Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Massachusetts. I had no idea he was coming over to the floor to address an issue which he has spent a great deal of time on over the years. I found myself outraged when I awoke this morning and saw the headline in our local newspaper, ``Medical Privacy Changes Proposed.'' I do not have any long prepared speech to give, but I associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. We have worked hard over the years to try to see to it that people's privacy is protected. We know today, as a result of technology, the gathering of information, consumers want the right to know, but they also want the right to say no when it comes to having access to some of the most private and personal information. We would not tolerate allowing someone to break into your home and rifle through your closets and to find out, without any justification, the most personal details of your life or your family's life. Yet what the administration is doing here, in a sense, is going to allow people to do just that when it comes to the most personal and private information about you and your family--your medical history--and the damage that can be done to people with that kind of access. So I am terribly disappointed this morning to hear that the administration is going to be rolling back regulations that are designed to protect people. They are doing so, they claim, in the name of ensuring more rapid care. Well, I say shame on them. Shame on them for pitting care against your right to protect you and your family from people knowing your personal and private information. That is not what this is all about, wanting to protect you and getting you better care. We know people want access to this information. We know why they want access to the information. That is why people are so concerned. This is not about liberals or conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. This is about the fact that we, as Americans, feel deeply and strongly about our right to have private information kept private. There is a growing fear in our society of technology being used not only to improve our lives, as it is in so many ways, but to make it easier for people to rifle through our medicine cabinets, peer into our checkbooks, and be able to track us on Internet activities. It worries Americans that this is becoming far too prevalent. What we need to have is our Government standing up for individual citizens who cannot hire lawyers, who do not have the resources to go out and pay for people to bring lawsuits when this kind of information is abused or misused. We need to stand with them and say: Look, if you want to have this information, you have to get the patient's and the family's permission. In many cases, of course, families are going to give that permission, but you have to ask for it, and you have to get their permission to do so. The idea that you could bypass them and just decide you are going to have access to that information, without securing the patient's approval in order to have access to that information, I think is just downright wrong. I am heartened to know that the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is going to take steps, certainly through a hearing process, but, as well, to put the administration on notice that this rule change they are about to establish is not going to occur without significant opposition. I tried to call Senator Shelby in his office today. I cochaired the caucus, if you will, on privacy along with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. I think he may have already gone back to his home State of Alabama. He may have left last evening. He was not here this morning. But I wanted to invite him to join me in this Chamber, as he has on so many other occasions when it comes to these privacy issues, to stand up to say that we are going to insist that people have the right to say no. I cannot speak for him here, but I am confident that when the Senator from Alabama is heard on this issue, his voice and his words will not be significantly different than what I have said here already and that, in a bipartisan way, we will be standing up, very strongly, in seeing to it that this proposed rule change is not going to just fly through here without significant opposition.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 360.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record, without intervening action or debate; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 305, H.R. 1432; Calendar No. 332, S. 1222; Calendar No. 334, H.R. 1748; Calendar No. 335, H.R. 1749; Calendar No. 336, H.R. 2577; Calendar No. 337, H.R. 2876; Calendar No. 338, H.R. 2910; Calendar No. 339, H.R. 3072; Calendar No. 340, H.R. 3379.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Nickles has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1321 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today is, in fact, an historic day. As the Senate prepares to go to final passage on the McCain-Feingold/Shays- Meehan legislation on campaign finance reform, we are taking necessary action that the American people have been seeking for years. Today's Senate action will accomplish a fundamental rewrite of our Nations Federal campaign finance laws. The Senate will approve legislation addressing what the American people believe is the single most egregious abuse of our campaign financing system, the raising and spending of unlimited and unregulated ``soft money'' in our Federal elections. The exploding use of soft money that permeates our campaign system is having a corrupting influence suggesting that large contributions by donors to officeholders, candidates, and political parties provide those donors with preferred access and influence over public policy. The average voter of average means who cannot contribute thousands of dollars to campaigns has neither the access nor influence in Washington. Even the mere appearance