Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of the remarks by the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, be recognized to debate her amendment, if that would be appropriate.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution, S. Res. 232, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut is joining me on the floor, and we are going to spend a couple minutes talking about two sources of State pride. I will very briefly mention, before I talk about the University of Connecticut women's basketball team, that last Friday night the U.S. Cherry Blossom Queen was crowned in Washington. We are very proud in my office to say Elizabeth O'Connor was chosen, by a random selection process, as the Cherry Blossom Queen of the United States. She is a staff assistant in my office. She is a wonderful young woman who is very accomplished in many ways. A summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame University from Farmington, CT, she went to Farmington High School. She is the daughter of wonderful parents, Fred and Katherine O'Connor in Farmington, CT. She will be going to Japan for a couple of weeks, meeting with the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House, as the Cherry Blossom Queen of the United States. You can understand the source of pride in our office and in Connecticut that Elizabeth has been chosen as Connecticut's society princess crowned the Cherry Blossom Queen. We are very proud of her. I know she will represent the State and the country very admirably. In the last few years we had another queen, Shannon Kula of my office, also chosen the Cherry Blossom Queen. People are beginning to wonder if Connecticut has some fix, a hold on the cherry blossom queen festival. Nothing such as that has occurred. This is good fortune and good luck for the State of Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, to offer a Senate resolution commending the Connecticut women's basketball team. We have had a phenomenal season from start to finish, with the crowning victory at the Alamodome in Texas, defeating the University of Oklahoma just a few weeks ago. Their 82-to-70 victory in the national championship game on March 31 capped one of the most dominant seasons enjoyed by any sports team in recent memory. The Huskie Women's Basketball Team finished the season undefeated, 39 and 0, becoming only the fourth women's NCAA basketball team in history to do so and one of a few teams that have had multiple national championships. There are only a handful that have had undefeated seasons and national championships. The margin of victory of the UConn team over the season was astounding. A historical 35 points was the average margin of victory in the 39 victories they had during the regular season. In all my years--I know the Presiding Officer is a fan as well of sports and basketball--I never have seen anything quite like this. Each game was not a question of whether or not they would win but by how much. A phenomenal group of young women, a phenomenal coaching staff, they just did a terrific job during the entire season. The accomplishments of this team go far beyond their dominance on the hard court. The Huskies have helped contribute to the greater cause of increasing the visibility of women athletes. Nearly 3.5 million people watched the final game on ESPN, which represented the largest audience for a college basketball game, men's or women's, in network history. Imagine, a few years ago, you would have been lucky to have a handful of people that might show up for a women's basketball game. Not only did they have 3.5 million people watching on television, 30,000 people were packed into the Alamodome to watch the final game. Many people would have predicted that could never have happened only a few years ago. Why shouldn't it be so? Anyone who watched this remarkable team from Connecticut as well as the other top teams across the Nation--Tennessee, Duke, Oklahoma; there are a lot of great women's teams, the number growing each and every year--would certainly be impressed with the quality of the play they have brought to the game. Theirs is a wonderful, pure style of basketball combining accurate shooting and flashy passing, as we have all seen, and sound all-around play. For the women's team, one of the strengths was the senior leadership. NCAA Player of the Year Sue Bird, along with her senior teammates Asjha Jones, Tamika Williams, and Swin Cash, have played together for 4 years--four remarkable women. This last victory caps an incredible collegiate career for these four women, including an unbelievable 136-and-9 record and two national championships--rather phenomenal. Throughout the season, their familiarity with each other made it seem as though they could read each other's minds as they played on the court. All of us in Connecticut are deeply proud. Last Saturday, there was a parade in Hartford, CT. Literally thousands of people on a bitterly cold day showed up to express their admiration and pride in these wonderful players and their coaches. Coach Geno Auriemma is truly a special individual and deserves some very special recognition. He has led this team to victory after victory and does so with a great deal of style, emotion, and feeling for these young women. He arrived on the Storrs campus in 1985, at which time the Huskie team had experienced only one winning season. He quickly turned the program into one of the leading powerhouses in the Nation, and the pride of the people of Connecticut has been swelling ever since. Coach Auriemma has compiled over 400 career wins at UConn including an unbelievable 272-and-17 record over the last 8 seasons. This represents a run of dominance possibly unmatched in the history of team sports competition. Under Coach Auriemma's leadership, the Huskies have won 3 national titles, 12 Big East regular season titles, and 11 Big East tournament titles. This year, Coach Auriemma was named National