work to the president and Congress,
some have overlooked almost all of the report to focus on a
single proposal--a requirement that voters have driver's
licenses or government-issued photo IDs. Worse, they have
unfairly described our recommendation.
Here's the problem we were addressing: 24 states already
require that voters prove their identity at the polls--some
states request driver's licenses, others accept utility
bills, affidavits or other documents--and 12 others are
considering it. This includes Georgia, which just started
demanding that voters have a state-issued photo ID, even
though obtaining one can be too costly or difficult for poor
Georgians. We consider Georgia's law discriminatory.
Our concern was that the differing requirements from state-
to-state could be a source of discrimination, and so we
recommended a standard for the entire country, the Real ID
card, the standardized driver's licenses mandated by federal
law last May. With that law, a driver's license can double as
a voting card. All but three of our 21 commission members
accepted the proposal, in part because the choice was no
longer whether to have voter IDs, but rather what kind of IDs
voters should have.
Yes, we are concerned about the approximately 12 percent of
citizens who lack a driver's license. So we proposed that
states finally assume the responsibility to seek out citizens
to both register voters and provide them with free IDs that
meet federal standards. States should open new offices, use
social service agencies and deploy mobile offices to register
voters. By connecting IDs to registration, voting
participation will be expanded.
Our proposal would allow voters without photo IDs to be
able to cast provisional ballots until 2010. Their votes
would count if the signature they placed on the ballot
matched the one on file, just as the case for absentee
ballots. After that, people who forgot their photo IDs could
cast provisional votes that would be counted if they returned
with their IDs within 48 hours. Some have suggested we use a
signature match for provisional ballots

[[Page S5054]]

after 2010, but we think citizens would prefer to get a free
photo ID before then.
In arguing against voter ID requirements, some critics have
overlooked the larger benefit of government-issued IDs for
the poor and minorities. When he spoke to the commission,
Andrew Young, the former mayor of Atlanta, supported the free
photo ID as away to empower minorities, who are often charged
exorbitant fees for cashing checks because they lack proper
identification. In a post-9/11 world, photo IDs are required
to get on a plane or into a skyscraper.
We hope that honest disagreements about a photo ID will not
deflect attention from the urgency of fixing our electoral
system. While some members of Congress may prefer to block
any changes or stand behind their particular proposals rather
than support comprehensive reforms, we hope that in the end
they will work to find common ground. The American people
want the system fixed before the next election, and that will
require a comprehensive approach with a bipartisan voice in
favor of reform.
Jimmy Carter was the 39th president. James A. Baker III was
secretary of state in the George H. W. Bush administration.

Mr. McCONNELL. What is the remaining time?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 10 minutes 15 seconds; the
minority has 25 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I retain the remainder of my time, and I reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We have 25 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. President, last night I offered an amendment dealing with the
enforcement of safety provisions to make sure those American workers
who work here, and the guest workers, are going to be in safe
conditions, that they are going to be safe and secure, that we are
going to have the safest workforce possible. And all I heard on the
other side is: We can't do this because we haven't had any hearings.
This is an important issue, an important question, and vital, but we
can't possibly consider this as a measure that is only tangentially
relevant to the immigration issue. I suggest what was sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander. This is a very important issue that
deserves consideration.
We have 25 minutes on this side to try and deal with this issue.
Obviously, that is inadequate.
I remember 1964. My first amendment in the Senate was in opposition
to the poll tax. I lost that vote, 52 to 48. Eventually, we eliminated
the poll tax. But we went through to the 1964-1965 Voting Rights Act,
and we eliminated not only the poll tax but the literacy test.
Why were those tests put in place? They were put in place to make
sure our voting was going to be safe and secure and that we were only
going to have people voting who deserved to vote. This is a way to keep
our voting clear and to make sure that we are going to preserve the
sanctity of the voting box.
So we had those measures, but as we know, they were struck down. Why
were they struck down? I will not take the time here, but fundamentally
and basically they were unconstitutional.
Now the Senator suggests: Let's go there and put in a new process.
That sounds very good. The poll tax sounded very good when it was
initially offered. So did the literacy test. Now we have a new idea
that is going to be offered. The first question we have to ask
ourselves is, Is there a problem?
We have heard anecdotal comments from the Senator from Kentucky--not
studies, not reviews, but anecdotal studies--about whether there was
real fraud out there. Is this a problem in the United States of
America? There has not been any evidence that this is the result of
hearings. We have not had any hearings.
The study of the 2002 and 2004 Ohio elections found there were 9
million votes cast and 4 were found to be fraudulent according to the
League of Women Voters of Ohio; 4 votes found to be fraudulent
according to the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the most comprehensive
study that has been done recently in terms of elections.
The Secretary of State of Georgia stated she was not aware of a
single case or complaint of a voter impersonating another voter at the
polls in almost a decade. That was sworn testimony of the Secretary of
Georgia. She was much more concerned about absentee ballots than the
question of fraud.
A 12-State study by Demos, a nonprofit organization, not a Democrat
or Republican organization, concluded election fraud was very rare.
They found no evidence suggesting fraud, other than a minor problem.
That is the best information we have. We have not had any hearings. All
of the relevant studies indicated that is the situation. So we have a
solution where there really isn't a problem.
The Senator from Kentucky says he is basically following the
recommendations of the Carter-Baker commission of some time ago. That
is not exactly the case. In the Carter-Baker proposal they have a
number of recommendations on implementation. First of all, they say it
should not be implemented until January 2010. This is to be implemented
in May of 2008, the middle of the Presidential primaries.
Why did the Carter-Baker commission say 2010? They said it because
the States are not prepared to deal with it prior to that time. What is
the date of the Senator from Kentucky? What date do they select? May
2008, in the middle of the Presidential primaries, for 110 million
Americans who vote, to drop this in on the States?
This is unworkable. The denial of one of the most sacred rights of an
American citizen, the right to vote, is going to be heavily compromised
if we accept this.
A second proposal of the Carter-Baker commission indicates it has to
be free identifications. This is the language in the McConnell
amendment:

. . . the Election Assistance Commission shall make
payments to States to--[what, make them all free? No]--
promote the issuance to registered voters of free. . . .