of corruption erodes public confidence in the integrity of our electoral process and the independence of our democracy. The use of ``soft money'' is not the only problem. This legislation is not the only answer. But it is the answer around which a majority of members could coalesce. If the Shays-Meehan legislation does nothing else but eviscerate the soft money loophole, it would still be effective and real reform. But my colleagues in both Chambers have accomplished much more with this legislation. I enumerate the provisions that are most important in this Senator's opinion: First and foremost, the bill essentially bans the raising, spending and transferring of unregulated and unlimited ``soft money'' by national parties in Federal elections. The bill prohibits the use of soft money to purchase any broadcast advertisement that mentions a Federal candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The bill prohibits the use of treasury funds of corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit interest organizations to purchase broadcast, cable or satellite television advertisements that mention a Federal candidate, target the ad to the candidate's voting population and air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The bill allows an exception for the use of soft money by State and local parties to conduct get out the vote and voter registration activities that do not mention a Federal candidate so long as no single donor contributes more than $10,000 per year. The bill deems as a contribution any communication that is coordinated with candidates or political parties. The bill also requires the Federal Election Commission to promulgate new rules on coordination. The bill enhances full disclosure of the money flow. It requires disclosure to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours by any one who makes an independent expenditure that is more than $10,000 for broadcast, cable or satellite ads within 20 days of a general election. The bill increases certain contribution limits. It doubles the individual contribution limits, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election, to Presidential, Senate, and House candidates and indexes the limit to inflation; The individual limit is increased from $20,000 to $25,000 to national committees of a political party; and The aggregate individual contribution limit to parties, PACs, and candidates per year is increased from $25,000 per year to $95,000 per election cycle, including not more than $37,000 to candidates and $20,000 for the national party committees. The bill triples hard-money limits for House candidates facing wealthy, self-financed candidates spending $350,000 of their own money on a campaign. Senate candidates would qualify for up to six times the individual limit depending on the amount spent by their wealthy opponents and the population of their State. Finally, the effective date is this November 6, 2002, one day after the congressional general elections. In addition, the effective date is January 1, 2003 for any changes to the contribution limits. This means that the 2002 Federal elections will be unaffected by this new law. As I noted previously, while I may disagree with certain aspects of a few provisions, I fully support this legislation as the best effort that Congress can make to enact real campaign finance reform. There are two provisions, in particular, that continue to cause me some concern. First is the so-called ``millionaire's provision'' which purports to level the playing field for candidates who face wealthy challengers. Arguably a laudable goal, the provision ignores the fact that many incumbent who face wealthy challengers have healthy campaign treasuries, sometimes amounting to several million dollars. In such cases, this provision serves mainly as an incumbent protection provision. There continues to be no recognition of the considerable war chests that some incumbents have ready for use in Federal elections. This kind of provision works against the public policy goals of campaign finance reform. Second, although I reluctantly supported the Senate amendment to increase the individual hard money contribution limits, I did so only in the context of achieving broader reform. Quite simply, at that time, the increase in the hard money limits was the price to be paid to gain sufficient support from our Republican colleagues for banning soft money and placing proper restrictions on so-called sham issue ads. Of particular concern to me is the indexing of these contribution increases to inflation. That only ensures the continuing upward spiral of more money into our campaign finance system. Notwithstanding these two concerns, I am convinced that this legislation is narrowly tailored to strike the appropriate, and a constitutionally sound, balance between the two competing values scrutinized by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, protecting free speech and limiting the ``actuality and the appearance of corruption.'' It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer, now is the time to enact the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation. The American people have waited long enough. I am privileged and honored to be part of the majority in support of campaign finance in general and this legislation in particular. In fact, there has never been a perfect campaign financing system because adjustments will always have to be made as legal and factual ingenuity outpaces the laws. It is an issue I have supported over the years since arriving in the Congress, including my time in both the House as well as the Senate. I stand ready to do what I can to make reform a reality in the 107th Congress. This final debate may find its place in history, along with the Senate debate during the weeks of March 19, 2001-April 2, 2001, as one of the greatest Senate debates in the last decade, both in terms of substance and impact on our system