Coach of the Year for the fourth time in his career and the Big East Coach of the Year for the fifth time in his career. Perhaps the most important example of Coach Auriemma's philosophy is the way he has led these women to be winners on the court and off as well. I know the Presiding Officer will be impressed by this statistic. Coach Auriemma has overseen a program that boasts a 100-percent graduation rate for the young women of his team. That is something to be emulated across the country. The entire sports world could learn a great deal from Coach Auriemma and his staff and the generation of UConn women's players who have played for him. Athletes do not need to sacrifice an education or other valuable things in life for the sake of winning. If you set your sights on excellence, there is no telling how much you can achieve in life and where excellence will come in every endeavor in which you engage. Although some Huskies have gone on to excel in the WNBA, many others have gone on to careers as physicians, lawyers, and educators. I know Coach Auriemma is extremely proud of the alumni association that has come from the teams he has coached over the years. Let me also congratulate everyone involved in this incredible season. I mentioned the four seniors on the team: Sue Bird; Swin Cash; Diana Taurasi, a young woman, not a senior. She was the most junior in age of the starting five. I mentioned Asjha Jones and Tamika Williams. The starting five is the only team in NCAA history where all five starting players are All-Americans. Sue Bird was on the first team, two were on the second team, one on the third team, and one honorable mention. That has never been done before by a starting five on a basketball team. And the other players on the team could easily have been a starting team almost anywhere else, and they contributed successfully to the success and overall efforts. They include: Jessica Moore, Ashley Battle, Maria Conlon, Morgan Valley, Ashley Valley, and Stacey Marron. Thanks go to Geno Auriemma and his associate head coach, Chris Dailey, and Tonya Cardoza and Jamelle Elliott. Senator Lieberman and I are very proud of this wonderful group of people, these young players. They receive a lot of support around Connecticut. We have always had to export our sports allegiance, on a professional level, and in Connecticut you are either a Boston Red Sox fan or a Yankee fan. Some are now Mets fans. In football, you either support the Giants or the Patriots. In hockey, it is Boston, New York, or New Jersey. At the collegiate level, the UConn men's team, under Jim Calhoun, had a wonderful season, getting to the final eight, losing to Maryland, and the UConn women's team going on to the third national title in the last few years. While we don't have a professional sports team in our State, we have wonderful college athletics, and you can understand the great sense of pride we all feel over this unique and special accomplishment achieved by the UConn women's basketball team. I know my colleague is here being supportive.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 333, H. Con. Res. 339.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 186, S. 1499.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand Senators Kerry and Bond have a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the amendment be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to raise concern about a 5-to-4 decision that was reached earlier this week by the Supreme Court on the Family and Medical Leave Act, a bill that, along with many others in this body, I helped write back in the 1990s. It took a long time--about 7 years--from the time that bill was first introduced to the time it became law in February of 1993. But it was a singular achievement which improved tremendously the quality of life for millions of people who had worried about their dearly beloved ones--their children, their parents--so when their loved one was sick or they had a newborn or adopted a child, they could take some time off--12 weeks maximum in a year of unpaid leave--to be with their family during a time of crisis, or a ``joyous crisis,'' a birth, if you will--that is hardly a crisis but, nonetheless, an important period in people's lives, or a legitimate crisis--a child's illness or a parent they were caring for-- to be with them without losing their job. That is all it was: To help people, who often had been caught in the quandary of having to choose between the family they loved and the job they needed, when they needed to be with their families, yet there was the risk of losing their job if, in fact, they made the choice to be with their family. I pointed out, on dozens and dozens of occasions, during the debate over 7 years in this Chamber, that I knew countless Members of this body who took time away from the Senate--missed dozens of votes, never went to committee hearings, did not see constituents--because a child, a spouse, or a parent needed our colleagues to be home with them. And none of their constituents ever held it against them, when they came up for reelection, because they missed a lot of votes because they were at a children's hospital taking care of a child or they were with their wife or husband when they were desperately ill and they needed to be with them. Certainly, we understood. In fact, had they been here voting and disregarding the needs of their families, they might have been in greater jeopardy politically for having made that choice. But it seemed to me if Senators and Congressmen would make the choice to be with their families--and rightfully so--that we ought not ask average citizens to make any different choice. We wanted to provide the opportunity for them to do so without losing their job. That was the underlying thought process and the genesis of the bill. One of the requirements in the bill was for a general notification to employees of what the bill provided for: the 12 weeks of