It does not even guarantee the funding. It was guaranteed in the
Carter proposal.
Finally, it also indicated that, should there be States that refuse
or fail to have a process, there is a backup system to ensure the right
to vote. That does not exist in this particular proposal.

So this does not even meet the bare requirements of the Carter-Baker
proposal. It does not even meet those bare requirements. It accelerates
the timing, which was deferred, for very good reasons, after a
prolonged discussion during the debate.
Finally, and most importantly, when the courts recently considered a
very similar proposal to the one we have here, which was a similar
voter identification proposal, in Common Cause v. Georgia--which is a
2005 case; virtually an identical kind of a proposal to that which is
offered by the Senator from Kentucky--it pointed out that it violated
the equal protection clause because it unduly burdened the fundamental
right to vote for several classes of citizens.
Sure, you need a photo identification to get a video because the
video shop wants the video back. Sure, you have a photo identification
to rent a car because the people who rent the cars want the car back,
and for insurance purposes. Sure, you have a video when you buy a gun,
for the obvious reasons. But as to the right to vote, we want to
encourage people to vote. This is what the circuit court said, with
virtually an identical proposal that came before them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take another 2 minutes.
That is what the circuit court said in response to a similar proposal
which became before them.
The amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause because it unduly
burdens the fundamental right to vote for several classes of people.
The court in the Georgia case found the voter identification
requirement ``most likely to prevent Georgia's elderly, poor, and
African-American voters from voting.''
The amendment violates the 24th amendment because it amounts to an
unconstitutional poll tax. The Supreme Court found that the 24th
amendment not only bars poll taxes, but also bars their
``equivalent[s]'' and found this kind of identification was an
equivalent.
The McConnell amendment requires that the Election Assistance
Commission make funds available only ``to promote the issuance of free
photo identification,'' but does not mandate and provide that.
This is an unwise amendment on an immigration bill.

[[Page S5055]]

Mr. President, I see our friend from Connecticut, who was the floor
manager of the earlier legislation, and my colleague from Illinois, who
also wishes to speak.
The most sacred right guaranteed in our democracy is the right to
vote. We want to promote people voting. We want our elections safe and
secure. But this issue deserves more than 45 minutes on the floor of
the U.S. Senate on an immigration bill.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for up
to 5 minutes.
Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Let me echo Senator Kennedy's strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
There is no more fundamental right accorded to United States citizens
by the Constitution than the right to vote. And the unimpeded exercise
of this right is essential to the functioning of our democracy.
Unfortunately, history has not been kind to certain citizens in their
ability to exercise this right.
For a large part of our Nation's history, racial minorities have been
prevented from voting because of barriers such as literacy tests, poll
taxes, and property requirements.
We have come a long way in the last 40 years. That was clear just a
few weeks ago when Democrats and Republicans, Members of the Senate and
the House, stood on the Capitol steps to announce the introduction of a
bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. That rare and refreshing
display of bipartisanship reflects our collective belief that more
needs to be done to remove barriers to voting.
Right now, the Senate is finishing a historic debate about
immigration reform. It has been a difficult discussion, occasionally
contentious. And it has required bipartisan cooperation. After several
weeks, and many, many amendments, we are less than an hour away from
voting for cloture. Considering our progress and the delicate balance
we are trying to maintain, this amendment could not come at a worse
time.
Let's be clear, this is a national voter identification law. This is
a national voter identification law that breaks the careful compromise
struck by a 50-50 Senate 4 years ago. It would be the most restrictive
voter identification law ever enacted, one that could quite literally
result in millions of disenfranchised voters and utter chaos at the
State level.
Now, I recognize there is a certain simplistic appeal to this
amendment. After all, why shouldn't we require people to present a
photo identification card when they vote? Don't we want to ensure that
voters are actually who they claim to be? And shouldn't we at least
make sure that noncitizens are not casting ballots and changing the
outcomes of elections?
There are two problems with that argument. First, there has been no
showing that there is any significant problem of voter fraud in the 50
States. There certainly is no showing that noncitizens are rushing to
try to vote. This is a solution in search of a problem. The second
problem is that historically disenfranchised groups--minorities, the
poor, the elderly and the disabled--are most affected by photo
identification laws.
Let me give you a few statistics. Overall, 12 percent of voting-age
Americans do not have a driver's license, most of whom are minorities,
new U.S. citizens, the indigent, the elderly, or the disabled. AARP
reports that 3.6 million disabled Americans have no driver's license.
A recent study in Wisconsin found that white adults were twice as
likely to have driver's licenses as African Americans over 18. A study
in Louisiana found that African Americans were four to five times less
likely to have photo identification than white residents.
Now, why won't poor people be able to get photo identifications or
REAL IDs? It is simple: Because it costs money. You need a birth
certificate, passport, or proof of naturalization, and that can cost up
to $85. Then you need to go to a State office to apply for a card. That
requires time off work, possibly a long trip on public transportation,
assuming there is even an office near you.
Imagine if you only vote once every 2 or 4 years, it is not very
likely you are going to take time off work, take a bus to a far-off
government office to get an identification, and pay $85 just so you can
vote. That is not something most folks are going to be able to do.
The fact of the matter is, this is an idea that has been batted
around, not with respect to immigration, but with respect to generally
attempting to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the
country. This is not the time to do it.
The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform found that in
the 2002 and 2004 elections, fraudulent votes made up .00003 percent of
the votes cast. That is a lot of zeros. So let me say it a different
way: Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during those
elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that in some context, you are
statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a
fraudulent vote in a Federal election.
This is not the appropriate time to be debating this kind of
amendment. We have a lot of serious issues to address with respect to
immigration. I ask all my colleagues to reject this amendment so we can
move on to the important business at hand.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do we have 11 minutes? Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 6 minutes.
The Senator from Connecticut has 5.
Mr. KENNEDY. So 6 and 5 is 11.
I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am glad our math is good here this
morning. I appreciate that early in the day.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his
leadership on this bill and his eloquence this morning on this
amendment being offered by our colleague from Kentucky. I commend our
colleague from Illinois as well for his eloquent comments about the
problems associated with this amendment.
Very bluntly and very squarely, if the McConnell amendment is adopted
in the next 20 minutes, then roughly 142 million people in our country
would have to have a new--a new--photo identification, one which does
not exist yet, that complies with REAL ID by the elections in 2008.
Otherwise, you could not vote a regular ballot in the 2008 Federal
elections without this new identification.
My colleague cites polling data that indicates that 62 percent of
Americans believe a photo identification may be necessary. They were
not asked whether or not they knew they would have to have a completely
new identification, which I presume they would have to pay for, and if
they don't have it with them by election day 2008, then they would not
be allowed to show up and vote a regular ballot in person for
presidential and other federal candidates across the country. So 142
million people could be disenfranchised by this amendment if we end up
requiring a new photo identification.
Now, it has been said over and over again this morning--it needs to
be repeated--it was Patrick Henry who said, more than 200 years ago:
The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. It
is the essential right. The idea we would somehow exclude people who
are elderly or disabled or people who, for a variety of reasons, do not
have or cannot get this new photo identification from having access to
the ballot because of some anecdotal evidence that people may show up
and pretend to be someone else--because that is the only set of
circumstances we are talking about here.
Absentee ballots present a unique set of problems. This does not
cover the absentee ballots. It does not cover the situations where
people mail in votes under a different set of circumstances in some of
our States. This amendment only addresses the situation in which
someone shows up to vote claiming to be someone else, when, in fact,
they are a different individual.
So I would hope our colleagues, recognizing the tremendous problems
this