of democracy. I have been privileged and honored to serve as floor manager of this measure, along with the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Mitch McConnell. As my colleague from Kentucky has alluded to, the stakes in this legislation are considerable for many interested parties. I thank all of my colleagues for their patience and cooperation throughout this winding-down process and compliment them all for a difficult job well done in enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform. First, I must acknowledge that the Senate would not be here today in this historic posture if not for the determined leadership of Tom Daschle. No individual Member has been more consistent in support of campaign finance reform than our leader. And, no Member has worked harder behind the scenes to hold the Democratic caucus together in support of this issue. Majority Leader Daschle took several procedural actions to formally ensure timely final passage of this measure before recess. The talk of overnights and virtually ``around the clock'' sessions to accommodate a filibuster, if necessary, were not a threat but a reality. Campaign finance is serious business. It is a major priority on the majority leader's agenda. It is only with his leadership that the Senate's work was completed by not only guaranteeing a timely vote on the legislation but also guaranteeing an opportunity for all Members to represent their views on the matter. I further compliment the majority leader for his willingness to provide the opportunity for a free debate even in the rush of final passage. This issue is of paramount importance to the continued health of this democracy. The majority leader's handling of this winding-down process of campaign finance debate exemplified the Senate at its best. The freeflow of ideas, the unrestricted opportunity to offer and debate amendments, and the ability of all Members to be heard are the hallmarks of this Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body. At the same time, I must also acknowledge the powerful influence of my colleague, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for his devotion to the principles of free speech and association. His unyielding belief that most, if not all, proposed campaign finance reforms are not only unwise, but unconstitutional. I think all my colleagues would agree that Senator McConnell is a formidable advocate for his position. While we hear from the good Senator today, we are sure to hear from him in the future, even if in a different capacity. I congratulate my esteemed colleagues and good friends and the foremost leaders in campaign finance reform. Since 1995, the Senate leaders of campaign finance reform are Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the house, the leaders are Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. I acknowledge them for their vision in recognizing the powerfully negative influence of the money chase in our financing system. Their dogged persistence and patience in striving to craft a consensus on reform legislation that addresses the worst aspects of the current system is now paying off. I must express my great respect to my colleagues in the Democratic caucus, under the very able leadership of Majority Leader Daschle, along with a small group of courageous Senators across the aisle, who have put aside their own short-term political interests and voted time and again in favor of comprehensive, commonsense, and badly needed campaign finance reform. I also thank the numerous staff who have assisted in facilitating consideration of this measure, not the least of which are our Democratic floor staff, including Marty Paone, Lula Davis, and Gary Myrick, along with the outstanding democratic cloakroom staff. I also want to extend my special appreciation to Jennifer Duck and Michelle Ballantyne of Senator Daschle's staff, along with Mark Childress and Mark Patterson, who were invaluable in offering much needed expertise and guidance on bringing this legislation to final passage. Of equal assistance with both the substance and the procedures for this legislation were the staff of Senators Feingold and McCain, including Bob Schiff, Ann Choiniere and Jeanne Bumpus. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator McConnell's staff, including Hunter Davis of his personal staff, and Tam Somerville, Brian Lewis, and Leon Sequeira of the Rules Committee minority staff. Finally, I want to thank Shawn Maher and Sheryl Cohen of my personal office staff, and Kennie Gill, the Democratic staff director and chief counsel of the rules committee as well as Veronica Gillespie, my elections counsel on the rules committee staff. This has been one of the most remarkable legislative experiences I have had the pleasure of working on during my time in the Senate. For all these reasons, I am privileged and honored to be associated with this legislation. But I must emphasize, the primary winners are all American citizens.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from Minnesota for his typical eloquence. I, too, think he offered a very valuable amendment and one that, as he has explained, ran the risk of sinking the legislation, but that did not make the amendment any less worthy. For oftentimes, in a situation where a proposal makes all the sense in the world, for a variety of other reasons it may make it difficult to continue the process. But his point about treating some organizations differently than others is based on sound logic. I commend him for his efforts and his participation in the debate on this subject matter and for his longstanding commitment to the issue of campaign finance reform. Today is, in fact, one of those historic days. It may not look that way at this particular moment in the Chamber where every seat is not occupied, but we are coming down to the final hours of what has been a very lengthy, contentious, and highly charged debate, going back years