unpaid leave. There were some regulations that were adopted along those lines as a result of the passage of the bill. I think Sandra Day O'Connor got it right. The Court overruled the regulation because the regulation required specific notice to employees. It went beyond, if you will, you could argue, the general notification of the bill. But as Justice O'Connor pointed out, there was nothing in the bill that said you could not have additional requirements. You had a general notification, but there was nothing in the legislation, nor in the legislative history, that would have banned a regulation saying, you probably ought to give more specific notice to individuals rather than just tacking it up on a bulletin board someplace and saying: You have a right to 12 weeks of leave. We hope you get word of this. Her point was it would be unrealistic to assume that individual employees would be aware of what the law provided to them with just a general notification. Her suggestion was that the regulation to require specific notification would not be going too far. What happened here was the regulation also said that if you do not do that, then you are required to provide an additional 12 weeks of leave. The case, frankly, before the Court may not have been the best fact situation. In this particular case, the employer had been extremely generous to the employee, in my view. The employer had already provided about 30 weeks of leave for that particular employee. So it was one of those cases where it was not the best set of facts to make the point. I am in this Chamber to urge the agency, if you will, to take another look at these regulations. And I strongly urge that they come back and reissue the regulation, if you will, on the specific notification. I think that is the way to go. And then, in view of the Court's decision about any additional penalties, I would say, pare back on that some way. Again, leave it to legal scholars how to write this and how to fashion this. But the point is, on such a close decision--5 to 4--I do not believe the Court was suggesting somehow we ought to eliminate the need for specific notification, even though the bill talked about general notification. That is the point I want to make. This is a law that I am told has already provided benefits to more than 35 million people in this country in the last decade who have been able to take advantage of this. A lot of people cannot take advantage of it. I know that because it is unpaid leave. A lot of people find themselves in economic circumstances where unpaid leave is something they just can't afford to do. Candidly, we would never have passed a bill that would have required paid leave. The opposition was overwhelming to that idea. We have since suggested some creative ways in which States may be able to provide for paid leave under limited circumstances, and we are considering that legislation. Even with the unpaid provisions of this proposal, millions of people have been able to spend time with their families during very important periods in any family's life. As I said, in the situation of a newly arrived child, and I certainly know the joys of that, having had a daughter 6 months ago, knowing how important it is for my wife and myself to be able to spend time with Grace as she begins her new life. And certainly as a Member of the Senate, I can do that without any fear of losing my job because of it. There were literally millions of people who could not take time to be with their newborn without that fear on the table. Obviously, adoption makes the case clearly how important it is for a newly adopted child to be able to be with her new parents or his new parents during that bonding period. I don't think I have to make the case. If any of you have been to a children's hospital in a waiting room and seen the fear and anxiety in a mother's or father's face holding a child that is going into the hospital for some operation or into a pediatric intensive care unit, looking on the faces of parents with a newborn who is struggling to stay alive, wondering whether or not they should be there or on the job, as if somehow they could actually do a job while their child is sitting in an emergency room or an intensive care unit. It seemed to us logical that we provide this opportunity for people not to be forced into that situation. I regret we couldn't do something about having paid leave for people. We are one of the few countries in the world that does not do that. Almost every other industrialized, advanced nation in the world provides for paid leave under these circumstances. We don't do that. I regret that. But I don't have 51 votes for that in this Chamber. I had to do what I could do. So unpaid leave is the best I could do. The fact that millions of people have been able to take advantage of that is something for which I am very proud. I hope we can come back to this issue of notice. This has been a positive benefit for a lot of people. But a lot of people are unaware that the law exists. Some general notice tacked up on a bulletin board someplace means that an awful lot of people probably wouldn't find out about it. Specific notice makes more sense to me. My hope is the administration will promulgate a regulation that will call for specific notification and tailor it accordingly so it will not run afoul of the Supreme Court decision reached 5 to 4 a few days ago. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 3 p.m. Monday, April 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the energy reform bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 361.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 132, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nomination: Victoria Lipnic, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that any statements thereon be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate return to legislative session, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Randal Quarles, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Treasury, and that the nomination also be confirmed.