[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 26904-26910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ELECTION REFORM

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is after 6 p.m. in the evening and I 
suspect that many normal people are sitting down having dinner, 
enjoying a quiet moment with their families. I hope in fact that many 
of our colleagues are doing that since there are no longer any votes 
this evening. We are about to make an announcement, my colleague and 
friend from Kentucky, and, if he can make it, our colleague from 
Missouri, along with my friends from New York and New Jersey and others 
who have joined us in crafting an election reform compromise.
  Mr. President, the Chamber may be sparse in participation at this 
late hour and it may be after working hours for most, but may I suggest 
what we are about to introduce is ``landmark'' legislation. It will 
have been 36 years, I think, since the last time this body dealt with 
the issue of voting rights from a Federal perspective. The Voting 
Rights Act was the last major civil rights legislation dealing with the 
voting rights of the American public.
  I begin these remarks by, first of all, expressing my deep gratitude 
to my friend from Kentucky who has been my chairman on the Rules 
Committee, and is now my ranking member on the Rules Committee, for his 
efforts, and those of his staff and others over these many weeks in 
putting this proposal together which we now offer to our colleagues as 
a bipartisan compromise. Our hope is that on our return, at some early 
date--and again, we will ask leadership for advice and counsel--we 
might bring this matter before the Senate when we return to the second 
session of Congress to adopt this election reform proposal.
  Everyone is aware of what the world was like a year ago when the 
major story was not about Afghanistan and terrorism but about the 
condition of the election system in the country, particularly the 
events surrounding the Presidential race. I am not here today to talk 
about what happened. What happened last year was not an occurrence in 
one State or one election but a wake-up call for everyone about the 
deteriorating condition of our election system across the country. This 
does not happen on one night, in one State, in one election. There has 
been a lot spoken about that race, those particular events.
  We have tried with this bill to look forward and not look back as to 
how we can respond to this in a responsible way so we may live up to 
our historic obligations in this Chamber to see to it that the rights 
of all Americans--specifically, the most fundamental of rights, the 
right to vote--is protected and the votes are counted.
  Thomas Paine said very appropriately more than 200 years ago that

[[Page 26905]]