[[Page S5056]]

amendment could afford us, would reject this amendment. We had this
debate 4 years ago when we adopted the Help America Vote Act. What we
said is, if you register by mail, then the first time you show up at
the polls, you need some form of identification, and, in fact, a photo
identification may be one of them. But it is not the only thing that
can be a source of identification for first time voters who registered
by mail. There may be a variety of other criteria that States would
adopt.
In a sense, we are going to nationalize and Federalize every single
State by this approach. States, as we have historically said, determine
the specific requirements of registration. Some States require very
little. That is their judgment. Other States require more. We stayed
away from dictating to States exactly what they had to do in the Help
America Vote Act. If you adopt this amendment, why not consider an
amendment for national registration? Many advocate that.
I think it may be a sound idea to move to a national registration.
The HAVA bill moved from local registration to Statewide registration,
which is a major step forward. But here we are saying you are going to
have to have one size fits all, one identification, and we do not even
know what it looks like yet--it does not exist at all--which has to
comply with the REAL ID requirements between now and election day 2008.
And if you do not have it, then you could be refused a regular ballot
and forced to vote provisionally.
Obviously, access to the ballot has been critical for us. We have
balanced that right to try to ensure, to the extent possible, that the
ballot is going to be secure. But if we err on any side of that
equation, it has been historically to err on the side of access to make
sure people are encouraged to participate. Thus, the reason, in the
HAVA bill, why we have provisional balloting--for the first time that
will exist--it is so that if you show up and there is a contest as to
whether or not you have the right to vote, the law says you should be
able to cast a provisional ballot, so that after the election, after
the ballots are cast, or the polling places are closed, if, in fact,
you, the voter, were right, the ballot counts. If you were wrong,
obviously, it does not, but you have a right to find out why it was not
counted in order to be able to correct the problem.
Provisional ballots are making it possible for people to vote who
believe they have the right to vote, to cast a ballot. That right has
not existed in the past. That is the direction we are heading in as a
country, not going backwards, not retreating, and not creating
obstacles and hurdles to cast those ballots. That, unfortunately, would
be the outcome if the McConnell amendment were adopted.
Every major civil rights organization, every leading organization
defending the disabled and the elderly are opposed to this amendment
and are very worried about what it could mean if it were adopted.
So I urge my colleagues, at this early hour in the morning: Please,
when you come here, this is not the place for this amendment on an
immigration bill. There is a time and opportunity to go back and
revisit election issues. I hope we do that at some point. But to
cherry-pick a provision that would set us back decades would be a
mistake.