in this country. It will come to a culmination, I am told, possibly as early as this afternoon. We will vote, finally, on a package dealing with campaign finance reform. It is an issue I have supported over the years, since arriving in the Congress, for that matter, in the other body, where I served for some 6 years before coming to the Senate 21 years ago. The issue of campaign finance reform--in the wake of Watergate in the mid-1970s, which spawned the underlying legislation that dealt with Presidential races and campaign finance issues--has been an ongoing discussion and debate for many years and one I have associated myself with as both a Member of the other body and a Member of this body. The action we are going to take later today is going to rewrite one of our Nation's Federal campaign finance laws in a very fundamental way. As has been stated over and over again, the Senate will approve legislation addressing what the American people believe is maybe the single most egregious abuse of our campaign finance system, and that is the raising and spending of unlimited and unregulated so-called soft money in our Federal elections. It is not the only problem in our campaign finance laws. It is not the only answer. But it is the answer around which a majority of Members here could coalesce. I would have preferred a system that has been used at the Presidential level, which I think has worked very well. And every American President, regardless of party, has embraced it, going back to the late 1970s: Ex-Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr., the father, as well as President Clinton, and President Bush, the son. All have embraced the principle of matching campaign contributions, public support, with limits, prohibitions, and disclosure on the amounts spent on campaigns. To their credit, every Republican candidate and Democratic candidate have done so. While it is extremely expensive to run for President, in the absence of that structure, I think we would have watched the cost in Presidential campaigns double, triple, maybe quadruple what it is today. Today, there is not a majority of Members of this body or the any other body who would support a similar structure for congressional races, Senate or House. So no matter how good the idea may be, if you can't muster 51 votes here and a majority in the House, then the idea is only that: it is a good idea, but it lacks the ability to build the necessary majority support for the idea to become law. This is the formula we have been able to coalesce around, to either ban, or place specific and real limits, on soft money in our Federal elections. While others may wish we had a different formula, it seems to me that not to do anything because you are unable to get your formula adopted would be a huge mistake. I strongly support this approach, although I might have preferred others. The exploding use of soft money that permeates our campaign system is, of course, having, in the minds of many, a corrupting influence, suggesting that large contributions by donors to officeholders, candidates, and political parties provide those donors with preferred access and influence over public policy. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial, I have never suggested, I have never known of a particular Member whom I thought cast a ballot because of a contribution. In the minds of most people--a sad commentary--maybe not most, but many people, that is the case. That is what they think happens. So it then becomes a fact to them. Whether or not the reality lines up with that perception is something else. But if in the minds of Americans, our public citizens at large, in whom we must maintain the confidence of an electoral democratic process, our campaign financing system is so corrupted by large contributions, that is a stark reality with which we have to contend. That is what our distinguished colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin, Senators McCain and Feingold, and their supporters have had in mind over the years. It is not unreasonable that the public perception of even the appearance of corruption erodes public confidence in the integrity of our electoral process and the independence of our democracy. If the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation does nothing else but eviscerate the soft money loophole, it will be considered the most effective reform in decades. I am convinced this legislation is narrowly tailored to strike the appropriate and constitutionally sound balance between the two competing values scrutinized by the Supreme Court in the historic case of Buckley v. Valeo: Protecting free speech and limiting ``the actuality and the appearance of corruption.'' It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action with enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer. Now is the time to enact the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation. The American people have shown an incredible amount of patience in waiting for this law to be enacted. I predict this debate will find its place in history. The debate, going back to the end of March and early April of 2001, will go down as one of the most significant, worthwhile debates in the recent history of this institution. Everyone had a chance to offer whatever amendments they wanted to on the bill. It was free flowing. It was actually an ongoing debate and discussion about ideas. The Senator from Minnesota, during that period, offered his amendment. We had many other ideas being offered by a number of Senators that had a chance for full discussion and airing. We then had the opportunity to vote those amendments. I compliment the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, for his willingness and his leadership in providing the opportunity for every Member to have full input in the rush of passage. This issue was of paramount importance to the continued health of our democracy. The majority leader's handling in the winding-down process of the campaign finance debate exemplified the Senate at its best. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, played a very important role as well in seeing to it that everyone had a chance to be heard as we went through that historic debate last year. Now, as we prepare for the final passage, the unrestricted opportunity to offer and debate amendments, the unrestricted opportunity for all parties to complete negotiations for a technical corrections bill, and the opportunity for all Members to be heard are the hallmarks of the world's greatest deliberative body. We should all be proud to be Members of it, as we finalize this product. At the same time, I also acknowledge the influence and the passion the Senator from Kentucky has brought to this issue. He is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the former chairman. I have said on other occasions, he embraces an unyielding belief in how the financing of our campaigns should be accomplished. There are concerns about the constitutionality of certain provisions, whether or not this is the way we ought to be regulating speech in this country. I disagree with Senator McConnell with respect to his conclusions that most or some of these provisions are unconstitutional with respect to first amendment right to free speech and association. However, I admire people who have strong beliefs and are willing to fight for them. Whatever else one may say about the substance of this debate, we all admire the commitment and strength of Senator McConnell and his commitment to his ideas and how hard he has fought for them. Certainly Senators Feingold and McCain, Congressman Shays, and Congressman Meehan deserve the lion's share of credit for pursuing this issue. They have been unyielding in their determination in the face of a lot of criticism, a lot of people pushing in the other direction. They stuck with it. As a result, we are about to adopt historic legislation that will bear their names. Whatever else they may accomplish--and they have in many other areas--I know for Senators Feingold and McCain, the accomplishment of campaign finance reform will culminate one of their finest hours of public service. They have rightly received the acknowledgment for their efforts in bringing this bill to its final conclusion. I support this legislation. I thank the Democratic leader and whip, Senator Reid, the two sponsors of the bill in the Senate, and those who have opposed it. This has been one of the finer debates in which I have participated in my service in the Senate, the culmination of which is not going to alter the course of history, but it is going to bring a significant, profound, and worthwhile change in how we finance our campaigns for public office at the Federal level. For all these reasons, I am privileged and honored to be associated with campaign finance reform legislation and commend those who have been engaged in this debate in helping us to arrive at this moment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge my good friend, colleague and ranking member on the Rules Committee, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. While he and I may be on opposite sides of this issue, we are on the same side of another issue--the election reform legislation which is now pending before the Senate. I would much prefer to be with him on an issue rather than against him. I think all my colleagues agree that he is a formidable advocate for his position. Even if a resolution is clear on this legislation at the end of the day, I suspect this will not be the end of Senator McConnell's advocacy with regard to campaign finance reform issues. I turn now to the matter at hand. I rise today to express my optimism that Congress will enact real campaign finance reform this week. We must not use this week to merely re-debate legislation already fully debated and adopted by both chambers of Congress. Only final passage is the proper tribute to the culmination of years of extraordinary bicameral and bipartisan leadership provided by my good friends and colleagues. In the Senate, the leaders of campaign finance reform are Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the House, the leaders are Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. On February 14, 2002, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill, H.R. 2356, was adopted by a vote of 240-189 in the House. On April 2, 2001, the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill, S. 27, was adopted by a vote of 59-41 in the Senate. Interestingly, today is only one day short of being a full year from when the Senate started debate on the McCain-Feingold measure--March 19, 2001. Last year, I was honored to serve as floor manager for the Senate debate on campaign finance reform legislation. I was equally as honored to be counted as one of the 59 votes to adopt the McCain-Feingold bill. I stand in the same shoes today. It is a high honor to serve as floor manager of the Senate debate on the Shays-Meehan measure. I will be equally as honored to be counted among the many Members who will vote in a bipartisan manner to adopt this reform bill. I congratulate my colleagues in both chambers for the hard-fought success that this legislation reflects. I especially wish to take this time to extend my sincere congratulations to my good friend, Congressman Chris Shays. It is with a sense of parochial pride in this House action that the major co-sponsor of the legislation, who is a longstanding friend of mine and a Member of the Connecticut delegation, has been a principled advocate of campaign finance reform for years. I want to express the tremendous sense of pride of all the people of Connecticut to Chris Shays for his outstanding efforts to achieve real campaign finance reform on behalf of all Americans. Our Senate debate will only confirm that the House merely adopted virtually the same bill as the Senate