the right to vote is ``the primary right by which other rights are 
protected.''
  It is about as basic a statement and basic a right as we can 
identify.
  The very credibility of every other action we take as a people, not 
to mention as a Congress, but as a people, in this Chamber and 
elsewhere, depends upon the American people's belief in the integrity 
of the election system which puts everyone in these seats as well as 
the seats occupied in every office, from the lowest political body in 
the country to the most exalted in the Presidency of the United States.
  This bipartisan compromise we introduce today is not a condemnation 
of the past at all but rather a reflection of the promise of the 
future. The problems faced by voters across the Nation last November 
served, as I said a moment ago, as a wake-up call that our system of 
Federal elections was in serious need of reform and help. That is what 
we tried to do with this bill.
  This is landmark legislation. Our task is to provide the necessary 
Federal leadership and resources to assist State and local officials 
without in any way usurping their historic responsibility to administer 
Federal elections. This bipartisan compromise reflects the necessary 
balance between the Federal interests in assuring the integrity of 
Federal elections and the authority of State and local officials to 
determine the best means by which to conduct those very elections.
  I am very grateful to my colleagues for their considerable 
contributions to this compromise. I thank the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, for his leadership, for his 
perseverance on this issue, and for his very significant contributions 
which I will identify shortly. Senator Schumer of New York, a member of 
the Rules Committee, has been active working on election reform since 
the beginning of this Congress when he became interested in the subject 
matter. My good friend from the State of Missouri, Senator Bond, early 
on recognized the need for Federal leadership in this area, 
particularly the need for Federal antifraud standards. And Senator 
Robert Torricelli, along with Senator McConnell, introduced one of the 
very first election reform measures in the Senate following the 
elections of last year. There are many others involved in the debates 
and discussion, but those are the principals who have worked the 
hardest to craft this package and to present it to this Chamber.
  I acknowledge the tireless work of my coauthor in the House, 
Congressman John Conyers, the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus. 
Throughout this long year of hearings, debate, and negotiation, he has 
been a friend and a stalwart believer in the responsibility of the 
Federal Government to ensure that every eligible American has an equal 
opportunity to vote and to have their votes counted. This compromise 
owes much to his vision and dedication to producing a bipartisan 
agreement.
  Simply put, this bipartisan compromise makes it easier for every 
eligible American to vote and to have their vote counted while ensuring 
that protections are in place to prevent fraud. As my colleague and 
friend from Missouri has said so succinctly, it ought to be easy to 
vote in America and it ought to be very hard to cheat. We think we have 
struck that balance. We do not claim perfection, but we believe we put 
together the provisions which will certainly advance the measure of 
both goals: to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat in this system 
and thus devalue the legitimate vote of those who honestly go about the 
business of counting ballots.
  The bipartisan substitute we introduce today represents a strong 
response to the first civil rights challenge, in our view, of the 21st 
century and protects the voting rights of every eligible American, 
regardless of the individual's race, ethnicity, disability, English 
proficiency, or the level of financial resources available to the 
community in which he or she lives and votes.
  This compromise preserves the fundamental philosophy of the original 
bill: The Federal Government must set minimum standards for the conduct 
of Federal elections. We have expanded the original standards to 
include minimum requirements to defer fraud and have created a new 
Election Administration Commission to assure that, going forward, 
expertise and assistance will be available to the States and localities 
to meet these minimum standards.
  Specifically, this compromise sets the following three minimum 
standards for Federal elections: Beginning in the year 2006, election 
systems must meet voting system standards providing for acceptable 
error rates, and provide notification for voters who overvote, while 
ensuring such systems are accessible to every blind and disabled 
person, and to language minorities, in a manner that ensures a private 
and independent vote.
  Second, beginning in the year 2004, States must have in place 
provisional balloting systems so that no registered voter in America 
can ever be turned away from the polls without the opportunity to cast 
their ballot.
  Third, States must establish a statewide computer voter registration 
list, and beginning next year, provide for verification for voters who 
register by mail in order to prevent fraudulent voting.
  Those are minimum standards. They do not require a one-size-fits-all 
approach to Federal elections, nor do they require that any particular 
voting system be used or discarded, for that matter. Instead, the 
minimum standards ensure that every voting system--be it electronic 
machines or paper ballots--meet certain basic standards. And we 
explicitly guarantee to every State the ability to meet these standards 
in a way that best serves the unique needs of their communities.
  Most importantly, this bipartisan compromise provides the funds to 
help States meet these requirements. For the first time, the Federal 
Government will contribute its fair share to the cost of administering 
elections for Federal office. That, in and of itself, is a historic 
change.
  The compromise authorizes a total of $3.5 billion over 5 years 
towards this end. A total of $3 billion is authorized to fund the 
minimum standards, and an additional $400 million is authorized in 
fiscal year 2002 for incentive grants to allow States to immediately 
move forward to implement election improvements, particularly in the 
antifraud area.
  There is $100 million in fiscal year 2002 provided for grants to make 
polling places physically accessible to those with disabilities. Never 
again should our fellow Americans who are blind or wheelchair bound 
have to suffer the indignities of being lifted into polling places or 
held at a curbside waiting for an accessible machine.
  This significant commitment of resources underscores the fact that 
nothing in this bill establishes an unfunded mandate on States or 
localities. To the contrary, this compromise reflects a commitment on 
the part of Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber to provide not 
only the leadership but the resources at the Federal level to ensure 
the integrity of our Federal elections.
  The Senate majority leader, Senator Daschle, has publicly committed 
to bringing S. 565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act to the 
floor early next year, at which time this bipartisan compromise will be 
offered as a substitute.
  I encourage my colleagues and the leader to make this bill one of the 
first measures--maybe the first measure--in the second session of the 
107th Congress. I can think of no better way to begin the second 
session of this historic Congress than with a bipartisan measure whose 
sole purpose is to ensure the integrity of our system of Federal 
elections and the continued vitality of our democracy.
  In the midst of all that has happened since September 11, I couldn't 
think of a better way to begin the new year than to work together in 
the Chamber to do something so critically fundamental to the success 
and soundness of our Nation.
  I thank, again, my cosponsors--Senator McConnell, specifically for 
his crafting of the commission concept, which I think is a wonderful 
idea, so we will have a permanent venue to begin

[[Page 26906]]

