[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16402-16404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              ELECTION LAW

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to inform the Senate of 
something that has just happened to a civics teacher in my State of 
Florida who tried to help her students register to vote. It was nothing 
new for this teacher, Jill Cicciarelli, to be prepping 17-year-old 
students for the privilege and responsibility of voting in a democracy. 
She has been doing this for a number of years. But it turned out that 
when Jill organized a drive at the start of the school year to get 
students preregistered to vote, she ran afoul of Florida's new election 
law.
  How could that be? But, sure enough, the law, which is basically an 
attempt at voter suppression, causes her to face hefty fines. For what? 
For helping students to register to vote. As ridiculous as that sounds, 
that is what the law says.
  But there is more, unfortunately. There is a lot more. I met with 
Jill Cicciarelli and her students last week. They are extremely 
concerned, and they are extremely surprised that a good government 
attempt to register students so they will be ready to vote in the next 
election has run afoul of the law. They were not happy; but, 
interestingly, neither was their elected Supervisor of Elections in 
Volusia County who, under the law, was required to report the teacher 
and the students to the State authorities.
  The Supervisor of Elections, Ann McFall, has now publicly, openly 
criticized the parts of the law as being egregious and unenforceable. 
She has done that speaking out, she has done it in an op-ed and in the 
local newspaper. She has been unambiguous in her criticism that not 
only is it egregious in the substance of the law, but that the burdens 
they place on the Supervisors of Elections are unenforceable.
  I have written to Governor Scott. I have talked to him personally, 
asking him to support the revamping or the repeal of this law. I have 
also just asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a 
congressional investigation to see if Florida's law was part of an 
orchestrated effort that resulted in voting law changes in 14 States 
thus far this year. These new voting laws could make it significantly 
harder for more than 5 million eligible voters in many States to cast 
their ballots in next year's election in 2012, and that is according to 
the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
  Last month they completed the first comprehensive study of the impact 
of those State laws. The Florida law is probably the strongest of all 
the 14 States. It requires third parties who sign up new voters to 
register with the State first and then to submit applications from the 
new voters for registration within 48 hours. For almost four decades, 
the Florida law has been that they had 10 days in which to submit the 
names--for four decades. Now it is within 48 hours.
  Can anybody say with a straight face that Florida isn't taking a step 
backwards in making it harder to vote and harder to register to vote 
and harder to have a person's vote count as they intended, especially a 
step backwards when it involves protecting one of our most fundamental 
rights, the right to vote?
  I hope people are going to start to realize that this is not just 
happening in Florida, but that a number of States have passed laws that 
are going to make it harder to vote and harder for people to cast their 
ballots. We simply should not sit back and watch as a handful of 
lawmakers and Governors approving this legislation in those States 
continue to block the path of voters to the polls.
  When we think back in history, when Lyndon Johnson was President 
there were poll taxes and literacy tests aimed at blocking African 
Americans from voting. President Johnson went on TV and spoke to the 
Nation about passing civil rights laws for African Americans, including 
the right to vote. He told us: ``We are going to give them that 
right.'' If he were alive today, I wonder what he would think as he 
watched these legislatures across the country--in what the Miami Herald 
recently called a disturbing trend--pass laws that place unnecessary 
hurdles between the voting booth and minorities, young voters and 
seniors.
  In Florida, the so-called election reform law rapidly made its way as 
a legislative bill into law this past spring despite public outcry as 
the legislature was considering it. Here is what the law does: It 
reduces the number of early voting days from 14 to 8. Of course, it was 
explained in the guides that the Supervisors of Elections can increase 
the voting hours on those days. But when they do that, they have to pay 
overtime, time and a half. Look at the budgets of all the States and 
the counties. They are in distress. So they are not going to have the 
money to do it. So, in effect, it is reduced from 14 days for early 
voting to 8 days.
  Why was early voting ever instituted in the first place? Remember the 
debacle we had in the Presidential election in Florida in the year 
2000? As a result, there was an effort to increase the number of days 
so it would make it a convenience and make it easier to vote--14 days 
constricted to 8.
  Oh, by the way, the 14 days goes all the way up through the Sunday 
before the Tuesday election. The new election law in Florida stops it 
on the Saturday before the Tuesday election. Well, guess who that is 
going to hurt? What