approved after a robust debate on April 2, 2001. In general, both bills would change the way political parties raise and spend money, regulate issue advertising, increase contribution limits, improve disclosure requirements, and make other changes to campaign finance law. Specifically, both bills would ban unrestricted ``soft money'' contributions to political parties by corporations, unions, and individuals; Both bills would restrict end-of-campaign advertising funded by organizations that name a Federal candidate; Both bills would increase the aggregate limits on contributions by individuals to candidates, PACs, and parties; and Both bills would improve disclosure of campaign finance activity. Thee are a few minor differences between the House and Senate passed bills. For example, there is a difference in the contribution limits for an individual. Under the House bill, an individual may contribute a total of $95,000 in 2 years to candidates, PACs, and parties. under the Senate bill, an individual may contribute a total of $37,500 in 1 year to candidates, PACs, and parties. Under both bills, an individual is nevertheless limited to an annual maximum contribution of $37,500 to candidates. Another difference between the two bills is that the House bill eliminates Senator Torricelli's amendment requiring the lowest unit rate for the purchase of broadcast advertisements. Finally, the House bill extends to House candidates the ``millionaires amendment.'' These are all very minor differences that serve to make the two bills substantially the same. As a result, the Senate would not benefit from an extended debate on re-hashing the same issues in this version of the Shays-Meehan legislation. Last year's open and full Senate debate on these same issues in McCain-Feingold remains sufficient for our purposes today, which is to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. It is my fervent hope that we pass this legislation with a minimum amount of debate. This is not a ``mission impossible,'' given the fact that the House bill is virtually a mirror image of the Senate-passed bill. The Senate already participated in weeks of full, open and unrestricted debate on campaign finance reform. And the Senate already voted on both the substance of the bill and all relevant amendments to the bill. Now the question becomes whether yet another extended Senate debate will serve to ensure certain improvements in the bill or, to the contrary, only serve to ensure further delay of the bill? On balance, I believe the risk of delay far outweighs the potential for legislative improvements. There is no perfect legislation. Attempting to craft perfect legislation only serves to jeopardize the Senate's ability to send this measure to the President for signature. Instead of becoming law, the Shays-Meehan bill would be on yet another journey. It would be a candidate for a Senate-House conference or additional House debate. Either of these scenarios would kill any real chance to enact campaign finance reform in the 107th Congress. I urge my colleagues to consider this road well traveled for decades. It is time to resist exploring new and substantive forks in the road. As do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel strongly about the need for comprehensive campaign reform. Time and again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate--and, I must emphasize, bipartisan--efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that afflicts our political system, only to see a minority of the Senate block further consideration of the issue. It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous advice of Mark Twain, who once said, ``Do not put off until tomorrow what can be put off till day-after-tomorrow just as well.'' It is now long past the day-after-tomorrow. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of special- interest money that is drowning our system of government. Oscar Wilde once observed that ``A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.'' I fear that the exploding dominance of money in politics has created a similar atmosphere of cynicism in our political system--an environment where the value of ideas, of debate, of people in general, is overwhelmed by the price tag of free speech and political success. The worst aspect of the current financing system is its affect on eroding public confidence in the integrity of our political process. The real concern is that the escalating amounts of money pouring into our elections is having a corrupting influence on our political system. The public perception of the problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption is that large political contributions to candidates and political parties provide those donors with preferred access and influence over American public policy--and the average American has neither the access nor influence in Washington. The more money that is required to run for office, the more influence that the donors--wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups--have over elected officials and public policy. The real harm to avoid is having the concerns of the average voters completely usurped by the money and influence of these powerful individuals, corporations, and interest groups. It is this concern--the relationship of money to power--that is casting a vote of ``no confidence'' in the integrity of our electoral process. It is this devastating harm of corruption and the appearance of corruption that campaign finance reform seeks to avoid. To date, Congress has an unacceptable record since we have only sought to avoid the remedy for the harm. Unfortunately, not only does historical data tend to support this pessimistic view--the current data sustains this view. Take a cursory look at raising and spending soft money in the November 2000 Presidential and congressional elections. It sends one message--our financing system is in urgent need of repair. According to the