to deal with these issues. I am sure he will explain in greater detail 
how this commission works. But without his contribution we might have 
only ended up with a temporary commission that would have gone out of 
existence in a short period of time and allowed, once again, the system 
to deteriorate.
  There is no guarantee it will not. But with a commission in place, we 
will be in a much stronger position over the years to respond to these 
issues on a continuing basis.
  I thank Senator Bond. His contribution was to the fraud area. Without 
him coming to the table and adding that element here, we might have 
left that out. It is a serious issue, one that deserves consideration. 
He has crafted some very sound provisions in this bill which add a very 
important leg to this.
  With what I have talked about in the area of disabilities and 
provisional voting in addition to our requirement of statewide voter 
registration, these minimum standards, the broad provisions and the 
commission, we have not solved every problem at all. We are not dealing 
with every single issue that comes up. But that is one of the reasons 
why the commission can make a significant contribution.
  I want to thank specifically our staff: Tam Sommerville and Brian 
Lewis of Senator McConnell's Rule Committee staff; Julie Dammann and 
Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's office; Sharon Levin and Polly 
Trottenberg of Senator Schumer's office; Sarah Wills and Jennifer Leach 
of Senator Torricelli's office; and, in my office, Kennie Gill, 
Veronica Gillesie, and Stacy Beck, along with Shawn Maher and others, 
for helping put this together.
  I look forward, in the early part of the year, to debate and 
discussion on the subject matter.
  Again, I appreciate the wonderful work of my colleagues.
  It has been a long road but we think we have produced a very good 
piece of legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues when 
we return.
  I see the distinguished leader. I know he probably has other 
obligations. My colleague from Kentucky is here, but if the leader 
would care to make a comment on this, we welcome it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I congratulate the 
distinguished Senators from Connecticut, Kentucky, and Missouri for 
their extraordinary work in this regard. I would not have bet we could 
have gotten to this point when the effort began many, many months ago.
  There was a great deal of concern for how the last election was 
conducted--on both sides. Given the acrimony and difficulty in reaching 
even some consensus about how to approach this issue, I knew the odds 
were long. But these leaders overcame the odds. They articulated a 
vision for how this country ought to perform in every election and 
worked together, in spite of these difficulties, and have achieved a 
result that I think is extraordinary.
  I do not think the Senator from Connecticut is far off when he talks 
about this being landmark legislation. Indeed, if it can incorporate 
the opportunities for millions of voters who have been disenfranchised, 
it will be landmark legislation. If we can deal with the fraud that has 
existed on occasion in elections in the past, it will be landmark 
legislation.
  I cannot think of any higher priority. I cannot think of anything for 
which there is greater cause for excitement than the opportunity to 
address this issue in the comprehensive and very commendable way the 
Senators from Connecticut and Kentucky have.
  I commit to work with the two Senators to find a time very early in 
the next session of Congress where we can take this bill up on a 
bipartisan basis, and maybe even set the tone that could be taken into 
other legislation as well. I think that would be conducive to bringing 
about the kind of result we would like as we begin all of our work in 
the next session. I will work with them. I will commit to them that we 
will find the time in the schedule to ensure that this legislation can 
be considered early.
  I, again, congratulate both Senators for the extraordinary job they 
have done getting us to this point tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority 
leader for his kind comments about the work of the three of us here, 
and others, on this important piece of legislation. We are grateful 
that he thinks he will be able to schedule this debate sometime early 
next year.
  Rarely do you get the feeling around here that you are involved in 
something that is truly unique and has the potential, as the Senator 
from Connecticut indicated, to be a landmark piece of legislation. We 
are all working on issues that are important to somebody in the country 
all the time. But nothing is more fundamental, obviously, than the 
right to vote.
  I say at the outset to my friend from Connecticut, it has been a 
pleasure working with him. And to my colleague from Missouri, he has 
been a joy to work with.
  We had three areas about which we cared a great deal. Senator Dodd is 
a passionate advocate for the disability community and for reducing, to 
the maximum extent possible at the Federal level, any barrier to the 
ability to vote. They may not be intentional, but as a practical 
matter, barriers still exist. Senator Dodd, as we worked through these 
13 long months of negotiations, was always looking for a way to 
strengthen that part of the bill. If there is any hero in America to 
the disability community, it ought to be the Senator from Connecticut. 
On this legislation, he was constantly trying to strengthen it to the 
benefit of that community. I will be happy to testify on his behalf at 
any time that that was his focus.
  The Senator from Missouri was relentless in pursuing the notion that 
we should, to the maximum extent possible at the Federal level, make it 
difficult to cheat. It has been a tradition in some parts of the 
country, including a number of counties in my State, that death not be 
a permanent disability to continuing to exercise the franchise. I think 
that practice is disapproved of by all ethical people, but it does go 
on.
  Senator Bond was relentless in pursuing whatever avenues he could 
pursue to make it possible for this bill to deal with the business of 
cheating. We want everybody to vote, but only once. It is important 
that they still be alive when they exercise the franchise. If we were 
dedicating the various parts of the bill, the fraud part of the bill 
should be dedicated to the senior Senator from Missouri.
  I was interested in the entity, the commission, that would oversee 
this subject matter down through the years. As the distinguished 
chairman of our committee indicated, it was my feeling, and I am 
pleased Senator Dodd and Senator Bond agreed, that there be a permanent 
repository for the best, unbiased, objective evidence States and 
communities across America could go to for advice about their needs in 
conducting elections.
  Right now the typical county official, or in some States the State 
official, is besieged by a hoard of vendors who want to sell their 
product. Where can you get objective advice about what might make sense 
for a sparsely populated State such as North Dakota versus a teeming 
mass in the city of New York? This new commission will hopefully be 
that place.
  With this new commission, there will be no equipment to sell. It will 
be a place where you can get the best advice currently available in 
America about your particular election needs.
  We structured this commission in such a way that it would operate on 
a bipartisan basis. I believe it is the case that in every precinct in 
America there is an equal number of Republicans and Democrats in that 
precinct who conduct the election, usually in a friendly manner. They 
keep an eye on each other. They insist that the business of 
administration of elections be fairly done. Occasionally the system 
malfunctions. But fairness is certainly the intent of the structure in 
every State in America.
  The question of just how much the Federal Government should do in 
this regard is complicated. None of us