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental civil rights
accorded to citizens by the United States Constitution. The right of
all Americans to vote, and to have their vote counted, is the
cornerstone of our democratic form of government. It is at the heart of
all we do here, and precedes other rights because it is the means by
which we choose those who represent us. The free and unencumbered
exercise of the franchise is a core pre-condition of a government that
is of the people, by the people and for the people.
This amendment would jeopardize efforts to balance the traditional
requirements of ballot access and ballot security; impinge
unnecessarily on those fundamental rights; create a disparate impact on
whole classes of our citizens; and effectively impose a new form of
poll tax on millions of American voters.
Public confidence in the integrity of final election results is
likely to be judged to a large extent by how well our laws balance the
twin goals of expanded ballot access and enhanced ballot security, a
fact that should remain foremost in our minds as we move forward on
this debate in the coming days.
This amendment would dangerously undermine that delicate balance.
Where difficult questions on these issues arise, my bias has always
been to err on the side of expanded ballot access for all eligible
voters. That should be no surprise to anyone who has been in the Senate
or watched its deliberations in recent years, including the debate
three years ago on the Help America Vote Act.
We must do all we can to ensure that the fundamental right to vote
can be exercised freely, even while taking appropriate precautions to
prevent usually isolated acts of individual voter fraud.
The McConnell amendment before us would effectively mandate a one-
size-fits-all voter identification solution for every voter, every
State, and the territories regardless of their circumstances, resources
or preferences.
Every American citizen who is eligible to vote today in a Federal
election would be effectively rendered ineligible to vote in the
Presidential election of November 2008 by this amendment. Under this
amendment, even those Americans who were born in this country and have
been voting in every election since they turned 18 would be unable to
vote in the November 2008 Presidential election, unless they first
obtain a new REAL ID/citizenship card, or its equivalent.
This is a sea change in the rules of access for voters to every
polling place in the United States. Under this amendment, everyone,
every voter would have to present a REAL ID/citizenship card to vote a
regular ballot at the polls.
My colleagues may remember the stories of dogs and dead people voting
in the 2000 Presidential election. To respond to individual fraud in
election registration, Congress adopted a measured, two-part response:
a new identification for first time voters who register by mail and a
computerized statewide voter registration system. Under HAVA, the
States must have the computerized voter registration system in place
this year. And the States are working diligently to accomplish that.
But this amendment goes much farther and without any justification,
without any evidence of widespread fraud, effectively disenfranchises
every single American voter who is eligible to vote in Federal
elections today.
The only fraud that this amendment purports to address is the
situation in which a voter appears, in person, at the polls and claims
to be someone else. During all of the hearings that the Rules Committee
held on election reform following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential
elections, including the hearings held by my distinguished friend, the
author of this amendment--who was Chairman of the Rules Committee at
the time--not one witness testified to widespread fraud by individuals
appearing in person at the polls claiming to be someone they were not.
And Congress isn't the only body which failed to find more than
anecdotal evidence of such fraud.
Just last year, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal
Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former
Secretary of State James Baker, also failed to find the fraud that this
amendment is designed to address.
Let me quote from the September 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report:

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections
or of multiple voting, but both could occur, and it could
affect the outcome of a close election.

So even though neither Congress, nor the esteemed private Carter-
Baker Commission, could find the type of fraud that would justify a
national citizenship voting card, this amendment would literally
jeopardize the voting rights of every single American citizen in order
to combat this phantom fraud.
And yet the fraud that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission was
concerned about--that of fraud committed through absentee balloting--is
not even addressed by this amendment.
Again, quoting from the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report:

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential
voter fraud.

But does this amendment apply to absentee balloting or vote by mail?

[[Page S5057]]

No--it applies only to those American citizens who make the effort to
get up on election day and go to the polls, stand in line--sometimes
for hours--and publicly present themselves to vote.
This amendment would change the law to effectively federalize what
has always been a State and local determination. It would establish a
one-size-fits-all Federal REAL ID/citizenship card, based on a law that
has itself not been fully implemented.
It mandates that every State implement a system which uses these new
cards by May 11, 2008--less than two years from now, and during a
period when we will almost certainly face a hotly contested
Presidential election. If this amendment is adopted, the resulting
chaos will undermine the results of the 2008 Presidential election to
the point that not even the Supreme Court will be able to determine the
winner.
No one in this Chamber can say with any certainty how this is going
to work, if at all, or that it will not further disenfranchise
vulnerable voters. In my view, it almost certainly will.
This is not the time, nor the vehicle, to be debating election
reforms that will most assuredly disenfranchise American citizens,
particularly the poor, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled.
These voting issues are important, and as I have said, I would
welcome a full and comprehensive debate on how to expand access for all
Americans to enable them to more effectively and easily register and
vote in Federal elections, while preserving ballot security.
I have introduced legislation on that issue in this Congress, and
would like to have it considered soon. We could and should have a full
debate on how best to balance the twin goals of expanded ballot access
with appropriate ballot security. But now is neither the time nor the
place for that debate. This is not what we should be doing on this
bill.
I am also concerned about amending HAVA now. I intend to oppose any
amendment that would open up the Help America Vote Act before the law
is fully implemented in time for the fall Federal elections in 2006.
We have already had over 10 primaries and we are less than six months
prior to the general mid-term elections. States are working hard to
come into compliance with the new requirements of accessible voting
systems and statewide voter registration list. Voters are working hard
to understand the new circumstances and new technologies they will be
facing in the 2006 elections, and are being educated on how to exercise
their rights to ensure an equal opportunity for all to cast a vote and
have that vote counted.
Many of us know that no single law is the comprehensive and perfect
fix for a number of problems which have existed for decades in our
decentralized election system. HAVA was a landmark law, the next step
in a march which included the Voting Rights Act, NVRA legislation, and
other measures. HAVA made appropriate changes to the law in the wake of
the 2000 election debacle, and did so with broad, bipartisan support.
And I am sure there are a host of improvements that could be made to
HAVA. I have some in mind myself. But HAVA deserves to be fully and
effectively implemented before taking the next steps toward broader
reform.
If this Senate wishes to debate election reforms, I am prepared to do
so for days to come. There are numerous reforms which the Senate should
be considering.
If we are prepared to impose a universal voting ID on Americans, then
we should also establish a universal Federal registration requirement
for voting. If we are going to preempt the rights of States to
determine who is eligible to vote in a Federal election, then perhaps
we should preempt the rights of States to decide whether or not they
will count that Federal ballot.
If we are going to federalize identification requirements for voting,
then perhaps we should federalize eligibility requirements for absentee
voting.
If we want to ensure that the vote of every eligible American citizen
has equal weight, then maybe we should federalize the administration of
Federal elections.
But that is not the approach that my colleague, Senator McConnell,
and I took in developing the bipartisan Help America Vote Act. And that
is not the approach that the Congress and President Bush took in
passing and signing into law the Help America Vote Act. And nothing in
the intervening 3\1/2\ years has changed to suggest that either HAVA
isn't working, or that the American people support the kind of sea
change that this amendment creates.
HAVA was a carefully crafted balance between the twin goals of making
it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. This amendment
destroys the necessary balance between ballot access and ballot
security--a balance that is key to ensuring the integrity of Federal
election results.
If we are equally concerned about both access to the ballot box and
potential fraud, then we should not enact an amendment which, by
operation of its provisions, will potentially prevent every single
eligible citizen from voting in the 2008 Presidential election.
And if we are truly concerned about potential voting fraud, then we
should give the States the opportunity to complete implementation of
HAVA and allow that new law to work before we enact a new requirement
which on its face will disrupt the delicate balance HAVA created.
HAVA needs to be allowed to work. And for that reason, a broad
Coalition of civil rights and voting rights groups, and organizations
representing State and local governments, oppose this amendment.
This Coalition letter makes clear that in their view, the six-month
period prior to Federal mid-term elections, as we are implementing
HAVA, is not the time, nor is the immigration bill the vehicle, to
attempt to make highly controversial changes to the way voters qualify
for access to the ballot box. Specifically, the Coalition letter
rejects this amendment because, and I quote:

The amendment raises voter identification issues without
deliberation, further complicates unrealistic implementation
deadlines for the REAL ID Act, creates a mandate for an
identification tool not yet available, and undermines the
continuing efforts of the States to enfranchise every
eligible voter through the Help America Vote Act of 2002,
``HAVA''.

Mr. President, any amendment which attempts to impose additional new
Federal election reforms must include proposals which balance the
competing goals of expanded ballot access and ballot security. My hope
is that the Senate will make clear that effective election reform is
not just about one of those aspects, but must address both. Some in
this body have maintained a continuing misplaced emphasis on security
at the expense of access. It is the duty of this Congress to ensure
that both goals are protected and preserved for all Americans.
I urge rejection of the McConnell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 10 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, elections are the heart of democracy. They
are the instrument for the people to choose leaders and hold them
accountable. At the same time, elections are a core public function
upon which all other Government responsibilities depend. If elections
are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk. Americans are
losing confidence in the fairness of elections. We need to address the
problems of our electoral system. Those are the words of the cochairmen
of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, former Secretary of State
Jim Baker and former President Jimmy Carter.
Most people know Jimmy Carter, the former President. I happen to know
him as a Governor. We served together. We also know him as a lion in
the world of free and fair elections. He has traveled the globe, faced
down dictators, watched over petty potentates, all in the name of free
and fair elections. He believes we need a real voter identification.
We took steps in the HAVA to make sure that somebody who had a right
to

[[Page S5058]]