center for responsive politics, the total amount spent on the 2000 Presidential and congressional campaigns was approximately $3 billion. This price tag is up from $2.2 billion in 1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Democratic and Republican parties raised $1.2 billion in 2000--a 36 percent increase over the $881 million raised by the parties in 1996. In that same period, democrats raised over $245 million in soft money, while Republicans raised over $249 million in soft million. the parties use soft money funds for so-called issue ads and other so- called party building activities. In that same period, Democrats raised over $275 million ion ``hard money,'' while Republicans almost doubled that amount in fundraising with over $465 million in hard money. The parties use hard money funds for direct contributions to candidates and other activities to advocate the election or defeat of candidates for Federal office. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law conducted a study on television advertising in the 2000 Federal elections. The Brennan Center found that the Presidential election was the first election in history where the major national political parties spent more on television ads than the candidates themselves spent--the Democratic and Republican national committees together spent over $80 million on TV ads, a lot more than the $67 million spent by Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush. The Brennan Center found that the vast amount of money spent by the parties on TV ads was ``soft money,'' the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. The Brennan Center found that spending by groups in congressional campaigns on so-called issue ads increased from $10 million in 1998 to $32 million in 2000. Finally, the Brennan Center also found that only a small percentage of party soft money is spent for get-out-the-vote and voter mobilization activities. Only 8.5 cents of every dollar goes to GOTV and voter registration activities while 40 cents of every dollar goes to purchase ads to support or defeat candidates for Federal office. In contrast to all this financial participation in elections, according to the Federal Election Commission report on the 2000 Federal elections, just under 105.4 million Americans voted in the Presidential election. That is 51 percent of the Census Bureau's estimated voting age population of over 205.8 million Americans. The voter turnout figure of 51 percent in 2000 was somewhat higher than the 49 percent turnout for the 1996 Federal elections--the first time in modern political history when less than half of the eligible electorate turned out to vote for President. This means that the voter turnout has declined sharply--from over 63 percent of the voting age population in 1952 to slightly over 51 percent of the voting age population in 2000. Arguably, while there are no accurate national statistics, it is sufficient to project that there is only a small percentage of individual donors with average income who actually contribute to political campaigns. These statistics tell the story of a system in which a small percentage of individual donors are making ever larger contributions, while at the same time more and more voters have lost such confidence in our elections that they do not even feel it is worthwhile to vote. Do any of us really believe this is acceptable? Do any of us believe that this is not a system in need of comprehensive reform? If we are to break the grip that money currently holds on our campaigns, we must enact legislation that will stop the flow of unregulated money in the political system and limit the flow of regulated money into Federal campaigns. We must restore common sense by eliminating the opportunities for legalisms and loopholes that mock the spirit of our campaign finance laws. We must give those who enforce the law the resources they need to ensure that the campaign financing system is lawful and fair. I look forward to participating in the process of winding-down the campaign finance debate. I also look forward to working with my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--and to adopting this moderate legislation that restores the proper balance of money to politics and restores the American people's confidence in our current financing system. I urge each of my colleagues to put aside any and all partisanship and personal ambitions to join me in de-emphasizing the importance of money in politics. This is not a complicated task. We desperately need to ensure that the average American is heard in Washington over the din of special interest voices. We must ensure that the exercising of Americans' free speech in the political process is not governed by the price tagon contribution amounts that can be raised and spent on Federal elections. As Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote in the Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC case, ``Money is property, money is not speech.'' This is why Congress has an obligation to enact comprehensive, meaningful, and real campaign finance law and pass the law now. The action we take today will signal to all Americans that exercising their first amendment right to free speech and association outside the beltway has now been heard inside the beltway. Americans have waited long enough. Congress has the first opportunity in a generation to clean up a political system that most Americans believe is polluted by campaign contributions, or the appearance of such pollution. There is no room for wavering or using a philosophical, legal or factual excuse for killing this legislation. This is a real chance to curb the role of money in politics. It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer--now is the time to enact the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold legislation. The American people have waited long enough! I fully support this legislation as the best effort that