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nomination: Nancy Bryson, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture, and that the nomination be confirmed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of nominations numbered 658, 663, 664, 669, 737 through 757; that they be confirmed, that all above motions to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements thereon be printed in the Record, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me express my very sincere gratitude to both leaders, first of all to Senator Daschle and his very fine staff who were immensely helpful in pulling this together. I thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott, for his wonderful leadership. He has been tremendously helpful to us in putting this agreement together. I also thank Senator McConnell and Senator Bond and their staffs for making it possible. Senator Lott's office worked very closely with their offices in bringing us to this point. We have had an awful lot of amendments. This bill had already handled some 35 or 40 amendments. We then had to lay the bill aside, and there was still an outstanding list of 40 or 45 amendments. This is a much more abbreviated list, and it will allow us to get to final passage on this bill. I am very optimistic we will end up with a positive vote in the Senate on this very important issue of election reform. It has been a little more than a year since the election of 2000. As we have said, this bill is forward looking. It is not about what happened in 2000; rather, what had been happening for many years in regard to the deteriorating condition of our election structure in the country. Florida merely highlighted for many Americans what had happened in many of the States as well. This bill, while not a complete answer, will put us on a very strong road to resolving a lot of the outstanding issues that occurred then. I am very grateful to the staffs of all those Senators involved-- Senators Schumer and Torricelli. I thank my own staff, Veronica Gillespie and Kennie Gill of the Rules Committee, as well as Shawn Maher of my office, who have worked very hard. We are not done yet. We have work to do on this unanimous consent agreement to deal with the remaining amendments and then a conference with the House. But this unanimous consent agreement, which took the cooperation of all Members of this Chamber, brings us very close to final passage of a good bill, my firm hope is, so that resources in the discretionary funds of this bill might even be available for the 2002 election, if we can get this done sometime over the next several months; that is, the final conference report. The purpose of this bill, as has been stated by many, is to make it harder to defraud the system but, just as importantly, to make it easier for people to cast their ballots: the provisional voting provisions, statewide voter registration, making sure people who are disabled will have access to voting, being able to check your vote, not overvoting, as well as the antifraud provisions and the provisions dealing with the establishment of a permanent commission on elections. All Members in this Chamber have been extremely cooperative on seeing to both of those twin goals: easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. Without the cooperation of everyone in this Chamber, we would not have arrived at this unanimous consent agreement. So it is a great compliment to Members from all across the country that we have been able to arrive at this unanimous consent agreement, the disposition of these amendments, and final passage of the bill that will make it possible for us to say we have made it easier to vote in America and harder to defraud the system. If that is achieved in the final product we produce, we will have responded to the challenge posed to us by what occurred not only in the 2000 national election but what had been occurring across the country for many years. I express my gratitude again to all involved. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request on behalf of the Democratic leader. This consent request has been cleared on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side. Let me read it, if I may. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in concurrence with the Republican leader, may resume the consideration of S. 565, the election reform bill; that debate on the bill be limited to 2 hours equally divided in the usual form; that the following be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order, and that debate on each amendment be limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form unless otherwise listed; further, that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to a vote in relation to each amendment; further, that second-degree amendments must be relevant to the amendment to which it is offered and debate be limited to 30 minutes unless otherwise listed; further, that any pending amendment not listed be withdrawn; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill; and that upon passage, the title amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further intervening action or debate; further, that no call for the regular order be in order with respect to this bill: Senator Levin, provisional balloting; Senator Clinton, residual ballot benchmark; Senator Rockefeller, overseas voters; Senator Wyden, voting by mail and first time voter; Senator Nelson of Florida, DOJ request; Senator Nickles, confidentiality voter lists; Senator Roberts, provisional balloting notices; Senator Hatch, Internet study; Senator Thomas, sense of Senate on rural concerns; Senator Grassley, use of Social Security numbers; Senator Smith of New Hampshire, election media reporting; and Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell, managers' amendment.