vote was not unjustifiably denied that right by being refused an
opportunity to vote at the polls. That is why we supported it, and it
was a great idea to have a provisional ballot. But you can lose your
vote just as surely and as effectively when somebody who is not
eligible to vote casts an illegal vote that cancels your vote. That is
a silent and more insidious way of losing your vote--if your vote is
canceled by an illegal vote cast by someone who is not eligible to vote
or somebody who has voted more than once.
My colleague from Illinois has raised the question of why we need it
because there isn't any vote fraud. That is a monumental announcement
from somebody who comes from a State that has Chicago in it, but I
think that St. Louis has outdone Chicago. In the 2000 election we had
people filing to keep the polls open because they had been denied the
right to vote. It turns out when they looked into the situation, the
first plaintiff had trouble voting because he had been dead for 14
months.
They said: The real plaintiff is a guy whose name is very similar.
That plaintiff had voted earlier that afternoon in St. Louis County.
But when we started looking into voter fraud in St. Louis, news reports
were rife with fraudulent voting. Thousands of votes were apparently
cast by dead people, or with fraudulent addresses, large numbers voting
from vacant lots, dozens of people voting from a single-family
residence. Voter fraud was so bad in the elections that even a very
liberal newspaper in St. Louis carried a cartoon showing St. Louis
voting.
Here is the voting booth. Here is a casket where people were trying
to vote in St. Louis. You can accept voting in these two places, but
the coffin is not a place you expect people to cast a vote from.
How would a picture identification requirement help the situation? As
you can imagine, a picture of a dead person would certainly be
noticeable. Assuming the dead person was not the one actually voting,
there would be a mismatch between the voter and the photo. I don't
imagine that opponents of this amendment actually are fighting to have
dead people vote, but that is the result when they block amendments
such as this.
Another result is seen in this registration card. I suppose I
shouldn't keep it up too long because somebody will want to copy the
address and send Ritzy Mekler a campaign solicitation. Why does Ritzy's
registration matter? How would a picture identification address her
situation? A picture identification of Ritzy Mekler would instantly
have indicated the problem because Ritzy is a 13-year-old cocker
spaniel.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield another minute to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. These are not isolated instances. The Missouri Secretary of
State conducted an investigation after the 2000 vote and found
significant voter fraud. Subsequent criminal proceedings confirmed that
fraud is still a problem and must be monitored in Missouri. A 2004
report by Missouri's State auditor found over 24,000 voters registered
who were either double registered, deceased, or felons. These are
problems we want to clean up, and a voter identification requirement
will help us.
The amendment we have before us requires voters to present
identification for the 2008 election. It will be the same requirement
that citizens face every time they take the train or fly on an
airplane. It will be the same requirement they face when cashing a
check.
For those concerned that some voters need help getting a picture ID
so they can vote, I agree 100 percent. This amendment will also provide
new grant funds to States so that everyone who needs an ID can get one
free of charge.
There should be no barriers to voting in this country. There also
should be no barriers to a free and fair election.
We will not be alone in this requirement. Voters in nearly 100
democracies use a photo identification card. Maybe that international
experience is what helped convince President Carter that this was an
important idea. So important that the Commission on Federal Election
Reform he cochaired included this recommendation.
That commission's executive director note that polls indicated that
many Americans lack confidence in the electoral system, but that the
political parties are so divided that serious electoral reform is
unlikely without a strong bipartisan voice.
That is why President Carter joined in the election reform effort,
and that is why I urge my colleagues to join this effort--so that we
can restore faith in our elections, so that we know that citizens who
have the right to vote are voting, so that even new citizens who were
immigrants have a free and fair election to vote in. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has proposed an amendment
to the immigration bill to modify the Help America Vote Act of 2002,
``HAVA'', by mandating that all States require government-issued photo
identification from voters at polling places. Senator McConnell's
amendment raises serious concerns by putting the policy ahead of the
groundwork necessary to determine how and whether such a step should be
taken.
I do not see his justification for attaching that proposal to this
measure or to get ahead of the implementation of the REAL ID Act or
recommendations by the Carter-Baker commission. The REAL ID Act has
given us a great many problems, and there are a number of aspects that
need to be adjusted or fixed. If the Rules Committee wants to take a
comprehensive look at it and if Senator Dodd supports that effort, I
will be very interested in what they have to say. I do not think it is
wise to expand the purpose of the REAL ID Act without due deliberation.
This is not the right time, nor is this bill the right place, to make
hasty changes to Federal voting laws without the careful consideration
such modifications deserve.
The Senate is currently considering the reauthorization of the Voting
Rights Act and is doing so in a deliberate, considered, and bipartisan
manner. We should take the same approach to any enhancement of HAVA,
which should include the considered input from the States, their
election officials and citizens. HAVA expressly provides for State
involvement in carrying out the improvements in the law. Senator
McConnell's amendment would seem to undermine HAVA by preventing the
States from performing their legislative role in devising voter
identification procedures. The States play an integral role in carrying
out the improvements in the Act, and we should let them perform this
function without the undue interference.
Any proposal for federally standardized identification cards should
be subject to hearings and debate beyond the constrained environment of
the amendment process for the immigration bill. Before we vote on
proposals for the use of a national identification card in our voting
system, we must undertake a national debate about the technology,
implementation, and the implications for the privacy rights of American
citizens and the risks that required forms of voter identification have
sometimes been used to intimidate minority voters or suppress their
participation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and yield the
last 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
This is an extraordinarily important amendment. It deserves the full
consideration of this body because, as has been pointed out, it reaches
the essence of our democracy, which is the right to vote. If we are
going to take action on an immigration bill that is going to have an
impact on 120 million Americans in the 2008 Presidential campaign, we
should not be doing that in the 50 minutes before a cloture vote on the
immigration bill.
I have pointed to recent courts of appeals decisions on measures that
are virtually identical to this where they have struck it down because
they believed that it was going to effectively discriminate against
large groups of Americans, primarily the poor, the disabled, and the
elderly. The court of appeals made that judgment in the Georgia ID
case, not those on this side of the aisle. It was the court's decision.
It seems to me, having so clear a judicial determination on this
measure and such a wide separation between what this measure is and
what was recommended by the Carter-Baker commission, it is not wise for
the Senate to

[[Page S5059]]

adopt what would be a major rewriting of our national election laws in
the 50 minutes prior to a cloture vote on an immigration bill. It is
unwise for the Senate. If we are not successful in defeating it, this
potentially could have a most dramatic adverse impact in terms of
American voting in the next national election. I don't think that is
what this legislation is really about. I don't think we should take
that step. If we are going to debate this issue, we ought to have the
opportunity to have hearings and a review to make a judgment. Now is
not the time, and this is not the legislation.
I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me again quote from the Carter-Baker
commission report regarding the very proposal that is before us:

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections
or of multiple voting. It could occur and it could affect the
outcome, but there is no evidence that exists today.