[[Page 26907]]

wants to dictate a voting system from Washington to the rest of 
America. On the other hand, we collectively agreed that there ought to 
be some standards below which you would not be allowed to fall. If we 
did that, we were convinced we could improve the administration of 
elections in this country.
  It was a long, tortuous process. We had 13 months of hearings, 
negotiations, compromises, offers, counter-offers, a bill, a compromise 
bill, a deal, and a new deal. By the time we finally were able to iron 
this out, I think we had about all the deliberations we could handle. 
On the other hand, it was a classic example, it seems to me, of the 
legislative process working as it should, because what we all have in 
common is the desire to do this job on a truly bipartisan basis.
  What brought us together at the end was the common belief that 
America would be better off if we did this. None of us was trying to 
rig the system to the benefit of either side. I wasn't trying to make 
it easier for Republicans to win. Senator Bond wasn't either. Senators 
Dodd, Schumer, and Torricelli were not trying to make it easier for the 
Democrats to win. We were genuinely motivated by the desire to help, to 
the maximum extent possible at the Federal level, make the system 
better. And in doing that, for this to mean anything, there had to be 
some funds attached to it. We realized we needed to be able to spend 
some money in order to allow these communities to upgrade their 
systems.
  We are here tonight knowing this is only the beginning and there is 
still a long road ahead of us. Even though the House has acted, we have 
to get this through the Senate and then through the conference.
  I have a belief, which I think my colleagues share, that a lot of the 
hurdles we could have encountered on the floor we have already 
encountered, thought through, and worked out. Hopefully, we can 
convince our colleagues when we get out here on the floor, where it is 
always potentially a free-for-all, that there is some rational basis 
for the decisions we reached. And on amendments which may unravel it, 
hopefully we can make a bipartisan argument that we have been there, we 
have talked about that, and we have worked our way through that and we 
can say this is why we think that is not a good idea and why we believe 
what we came out with is a superior position.
  They may or may not take our advice. But at least we have spent a lot 
of time going into these uncharted waters wrestling with these issues 
and working them out.
  As Senator Dodd, the chairman of our committee, pointed out, there 
are not many people still around tonight. But we feel good about this. 
We thought we would share it with the Senate. We are pleased to be able 
to introduce this legislation today with a sense of real pride of 
accomplishment. We look forward to not only getting it through the 
Senate early next year, as the majority leader indicated, but getting 
it through the conference, getting it on the President's desk, and 
making a difference for America in the most basic thing we do--cast our 
votes.
  The Senate is commonly known as the world's greatest deliberative 
body. After 13 months of hearings, negotiations, compromises, offers, 
counter- 
offers, bills compromise bills, deals, and new deals, I think I speak 
for all of us by saying: we have had about all of the deliberation we 
can handle on one issue.
  Today's bill introduction is the result of 13 months of work and 
countless hours of negotiations.
  Senator Dodd and I began discussions about election reform at the 
Rules Committee more than one year ago.
  Exactly one year ago last week, I introduced an election reform bill 
with Senator Torricelli.
  Last winter, Senator Dodd and I began a series of hearings on 
election reform.
  Last May, I introduced a new bill with Senator Schumer and Senator 
Torricelli--that garnered strong bipartisan support with 71 Senator 
cosponsors. Although many in the press seem to have forgotten--We were 
fully prepared to go to the Senate floor and pass that bill last June--
but were sidetracked on the way to the Senate floor with a little thing 
we'll simply call Senate reorganization.
  The agreement we announced last week incorporates three key 
principles that I have been promoting since the original McConnell-
Torricelli bill last year.
  Those principles are:
  No. 1, respect for the primary role of States and localities in 
election administration;
  No. 2, establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission 
appointed by the President to provide nonpartisan election assistance 
to the states; and
  No. 3, strong antifraud provisions to cleanup voter rolls and reduce 
fraud. No longer will we have dogs, cats, and dead people registering 
and voting by mail.
  On this last point, I want to tip my hat to Senator Bond, who has 
been a tireless champion and advocate for strong anti-fraud provisions. 
His work on this issue has been instrumental in achieving today's 
agreement.
  Today's bill is a classic example of compromise. None of us got 
everything we asked for, but all of us got what we wanted: a bipartisan 
bill to dramatically increase the resources for and improve the process 
of conducting elections in America.
  My goal throughout this process has been to ensure that everyone who 
is legally entitled to vote is able to do so, and that everyone who 
does vote is legally entitled to do so--and does so only once.
  I believe today's agreement will help us achieve this goal.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his unending and sometimes unrelenting 
devotion to this issue. I would also like to thank Senators Schumer, 
Bond, and Torricelli for their hard work and significant contributions 
to this legislation.
  I thank the staffs of my colleagues who worked tirelessly on this 
effort over the past months. Specifically Kennie Gill and Veronica 
Gillespies of Senator Dodd's staff, Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of 
Senator Bond's staff; Sharon Levin of Senator Schumer's staff; Sarah 
Wills and Jennifer Leach of Senator Torricelli's staff; and Tamara 
Somerville, Brian Lewis, and Leon Sequeira of my staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. 
These Senators are experts in laws of elections. Having both served as 
chairman of the Rules Committee, they are well known as experts in this 
field. I appreciate their permitting me to join them as we work to 
craft what I think has rightly been described as a very important piece 
of legislation.
  We are in this joyous holiday season. We hope we have delivered a 
package that is not only wrapped nicely but contains provisions that 
will be of significance and a significant improvement in our election 
system.
  As has been said already, truly, voting in elections is the heart of 
our democracy. If you do not do it, if you exclude some people, and 
some people do not do it right, then our entire system suffers. One of 
the great freedoms we enjoy in this country is the freedom to have 
every qualified person vote.
  As Senator Dodd has pointed out, even if a person has certain 
disabilities, we ought to make it easier for that person to vote. 
People ought not be denied a right to vote where they are otherwise 
qualified if they are poor or in places where in the past they have not 
had adequate opportunity.
  Senator Dodd started to work on this process of reforming elections 
to make it easier to vote. I had some experiences that suggested to me 
we ought to add a second part to that; that is, make it easier to vote 
but tough to cheat. I think both sides of that equation are important 
if we are to assure the fullest and fairest participation in our 
electoral system. I think this compromise achieves that.
  We need to make it easier to vote. For those who have been confused 
by machines or confounded by lack of phone lines to get questions 
answered,

