Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Florida [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2818, As Further Modified Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Regular order, Madam President.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia has been trying to get recognition, and you cannot hear him for the noise in the Senate Chamber.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, could we have order, then, please?

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe that the Presidential candidates are involved in a conflict of interest in New Hampshire, since that State has retroactively asked for same day election day registration. We have an amendment in this bill that would allow them to do that and break the word of what the leadership on the other side said the conference report calls an election day escape hatch. This would encourage States to adopt same day registration procedures as a means of escaping the bill's requirements. That came from the bill's manager on the other side. Mr. President, what is a Presidential candidate to do if he is on the record opposing an election provision that turns out to be supported by the State where the first primary is held? By the looks of the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill, you hope like the dickens that nobody notices. But, Mr. President, I noticed. This appropriations bill includes a committee amendment to the National Voter Registration Act Of 1993--better known as motor-voter. This committee amendment benefits two States--New Hampshire and Idaho-- by changing the effective date of the exemption in the Act of States that had already enacted election day registration or had no registration requirement. That specific date--March 11, 1993--was included to prohibit any other State from avoiding the law. The committee amendment would undo that prohibition for these two States. New Hampshire and Idaho enacted legislation with retroactive effective dates in an attempt to take advantage of the limited exemption in the act. Because of a court challenge to the New Hampshire retroactive law, we are being asked to adopt an amendment to retroactively change the motor-voter exemption deadline. So, in the case of these two States we are enacting a retroactive provision to a Federal law that will validate a retroactive provision in a State law that was enacted to avoid that very Federal law. This a curious amendment with a ridiculous result. It is important to note that this specific date was not only proposed by the Republican floor manager, but both he and the Republican leader and Presidential candidate actively promoted it. In fact, they both cited inclusion of that deadline in the exemption provision as an improvement to the bill. So while the committee amendment appears to be merely a technical or insignificant change affecting only two States--it is clearly an attack by opponents to weaken the motor-voter law by permitting more States to avoid its implementation. But even worse, it creates an incredible conflict of interest for every one of our many Republican Presidential candidates, because it would directly affect voter registration for the New Hampshire primary. A similar exemption provision in the bill vetoed by President Bush in the 103d Congress was singled out for criticism in his veto message. President Bush attacked the exemption as an inducement to States to adopt same-day registration laws. I responded to that charge, when it was made by the Republican floor manager during debate on the veto over-ride, by pointing out that the exemption was intended to grandfather only those States that had already adopted such laws. It was not intended as an inducement to other States to adopt election day registration. To overcome an impasse during our consideration of the motor voter bill, the Republican floor manager submitted nine amendments to me that the opponents considered to be necessary changes to the bill. The first ``must do'' change was an amendment to set a date certain, March 11, 1993, as the deadline by which a State must have enacted the required legislation in order to be exempt from the requirements of motor-voter. Because it was consistent with, and reinforced, the original intent of the exemption provision, I included it in the amendment I offered at the conclusion of bill negotiations. The House bill, H.R. 2, included an exemption without a specific date that was intended as an option to the States. The two Houses were clearly not in agreement regarding the exemption provisions of the two bills. The conference resolved this disagreement by including the Senate date certain deadline version in its report. When the conference report was taken up in the Senate, the Republican floor manager stated, with regard to the exemption: Republicans slammed the escape-hatch shut. No longer is this bill a backdoor means of forcing States into adopting election day registration or no registration whatsoever. . . . Republicans succeeded in grandfathering in the five States that would have qualified for the exemption prior to March 11, 1993. He then related that officials from Michigan, Illinois, and South Dakota had contacted him to urge that the escape hatch be left open so they could opt out from the law. The Republican floor manager then commented, with regard to these States, . . . their constituents are better served by the closing of the escape hatch than if it had been left open. In remarks regarding the conference report, the Republican leader commented that the conference report was an improvement over the original bill because among other Republican amendments, it included the exemption provision. He stated, the conference report closes the so-called election day escape hatch. This loophole would have encouraged States to adopt same-day registration procedures as a means of escaping the bill's requirements. It was clear that both the Republican floor manager and the Republican leader considered this exemption provision with its date certain deadline to be an important provision because it closed off the exemption for all but the five States that had enacted legislation as of the deadline of March 11, 1993. The legislative history in the House reflects this as well. A House conferee who supported an open exemption as ``a strong incentive for States to move toward . . .'' same day registration stated that: some Members in the other body voiced strong