[[Page 16403]]

group do we think goes in record numbers to vote after church on 
Sunday, the day before the Tuesday election?
  The election laws were set up to make it easier to vote for seniors 
and for many others, so much so that it was such a tremendous success 
in the last several elections that 40 percent of all the people voted 
before Election Day. One can imagine the administrative help it was, 
that only 60 percent of the people voted on Election Day. But that is 
constricted under the theory that it was going to stop election fraud.
  By the way, there has been very little election law fraud reported in 
Florida and in other States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. So that is a false argument, that it is going 
to cause any improvement on voter fraud. There is hardly any voter 
fraud.
  That is one thing the new election law does. What is another thing? 
It makes it harder if a person moves their residence to another county 
in Florida. As a matter of fact, if a person moves to another county 
and they do not register to vote in that county, but they have a voter 
identification card that shows an address in another county in Florida 
where the person came from, that person will not get a regular ballot. 
That person will get a provisional ballot. Sadly, what we know from the 
experience of provisional ballots in Florida in the 2008 Presidential 
election is that half of the provisional ballots were not counted.
  Well, what group is that going to affect? Did my colleagues hear 
about how young people and college students got so interested in 
government and politics that they went to the polls in record numbers? 
Where did they vote? A lot of them got interested while they were away 
at their colleges and universities and they registered to vote and they 
voted in record numbers. Don't we want to encourage that? No. Not this 
election law. This election law says when that college student shows up 
because they have suddenly gotten energized, and they have not 
registered to vote in that county where they go to school, when they 
pull out their voter registration card that has their parents' address 
back home in another county, they are not going to get a regular 
ballot. They are going to get a provisional ballot.
  Is this the kind of nonsense we want going on? It is happening in 
front of our eyes, and it is happening in the State of Florida.
  Let me tell my colleagues what else it does. It subjects voter 
registration drives to redtape and even fines up to $1,000 per person, 
so much so that the League of Women Voters was forced to abandon its 
registration drives after doing it in our State for 72 years. What does 
the law do? It says: If you are going to register somebody to vote, you 
first have to register with the State of Florida that you are going to 
be a third party registrar, and when you register those names you have 
to turn them in to the supervisor's office within 48 hours.
  Why, for four decades has the law been that you had 10 days to turn 
them in? If you don't get it in by the 48th hour and 1 minute, you are 
now subject to fines of $50 per registration, up to $1,000 that you 
could be fined, thus the case of the teacher at New Smyrna Beach High 
School, Jill Cicciarelli, who had preregistered her students and had 
held the registrations for more than 48 hours. Of course, Jill did not 
even know about the law.
  Listen to what the Orlando Sentinel said about it. This is about the 
new election law:

       It amounts to . . . ripping apart election laws and 
     weakening democracy.

  Listen to what the Tampa Tribune said:

       This bill isn't fooling anybody. It's not about clean 
     elections.

  Listen to what Florida Today, a Gannett newspaper, said. It called 
the law an ``assault on the most cherished of American rights.''
  I see you are calling my time. I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, no State should have the right 
to make a law if it abridges people's basic rights. I have requested 
the Department of Justice to look into that. I requested this several 
months ago. At this moment, I cannot tell you to what degree the 
Department of Justice is questioning this. They have been engaged in a 
lawsuit, because the State of Florida has sued them. The State of 
Florida is suing them to invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act of 
1964, if you can believe that.
  Look back in history. After being arrested for casting an illegal 
vote in the Presidential election in 1872, Susan B. Anthony, a 
schoolteacher, called it a downright mockery to talk to women of their 
enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they were being denied the 
use of the only means of securing that, and that is the ballot. That is 
what Florida's new election law and others like it around the Nation 
are, a downright mockery. Dr. King warned Americans that all types of 
conniving methods can be used to keep people from being registered 
voters. That is what these new so-called election reform laws amount 
to, democracy turned upside down. I hope the Senate will look at this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                        SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, later this month, the special joint 
committee will be issuing its recommendations. The special joint 
committee was set up for us to get recommendations on dealing with our 
economic problems and our budget deficit. I wanted to share with my 
colleagues two points I think are critically important that I hope will 
come out of this special joint committee.
  First, I hope this joint committee will provide a way that we can 
advance an agenda that will create jobs in our communities. Secondly, I 
hope this special joint committee will come forward with a 
comprehensive and balanced approach for us to deal with our current 
unsustainable budget deficits.
  Let me talk about the first issue, creating jobs. President Obama 
came forward with a job initiative that I do believe is entitled to 
debate on the floor of this body and, I would hope, passage. President 
Obama brought forward a bill that deals with rebuilding America so we 
can have the types of roads and bridges and water infrastructure and 
energy infrastructure that allow America to compete, at the same time 
creating jobs.
  He has offered proposals that would help small businesses, because we 
know the small businesses represent the economic engine of America. 
Where more jobs will be created, more innovation occurs. He understands 
that and is encouraging us to do more to help small businesses.
  The President's proposal deals with our men and women in the military 
service who are coming back from Iraq, coming back from Afghanistan, to 
have jobs available. Yesterday I was at BWI Airport as our soldiers 
came back from Iraq and Afghanistan. They want jobs. The President's 
initiative says, look, let's make sure we have jobs for our returning 
soldiers. All that means is we are going to create more jobs.
  The joint committee needs to make sure that in its recommendations we 
have the wherewithal to move this Nation forward by creating jobs. The 
President's proposal has been evaluated by independent economists. Mark 
Zandi, who was Senator McCain's economic adviser in his Presidential 
campaign, points out the President's proposal would increase our gross 
domestic product by 2 percent and create 1.9 million additional jobs.
  The President's proposal is completely paid for. It adds nothing to 
the deficit. I must tell you, if we are going to be able to balance our 
budget, if we are going to be able to get our budget in better shape, 
we have to have more jobs, less people using governmental services, 
more people paying revenues or taxes into our system. The more