[[Page 26908]]

this proposal says we should let the voter know if he or she has made a 
mistake. If the system has made a mistake, then we set up a new system 
to give that voter an opportunity to cast the ballot which can be 
counted after the voter is identified as being a legitimate voter.
  As has always been mentioned, we don't try to throw out any 
particular system. We don't say that ``one size fits all'' and 
Washington is going to tell every local election official that this is 
the kind of system you have to use.
  Some 23 different States, I believe, use at least in part paper 
ballots. In some areas that is how they vote. In my hometown we vote by 
punch cards. I do not know when anybody has challenged the balloting 
there as having problems. Voter election officials might say check your 
card to make sure it is punched out. It is a simple thing. But it 
works. In St. Louis County, the largest voting jurisdiction in Missouri 
with the most diverse population--from some very wealthy areas to areas 
in great need which qualify as an enterprise and empowerment zone, a 
wonderful diversity of people with long-time residents and newly 
arrived immigrants--they use punch cards. Their error rate is 0.3 
percent--one of the lowest in the country. Clearly, it isn't a problem 
there. We don't say you can't use punch cards.
  For disabled voters, as has already been mentioned by Senator Dodd, 
who has been a true champion, we require polling precincts to improve 
their voting system so voting machines are accessible even for those 
who are visually disabled. For those new citizens whose English 
proficiency is still a work in progress, we want to make sure that 
newly arrived people with different languages are not excluded from the 
protections of voting laws. If we have a credible population in a 
jurisdiction that speaks a different language and has literacy 
problems, we must publish the election information in their language. 
All of these steps go a long way toward achieving the goal of making it 
easier to vote.
  Senator McConnell's insistence on a commission--which would be a 
full- time commission, a bipartisan commission, that would help solve 
these problems--is a tremendous contribution. I think that is going to 
make a difference.
  But let me tell you how my interest and enthusiasm for challenging 
voter fraud was reignited. You have heard that old story about: Deja vu 
all over again. Well, on the night of the general election, in November 
of 2000, we were ready to see the votes start to come in in St. Louis.
  But lo and behold, a case was filed in the court in St. Louis City 
challenging the voting process, saying that people were being illegally 
excluded. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff who filed the case had 
been dead for over a year. He alleged that long lines were keeping him 
from voting. I suggest that the long lines may not have been at the 
polls that kept him from voting. He probably had other problems that 
were keeping him from voting.
  But we heard wind of this and lawyers went in and went to the court 
of appeals. And the court of appeals shut down that scheme within about 
an hour, after a few votes were cast.
  I say deja vu all over again because--the funniest thing--I first ran 
for Governor in 1972. I am from an outstate area. I ran against a 
candidate who was from St. Louis City. I had a pretty good lead in the 
outstate area, and on election night we were starting to get ready to 
see the votes counted and we heard that in St. Louis City they kept the 
polls open. They kept the polls open hour after hour after hour, and it 
reached around midnight. The charge was that, in a Democratic-
controlled city, in a Democratic-controlled State, the Democratic 
election officials were making it more difficult for Democratic voters 
to cast votes for Democratic candidates. Now, if that raises some 
eyebrows, I think it should.
  But we set about cleaning up the system and getting good election 
boards in place. And we thought that old trick of keeping open the 