concerns over this language, and the conference agreed to grandfather this provision, making the exemption apply only to States that had same day registration as of March 11, 1993. This committee amendment is not only contrary to the law and our intent, it is also bad policy and reeks of Presidential politics. It will undo a clear policy decision of the Congress and invite other States to avoid Federal legislation by revising exemptions. Is it the purpose of the proponents of this amendment to encourage election day registration or the elimination of registration altogether? I would remind the junior Senator from Kentucky of his comment regarding the requests of officials from Michigan, Illinois and South Dakota to keep the exemption open for future State compliance. If he supports this amendment, may we expect him to extend an invitation to those officials from Michigan, Illinois, and South Dakota to request additional extensions so their States may also be exempted? Or is this amendment only an attempt to accommodate the State election officials of the first Presidential primary State? The underlying assumption of this amendment appears to be that Congress considered election day registration to be on a par with the requirements of the motor-voter law. Again, a review of the legislative record shows that this is just not the case. Those supporting the closed exemption were opposed to election day registration. The Republican leader attacked it with the comment that: [[Page S 14655]] In many areas same-day registration is a prescription for fraud and corruption. House conferees argued for an open exemption that would encourage States to adopt election day registration or no registration. Their position reflects a policy that such provisions are equal to or better than the provisions of the motor-voter law. I would argue that the conference, in refusing to accept that position and in agreeing to the Senate's closed exemption, did not agree. I am equally concerned that the effect of this amendment is to make moot ongoing litigation. In the case of New Hampshire, the State enacted legislation with a retroactive effective date in an attempt to slip in under the exemption. That action is being appropriately challenged in the courts by State organizations and voters who seek compliance with motor voter. I do not think it is appropriate or good policy for the Senate to directly interfere with ongoing litigation. It is interesting to note that when the motor voter bill was under consideration in the Senate, the Republican leader praised the floor manager for closing the election day registration escape hatch. Now, just 2 years later, Republicans propose to open that hatch for two more States and permit those two States to avoid implementing the motor voter law. One might reasonably ask, what has happened in the past 2 years to account for this change? Do Republicans now favor election day registration? Or, do Republicans wish to avoid compliance with the motor voter law in as many States as possible by whatever means possible? Recent events support the latter position. Rather than comply, some states led by Republican governors have initiated court challenges to this law. So far none have succeeded. The courts have upheld this law and have ordered the States to comply. As I have already noted, New Hampshire would directly benefit by this amendment. New Hampshire is involved in litigation to compel its compliance--and we are asked to intervene by changing the law to render that litigation moot. This should be seen for what is clearly is, another attack on the implementation of the motor voter law and an attempt to curry favor with election officials in the all-important primary State of New Hampshire. My Republican colleagues appear willing to take this route even though it represents a complete about-face from the position they fought for just 2 years ago. I think it is clear why implementation of the motor voter law is under such attack. The law is working. And it is working well. Since the law became effective January 1, States that are implementing it are experiencing extraordinary registration activity. The National Association of Secretaries of State recently adopted a resolution that includes the finding: Preliminary statistics show the voter registration programs mandated by the Act to be successful at providing citizens access to the voter rolls. In the first six months, over 4 million new voters have been added to voter lists nationwide . . . . A recent New York Times article noted that more than 5 million Americans have been added to the rolls so far this year. It notes that political experts characterize this registration activity as ``the greatest expansion of voter rolls in the Nation's history.'' The article also states that ``Estimates are that by the turn of the century, if the surge generated by the new law continues, at least four of every five adult Americans will be registered to vote, compared with about three of every five now.'' The figures cited in the Times article are truly amazing. It states that this year Georgia registered 303,000 new voters between January and June, compared with only 85,000 for all of last year; Alabama registered about 43,000 in the first quarter and only 23,000 during that same period last year; Kentucky added 77,000 the first quarter this year compared with 23,000 in all of 1994 and Indiana added 64,000 new registrations the first quarter this year and only 5,400 during that period last year. These registration figures for this year show that the law is working, and that it is working very well. I guess that some view the increased voting rolls produced by the States under this act to be a threat. A threat that must be attacked in the States, in the courts and in the Senate. What are they afraid of? More people voting? That is what democracy should be about. I welcome its success. I welcome a registration system that reaches out to all eligible citizens to assure that they are able to cast ballots on election day. With a veto likely on this bill, now is not the right time to propose an amendment to strike this provision. But in closing, I want to make one thing clear to the proponents of this provision, I will continue to resist this and any other attempt to undo or weaken a law that has directly encouraged 5 million more Americans to become involved in our democratic process. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.