[[Page 16404]]

people who are working, the better our budgets will come into balance.
  I know some here are saying there is a better way of doing it. Well, 
come forward with a better way of doing it. I would challenge 
particularly my Republican colleagues, if you have a better way, come 
forward with a proposal that includes at least 1.9 million jobs and 
does it without adding to the budget deficit. That is the proposal we 
have before us.
  I am asking the joint committee to make sure they provide in their 
recommendations a way that we can create jobs so we can deal with our 
budget deficit.
  The second point I want to make is I would hope that the joint 
committee's recommendations would be comprehensive and balanced. Some 
call that the shared sacrifice.
  I know these numbers can sort of be used any way you want, but the 
groups that have looked at this, the Simpson-Bowles group and others, 
say, we need to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by about $4 
trillion. I think that is a number we should meet. I hope the joint 
committee can come in with $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the 
next 10 years. We have already done the first trillion. We did that 
when we raised the debt limit in August. Now we need to look at another 
$3 trillion. I would hope they would do it.
  It starts with a realistic baseline. What does that mean? It means 
what numbers are we using in order to determine whether we actually get 
to that $4 trillion of deficit reduction? What baseline do we use in 
order to determine the revenue base from which we start these 
discussions?
  I would suggest we make a realistic baseline. I was impressed with 
the work of the Simpson-Bowles commission. I was impressed by the work 
of our colleagues in the Senate, the so-called Gang of Six, and I must 
tell you the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate have 
at least agreed to the basis of what the Gang of Six was working with, 
what they were trying to do. It uses a realistic baseline. It assumes 
that some of the tax provisions will be extended, but not all.
  It also assumes we have to bring in additional revenues beyond that. 
Quite frankly, the number we have been talking about is that we need 
about $1.2 trillion outside of this $4 trillion package in realistic 
revenues using a realistic baseline. And that can be gotten. That is 
not so difficult to get when you realize that all of the tax 
deductions, exemptions, and credits equal as much revenue as we bring 
in in our Tax Code.
  Another way to say that is, if we eliminate all of the exemptions, 
deductions, and credits, we get tax rates one-half of what our current 
tax rates are. What we are suggesting is that there are certain 
loopholes in the Tax Code that benefit special interest corporations. 
They need to be eliminated. They need to be eliminated. Everyone has to 
pay their fair share. We cannot just attack the middle-class families.
  There was an article in the Baltimore Sun this past week which showed 
that during this recession the number of people earning more than $1 
million has grown dramatically. There have been economic studies done 
showing that the wealthiest in America during these economic times have 
done very well. Their incomes have grown at a faster rate than other 
Americans, the middle-class families. The middle-class families are 
falling behind.
  All we are suggesting is that when we look at how we get the revenue, 
let's make sure it is fair and we do not again penalize the middle-
class families. Let's make sure those who earn over $1 million pay 
their fair share toward this comprehensive and balanced approach.
  That is what we are asking the joint committee to come in with, come 
in with proposals that are fair, are balanced, make sure everybody pays 
their fair share, including those who have done extremely well during 
this economic recession, those who have made over $1 million of income.
  I must tell you, everyone needs to be part of the equation. We 
understand that. We have to have the so-called shared sacrifice. I have 
taken the floor before to talk about our Federal employees. Everybody 
says, well, you know, the Federal employees have to help contribute to 
this deficit also. Our Federal employees understand that. They already 
have contributed. They were the first to do that with 2 years of pay 
freezes. We are asking them to do more with less people. We have cut 
their budgets and we have given them more work. And we have told them, 
2 years with a pay freeze. So our Federal employees have already 
contributed to these deficit reduction numbers. They should not be 
picked on again. I believe we can come together. We need to have a 
comprehensive and balanced approach that allows America to create more 
jobs. That is what we need to do as a nation. If we come together, I am 
convinced it will instill confidence among the American consumers, 
among American investors, and our economy will take off. It is going to 
be good for everyone in this Nation. I hope this month we will see the 
joint committee come in with such recommendations that will be 
balanced, will be fair, and will allow us to create more jobs for 
Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________