voting machines in areas where they are heavily partisan was over. But, 
no, it came back on election night 2000. We asked for an inquiry.
  As we started kicking over damp rocks, more and more little election 
frauds crawled out.
  We found out that, for example, there was sort of a system of 
provisional votes. Voters could go before a judge and say: I have been 
denied the right to vote.
  And the judge would say: Here is an order. You can go vote.
  Well, they voted. They cast their ballot. And they were not 
segregated. When we went back to look at them, we were kind of 
interested.
  They said: You have to put down what your reasons for not being able 
to vote were. And one of them wrote on the line: I'm a convicted felon.
  Sounds like a good reason for keeping them from voting. But the judge 
ordered that person be allowed to vote.
  Another one said: I just moved here, and I wanted to vote for Al 
Gore.
  It seemed like a good reason to that judge, so that person was 
allowed to vote.
  The Missouri Secretary of State went back and examined those 1,300 
ballots that were cast. Ninety-seven percent of them were illegal, 
people who were not lawfully registered as required under the Missouri 
Constitution. They were allowed to cast their votes anyhow.
  There were 13,000 of those provisional votes in St. Louis County. We 
have not even completed an examination of those. But we also went and 
we started taking a look and doing some research, and we found there 
was some mess in the city of St. Louis. Some 25,000 voters--10 percent 
of the voters in St. Louis were double registered. Some voters were 
registered three times. Some were registered four times. The champions 
were registered five times.
  We have not completed an investigation to find out how many of those 
people took advantage of their multiple registrations, but we believe 
there were significant numbers. There are investigations going on by 
the appropriate authorities. Obviously, if they find specific evidence, 
we trust they will take appropriate actions.
  While I was accused of being partisan in calling attention to the St. 
Louis City fraud in November of 2000, something happened. There was a 
partisan primary for the mayor's race in March of this year. And lo and 
behold, on the last day of registration, 3,000 mail-in registration 
cards were dumped on the City Election Board. The interesting thing 
about them was that most of them were in the same handwriting and the 
same ink. Many people who had accused me of being partisan, though of 
the other party, now found it to be of great interest to look into the 
bona fides of these registrants.
  Fortunately, we had a very aggressive and inquiring media in St. 
Louis that went out and started looking. It is amazing how many vacant 
lots in St. Louis City were teeming with voters. Where they were 
registered were empty lots.
  The secretary of state did a little investigation of multiple 
registrations at one location. This is not apartment houses; this is 
supposedly a single family dwelling. They limited their examination to 
those places where eight or more adults were registered from one single 
family unit. They found over 250 of them--truly remarkable living 
conditions, and probably warrants some further investigation.
  These drop houses were potential sites for massive voter fraud. Under 
the current system, mail-in registration allows you to register to vote 
by mail, motor-voter. When motor-voter passed, most people focused on 
registering people where you get your motor vehicle licenses. You have 
to show up. You are buying a car. You have an address. That makes a lot 
of sense.
  But mail-in registrations required the local government to register 
those voters. Then they said the only way you could get off the rolls 
was if you showed up on the list of dead people, if you asked to be 
removed, or if you had not voted in two Federal elections.
  The problem with people who were registering from these drop houses 
is, No. 1, there probably were not any people to die. They are not 
going to show up on the dead rolls. They certainly