What is true is if this amendment were adopted, there are clearly
people who will show up to vote who will not be allowed to vote a
regular ballot because, under this legislation, in May of 2008, if you
don't have this nonexisting voter card, you will not be allowed to
vote. I don't care how long you have lived here, how many elections you
have participated in, this is a national requirement that will exist in
May of 2008. And out of 142 million people who have a right to vote,
there is likely to be a substantial number who would be
disenfranchised. This is the wrong direction to be going based on an
anecdotal piece of evidence about people who show up to vote and claim
to be someone else.
And that is why the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations on voter
ID included a number of other reforms to provide a failsafe against
this result. These additional components of the voter ID recommendation
include allowing affidavit voting, with signature verification, until
2010. Thereafter, the Commission recommends that voters who did not
have their ID could return to the appropriate election official within
48 hours of voting and provide the ID. But those failsafe provisions
are not included in the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
Absentee balloting is an area that could take some work when it comes
to addressing fraud, but even the Carter-Baker Commission concluded
that fraud could not be documented in the case of in-person voting. To
take this immigration legislation we have worked months to craft, and
include the consideration of this ID proposal--and we rejected it only
4 years ago--to open up just this part of the Help America Vote Act,
disregarding everything else, is the wrong step to take on an
immigration bill.
Again, I emphasize, every civil rights organization, every group
representing the elderly and disabled is urging colleagues to reject
this amendment. This would be a major step backwards when it comes to
election reform.
At the proper time I will offer a motion to table. My colleague from
Kentucky wants to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 4 minutes 12
seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is a great debate going on in the
Democratic Party on this issue. We have Jimmy Carter and Andrew Young
on one side and, from the comments I have heard this morning, I gather
colleagues from Massachusetts and Connecticut and Illinois on the
other. It is an interesting debate among Democrats as to whether we
should have this important ballot integrity measure.
My good friend from Massachusetts mentioned Georgia. They have photo
identification in Georgia. That might explain why there were no
reported cases by the Georgia Secretary of State of a problem. My good
friend from Illinois declared that voter fraud was not a problem in
America. I am sure he is familiar with Cook County in his own State, as
Senator Bond has discussed regarding St. Louis and his State.
Let me take anyone who may doubt to eastern Kentucky. Voter fraud is
a significant problem in America. And with a lot of new people coming
in, many of them illegal, it raises the stakes to protect the integrity
of the vote in this country. Every time somebody votes illegally, they
diminish the quality and the significance of the votes of American
citizens. This is not just Republicans making this point. This is some
of the most significant Democrats in America today. President Jimmy
Carter and former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young believe that photo
identification is absolutely critical.
With regard to the suggestion that there have been no hearings, we
had numerous hearings in the Committee on Rules prior to passage of
HAVA in 2002. The Baker-Carter commission had 21 members, 11 staff
members, 25 academic advisors, 24 consulted experts in the field, two
public hearings, advice from 22 witnesses, followed by three meetings
and presentations spanning the country from LA to the District of
Columbia, all of which produced a 104-page report in encapsulating 87
detailed recommendations to improve elections. There have been plenty
of hearings on this subject.
The question is, on a measure which will guarantee that the number of
illegals in America will continue to increase unless we are serious
about border security, do we care about the franchise and diminishing
the significance of the franchise of existing American citizens. We
have engaged in a good discussion this morning on what this amendment
does and does not do. It gives States the flexibility to design an
identification to be shown at the polls to protect and secure the
franchise of all U.S. citizens from ballots being cast illegally by
non-U.S. citizens. Yes, the content standards of the REAL ID are the
template but just the template.
And, last, the Federal Government will pay for any low-income
Americans who do not have a photo identification, which is exactly the
point that Andrew Young was making about how important that was for
low-income Americans to finally have a photo identification so they can
function in our society, which increasingly requires photo
identification for almost everything--check cashing, getting on a
plane, getting a fishing license, you name it, photo identification is
required. It is nonsense to suggest that somehow photo identification
for one of our most sacred rights, the right to participate at the
polls, to choose our leadership, should not be protected by a
requirement that is increasingly routine in almost all daily activities
in America today.
If you support this amendment, then that puts you in the same camp
with Jimmy Carter, James Baker, Andrew Young and 81% of legally
registered Americans who seek to preserve and protect their
Constitutionally guaranteed franchise from being disenfranchised by
vote dilution and vote fraud. Mr. President, I urge that the motion to
table, which Senator Dodd has indicated he is going to make, be
opposed.
Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
State and local coalitions and civil rights groups be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 22, 2006.
Dear Senators: We, the undersigned national organizations,
urge you to reject an amendment to be introduced by Senator
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2006. The McConnell amendment would require, by
May 11, 2008, that voters at polling places show federally
mandated photo identification, pursuant to the ``REAL ID Act
of 2005'' (P.L. 109-13), prior to casting a ballot.
The amendment raises voter identification issues without
deliberation, further complicates unrealistic implementation
deadlines for the REAL ID Act, creates a mandate for an
identification tool not yet available, and underlines the
continuing efforts of the states to enfranchise every
eligible voter through the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA).
The undersigned groups have, for several years, been part
of a coalition focused on educating Members of Congress about
the importance of fully funding the Help America Vote Act.
However, in this case, we have come together to oppose this
amendment.
Our organizations are working to implement HAVA so that
voters' rights are guaranteed, and so that states have the
flexibility needed to implement required reforms

[[Page S5060]]

to the nation's multi-jurisdictional system of election
administration.
Throughout the life of HAVA, both the House and the Senate
have sought input from all of the organizations in this
coalition and have worked hard to balance the needs and
interests of all parties. This amendment, however, has not
gone through any of the normal information gathering or
deliberative processes. For example: hearings have not been
held in committee; interested organizations and individuals
have not had an opportunity to comment, and election
officials have not been given the opportunity to address how
this provision would be administered.
In addition, issues like voter identification have been
highly divisive. HAVA expressly recognized the states' right
to address the voter ID question through the state
legislative process, in a manner consistent with federal and
constitutional law. The McConnell amendment would undermine
the intent of HAVA in this area. Also, with growing
uncertainty at the state level about implementing the REAL ID
program in its current form, it is irresponsible to alter and
expand the original purpose of the REAL ID's reach as
contemplated by the Congress.
For the above reasons, we urge you to reject the McConnell
amendment. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact Susan Parmis Frederick
of the National Conference of State Legislatures at (202)
624-3566, Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights at (202) 466-6058, or any of the individual
organizations listed below.
Organizations Representing State and Local Election
Officials:
Council of State Governments; National Association of
Counties; National Conference of State Legislatures; National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
Educational Fund.
Civil and Disability Rights Organizations:
AARP; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association
of People with Disabilities; American Association on Mental
Retardation; American Civil Liberties Union; American Council
of the Blind; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; Americans for Democratic
Action; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander
American Vote.
Asian Law Caucus; Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now (ACORN); Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law; Center for Civic Participation; Center for
Community Change; Common Cause; Consumer Action; Demos: A
Network for Ideas and Action; Fair Immigration Reform
Coalition; Friends Committee on National Legislation;
Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Japanese American Citizens League; Judge David L. Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights;
League of Rural Voters; League of Women Voters of the United
States; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund;
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.; National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP);
National Center for Transgender Equality; National Congress
of American Indians.
National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights
Network; National Korean American Service and Education
Consortium; People For the American Way; Project Vote;
Service Employees International Union; The American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee; The Arc of the United States;
United Auto Workers; United Cerebral Palsy; U.S. Student
Association.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the McConnell amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Sununu
Voinovich
Wyden

