[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9339-9351]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.


[[Page 9340]]

  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

[[Page 9341]]

mildly favor photo identification at the polls; 12 percent are neutral; 
only 3 percent of Americans mildly oppose requiring photo 
identification at the 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 51/2 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

[[Page 9342]]

     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 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

[[Page 9343]]

     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 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.

[[Page 9344]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 9345]]

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 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.

[[Page 9346]]

  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? 
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

[[Page 9347]]

     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 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

[[Page 9348]]

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 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

[[Page 9349]]

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 disen-
franchised 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 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

[[Page 9350]]

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 
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

[[Page 9351]]


     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.

                          ____________________