[[Page 26909]]

were not going to call in and ask their names be registered. Frankly, 
if you had gone to the trouble of registering a bunch of phony names, 
you certainly were not going to fail to vote them. Simple common sense.
  Those things kind of heightened my interest. They got me looking at 
what we could do. We have agreed, in this bill, that, No. 1, one of the 
most important things we are going to do is have a statewide voter 
registration base, a database. This is important to make it easier to 
vote. And it is important to make it tougher to cheat. And that list 
has to be cleaned up. But it also says, if you are registering by mail, 
you cannot just send in a ballot with no further identification. We 
require some identification. Either you show up in person to vote the 
first time or you send in--either with your registration or with your 
vote--a photo ID or a bill mailed to you at that location with your 
name and address on it. If you pay a water bill there, and your name is 
on it, it is a pretty good indication that you are there. If you are 
paying bills from there, that is a start.
  There are a lot of things that need to be done. I think there are a 
lot of jurisdictions, given the power that these new statewide 
databases will give them to check, to cross-check, that will be able to 
find if there are phony voters and clean up some of these multiple 
registrations, some of these double, triple, quadruple, quintuple 
registrations, and maybe begin to shut down on fraud.
  There has not been any final determination other than the initial 
reviews of the secretary of state, but I can tell you, just in St. 
Louis City and St. Louis County, there was enough evidence of 
questionable voting that the warning given by the court of appeals in 
St. Louis should be taken to heart.
  That is, that it is a significant denial of the right to vote if you 
have your vote diluted by multiple votes cast by some other person or 
by votes cast in the name of a nonexistent person. If people are not 
registered to vote and they are permitted to vote, that is a denial of 
the right of franchise. This bill takes very significant steps towards 
curing that.
  One other thing. The Carter-Ford Commission said all people who 
register to vote must affirm their citizenship. That seems to be 
reasonable. I understand that one of the al-Qaida members actually 
voted in Colorado. A couple more illegal immigrants suspected of being 
involved with the September 11 activities were registered in Michigan. 
I don't know whether or not they managed to vote.
  I guess my favorite, one that was uncovered by the media in St. 
Louis, was when they looked at the mail-in registrations, they did some 
groundwork and they focused on Ritzy Mecker. They went to inquire about 
the whereabouts of Ritzy Mecker. They finally tracked down her owner 
and found out it was a mixed-breed dog.
  I don't know what Ritzy's preference in the election was. I don't 
know whether Ritzy was a Democrat or a Republican. Maybe she voted a 
split ticket; I don't know. But the kind of thing that went on there is 
a kind of Ritzy Mecker-voting system.
  We want people who are adults, U.S. citizens, not felons, registered 
to vote, to be able to cast one vote, but the people who don't fall in 
that category should not be voting. And the dogs that don't fall in 
that category should not be voting.
  One of my dear friends in State government when I served there, Tom 
Villa, his father was a legendary alderman, Red Villa, Albert ``Red'' 
Villa, legendary; he died in the early 1990s. But in this most 
wonderful of seasons, I can tell you that he came back to register for 
the 2000 election. Does your heart good to know that, yes, you can come 
back from the dead and register. We would like to see the photo ID of 
those people who have registered to make sure they have not departed 
us. As I said some time ago, I like dogs. I have a great respect for 
the dearly departed. But I really don't think they ought to vote.
  When we talked about the fraud in the city of St. Louis, another good 
friend of mine, State representative Quincy Troupe, talking about the 
danger he saw in the primary of illegal registration, said about St. 
Louis:

       The only way you can win a close election in this town is 
     to beat the cheat.