NAYS--49

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Cochran
Enzi
Rockefeller
The motion was rejected.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, although I share some of the concerns
of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, I voted against tabling the
McConnell amendment because I believe we need a voter identification
card to reduce voter fraud. I support an appropriate identification
card for Americans but did not support the REAL ID Act because I was
concerned it would impose an unfunded mandate on the States and that
the deadline for compliance was unattainable for most States. I still
hold those concerns, but it is clear now that the REAL ID is to become
the Federal standard. I hope the Senator from Kentucky and others will
work to address these concerns in conference--and during the
appropriations process--so that a realistic deadline can be set and
sufficient funding provided to the States so that they may comply with
this federal mandate.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate at
the present time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is a vote on the
cloture motion.
The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
cloture vote, the Senate stand in recess until 12 noon to accommodate
the joint meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel and that the time
count postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that this morning we will begin to
draw to a close the Republican filibuster against comprehensive
immigration reform. I have been encouraged that since our return to
this legislation this month, the President has spoken out in favor of
comprehensive immigration reform with an essential component being a
realistic path to earned citizenship for those who work hard, pay their
taxes, and contribute so much to our American way of life. When
Republicans filibustered against two cloture votes last month,
including one on a motion by the Republican Leader, I was disappointed.
I had hoped we would recognize the lawful, heartfelt protests of
millions against the harsh House-passed criminalization measures. While
they waved American flags, some of those fueling anti-immigrant
feelings burned flags of other countries. I hope that through this
debate we have been able to convince enough Senate Republicans to join
us in our efforts and to appreciate the contributions of immigrants to
our economy and our Nation.
This bill is not all that it should be. Yesterday we short-circuited
efforts to make it more flexible for those persecuted around the world.
This country has had a history of being welcoming to refugees and those
seeking asylum from persecution. Yesterday the Senate turned its back
on that history by refusing to allow the Secretary of State the
flexibility needed after restrictive language was added by the REAL ID
Act to our laws. I hope Senators will reconsider these issues with more
open minds and hearts and a fully understanding of the lives being
affected. Sadly too, many were spooked by false arguments.
I have made no secret that I preferred the better outline of the
Judiciary Committee bill. The bill the Senate is now considering is a
further compromise. Debate and amendments have added some improvements
and some significant steps in the wrong direction. Besides the failures
yesterday to readjust its asylum provisions to take into account the
realities of oppressive forces in many parts of the world, I was most
disappointed that the Senate appeared to be so anti-Hispanic in its
adoption of the Inhofe English amendment. Yesterday Senator Salazar and

[[Page S5061]]

I wrote to the President following up on this provision and the
comments of the Attorney General last week and weekend. We asked
whether the President will continue to implement the language outreach
policies of President Clinton's Executive Order 13166. A prompt and
straightforward affirmative answer can go a long way toward rendering
the Inhofe English amendment a symbolic stain rather than a serious
impediment to immigrants and Americans for whom English is a second
language. I ask consent that a copy of our letter be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY, There are growing rumors that some who oppose
comprehensive immigration reform will not be deterred by a
supermajority vote for cloture and are considering various procedural
points of order to delay or derail Senate action in the Nation's
interest. I hope they will reconsider and join with us in a
constructive way to enact comprehensive immigration reform. We do not
need more divisiveness and derision. This bill is not the bill I would
have designed. It includes many features I do not support and fails to
include many that I do. Nonetheless, I will support cloture and will
continue to work to enact bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2006.
Hon. George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: Last week over my objection the Senate
adopted an amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill
that seeks to place restrictions on the Government and its
communications in languages other than English. I was
extremely disappointed that your Administration did not speak
out against the divisive amendment and help us work to defeat
it.
Attorney General Gonzales said after the fact that you have
``never been supportive of English only or English as the
official language.'' The Attorney General indicated over the
weekend that his reading of the Inhofe amendment ``would not
have an effect on any existing rights, currently provided
under federal law.'' I note that you continue to use Spanish
on the official White House website, indeed you include a
translation into Spanish of the radio address you gave last
Saturday on immigration.
I write to ask whether you intend to continue to adhere to
Executive Order 13166 if the Inhofe amendment is enacted into
law. This Executive Order was adopted by President Clinton in
August 2000 to improve access to federal programs and
activities. In 2002, your Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Right reaffirmed support for the Executive Order and
indicated that your ``Administration does not plan to repeal
Executive Order 13166.'' What would be the effect, if any, on
Executive Order 13166 and its implementation if the Inhofe
language adopted by the Senate were to become law?
Respectfully,
Patrick Leahy,
Senator.
Ken Salazar,
Senator.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant 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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
414, S. 2611: a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
William H. Frist, Arlen Specter, Larry Craig, Mel
Martinez, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, John Warner, Peter
Domenici, George V. Voinovich, Ted Stevens, Craig
Thomas, Thad Cochran, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Norm
Coleman, Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 73, nays 25, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--25

Allard
Allen
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Grassley
Inhofe
Isakson
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter

NOT VOTING--2

Enzi
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). On this vote, the yeas are 73,
the nays are 25. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I now be
recognized to use my leader time and following my comments the Senate
recess under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we
will be having the joint session shortly, after which, with cloture
successfully invoked, we will begin the 30 hours of debate on the
immigration bill. I am pleased with the outcome of the vote that we
just took. We are on a glidepath to complete the immigration bill, a
comprehensive bill. Still, we will have the opportunity to have a
number of amendments. In fact, there are a lot of amendments to be
considered over the course of the day.

____________________