  Time is long gone when we ought to have to ask candidates for office 
to beat the cheat if they want to hold office. This legislation we have 
crafted will be worked on in the Chamber. I imagine it will be worked 
over good, and we may be able to improve on it. But as my colleague 
from Kentucky said: We have hashed out a lot of these issues. I hope we 
can explain what we have done to our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle so we can get strong support.
  It is incumbent on us and the time is now. We have come to this place 
after a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that we and our staffs have put 
in, and I thank the staffs of my colleagues, my colleague from New 
York, Senator Schumer; my colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Torricelli; their staffs. I thank particularly my chief of staff Julie 
Dammann and my counsel Jack Bartling. I haven't seen them for 3 months. 
I am looking forward to having them back in the normal office business 
after the Christmas recess.
  I hope that the mutually worked on effort is going to produce 
something that will be a real present for all Americans in this holy 
season.
  I thank my colleagues. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I also thank the staffs of all of the 
Senators involved. I think we couldn't have made it without them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this could be a fairly historic moment 
for our country. I thank my friends from Connecticut and Kentucky and 
Missouri for their good work. This is an issue that is vital to the 
people of our country. In fact, in light of September 11, which caused 
such problems for my city and for our country, if you had to think of 
the No. 1 reason that those overseas, those terrorists, hate us, it is 
because we vote, because we don't have a dictator, religious or 
otherwise. It is because we vote.
  We have to make voting as perfect as possible. It is never going to 
be perfect. But such a sacred right, such a vital right should be made 
perfect.
  This bill comes a lot closer to doing that. It has taken a lot of 
work. We all know what the bill is. The week after the Florida election 
I said we had to do something and came out with the idea that we ought 
to give the States money if they upgrade their machines, and that is at 
the core of this bill.
  We all worked together. I compliment my colleague, particularly from 
Connecticut, who pulled everybody together, who, as I mentioned 
earlier, had the patience of Job. And my colleague from Kentucky, he 
and I had a bill originally. It probably would have been the bill on 
the floor had Mr. Jeffords not switched. But this is a better bill. I 
am proud to be on it because it not only provides money, but it 
requires the States to upgrade.
  I thank my colleague from Missouri as well. His addition in terms of 
election fraud is something of which we on this side of the aisle 
should not be afraid. When there is fraud in elections, it jaundices 
elections, and elections are sacred.
  I am not going to go into the details of the bill. My colleagues have 
spoken eloquently about the need for the bill. It is a little sad that 
we came to our agreement only this week of this session, but Senator 
Dodd has mentioned that our leader, the floor leader, the majority 
leader, Senator Daschle, has said we will move this bill early next 
year. That will give us enough time to make sure the Presidential 
election in 2004 is not a repeat of the election in 2000.
  In New York State, we need help, too. I voted for the first time in 
1969. I voted exactly on the same clunky old voting machine in 2001 for 
mayor a few weeks ago.
  I want to share with you something that stays in my mind. You go to a 
polling place in the early evening. You

[[Page 26910]]

find people, all kinds of people, working people in their plaid shirts 
and jeans, people who have worked in the office towers in their shirts 
and ties. They are tired. But they know it is their obligation to vote. 
They go over to the polling place. And in my city and in many parts of 
my State, because of the oldness of the machines, there are long lines. 
They wait patiently. Many are studying the ballot and studying the 
literature that has been given out, particularly these days with so 
many names on the ballot.
  Then you ought to see the looks on their faces when they get up, 
ready to vote, and they say: You are at the wrong polling place, or we 
don't have your card here, or you can't vote for some reason. It is a 
look of complete and utter sadness and almost despondency. In this bill 
we found ways to avoid it. The number of people who will be turned away 
who should have the right to vote will be many fewer. We have made 
provisions for provisional voting so, if you are not on the list, you 
can vote by a paper ballot, and then they will check. And if your vote 
should be counted, it will be. If it shouldn't, they will notify you.
  I thought that is a very clever and good provision in the bill. They 
will tell you why so you can correct it. Within a few years of this 
bill becoming law, not only will voting be modernized but fraud will 
decline, and the ability of people to vote quickly and easily and 
correctly will have greatly improved.
  So I just again want to say that this could be a fairly historic 
moment in the history of the Republic. We have had poll taxes, 
limitations on voting by sex, by property, by income, and by race. 
Thank God, we have eliminated those. But we have also had limitations 
on voting just because of the method we vote. On its face, it may not 
be as pernicious as those others, but it is every bit as detrimental to 
the Democracy. We are going to end that with this legislation--or at 
least greatly reduce it.
  I hope that when we return, we will move quickly. Again, I thank our 
leader in the Rules Committee, somebody who really has patiently and 
diligently tilled the vineyards, improved the product over and over 
again, and then came to a consensus. One of the reasons I look forward 
to coming back--and I look forward to coming back for many reasons--is 
to work to see that New York gets its $20 billion, to get a stimulus 
bill to move the economy and help the unemployed and those who don't 
have health insurance. We have so many things to do.
  One of the main reasons I want to come back next year--and that is a 
short time away because it is late in the year--is to get this 
legislation passed and stop the scene that I mentioned before: People 
who wait and wait and wait and, through no fault of their own, are 
denied the right to vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Connecticut.

                          ____________________