Congress can make to enact real campaign finance reform. I stand ready to do what I can to make reform a reality in the 107th Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just an hour or so ago, I made a call to Colombia, South America, and spoke with the husband of Ingrid Betancourt, who, as many may know, is the woman candidate for President of Colombia who was recently kidnaped. I expressed to Ingrid Betancourt's husband the sincere hopes of all of us here that his wife be returned to safety soon, that she be allowed to continue in her efforts as a candidate in that country in the upcoming presidential election, and I told Mrs. Betancourt's family that the hopes and prayers of all of us in the United States are with them in these very difficult hours. Colombia is a nation under tremendous stress and pressure, and the level of violence there has tremendously escalated since the collapse of the Pastrana-FARC peace talks. President Pastrana has tried his entire Presidency to come up with a peaceful resolution of the 40-year- old conflict in that country, and he deserves great credit for the efforts he has made from the very first days of his Presidency up until just a few days ago, when those talks finally broke down completely. Currently, rebel forces are doing everything in their power to compromise the fragile democracy of that country. Guerrillas have bombed electrical towers, bridges, and waterworks while mining highways and increasing the number of roadblocks on Colombia's streets. As a result, more than 110 towns, representing 10 percent of Colombia's urban centers, have been left in darkness, and 76 municipalities in 6 provinces have had their phone service cut out completely. Colombian citizens are living each day in fear while enduring tremendous domestic hardship. President Pastrana has warned his people more attacks are likely, and the citizens of Colombia are frightened, to put it mildly. Even worse, FARC rebels have undertaken a violent offensive against public figures, stepping up the frequency of political attacks that were already too common in the months before the collapse of the peace talks on February 20. For years, the FARC--the organization I described--and other rebel forces in Colombia, have financed their violent siege of terror by kidnaping Colombian citizens and demanding ransom. When the ransom is not paid, the hostages are killed, and new hostages are taken. It is a vicious cycle that repeats over and over again, taking a toll on the spirit of this beleaguered nation. Indeed, at this point close to 4,000 people have died in Colombia since the beginning of hostilities; kidnappings are about 3,000 a year. At the same time, rebel groups have executed several political figures, including mayors, judges, members of the legislature, and candidates. As elected officials ourselves, this is a development that we should be particularly enraged by, and one that should draw the attention and concern of all people in democratic countries around the globe. On March 3, Martha Catalina Daniels, a Colombian Senator, was tortured and killed near Bogota by guerrilla fighters while attempting to negotiate the release of hostages kidnaped by leftist rebels. After her torture, she was shot at close range with two bullets to the head, and then dumped in a ravine off a country road. A staffer and a friend of Senator Daniels were also killed in this vicious attack against decency and democracy, not to mention the value of human life. Senator Daniels was the fourth member of the Colombian Congress to be killed since the middle of last year while working in her elected capacity as a representative of the Colombian people. Could you imagine similar events happening in our Capitol? There would be tremendous public outcry, and the Government would respond swiftly and decisively. Just because this crime happened in conflict-torn Colombia does not mean that we should allow this execution to pass by without public comment or outcry in this, the greatest Congress on the planet. We must stand with our democracy-loving colleagues around the world in condemning these attacks. This crime was a vicious and merciless murder of a dedicated and courageous public servant and her staff who were simply doing their jobs--jobs that we and our staffs do everyday. In recognition of this commitment, Senator Daniels' sacrifice will not be forgotten by the Colombian people or her friends in America. Her death will not be in vain. Yet the assault on democracy in Colombia is not only targeted at those who hold office. Rebels also have targeted national candidates for public office as Colombia prepares for an upcoming presidential election. On February 23, Colombia presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, and her chief of staff, Clara Rojas, were seized while driving toward the southern war zone of San Vicente del Caguan. Mrs. Betancourt's driver and two journalists accompanying her were held and released, but Mrs. Betancourt and Ms. Rojas were kept in custody--a clear sign that this kidnaping was intended to send a signal to the political class in Colombia. The FARC, who are believed to have perpetrated this crime, currently hold five other politicians hostage and are attempting to cripple democracy in this Nation by force. However, the Colombian Government rightly refuses to negotiate with these terrorists for fear that concessions would encourage even more kidnapings in the future, and the situation is presently at a standoff. Mrs. Betancourt has been allowed to fax her family to assure them of her well-being, and she has expressed her concern for her family, friends, and country. Even now, as a prisoner, she stands by her democratic principles. As she suffers, she seeks to bring international attention to the problem of violence in Colombia through her plight. Mrs. Betancourt's daughter has stated that her mother has indicated her desire that people be conscious of what is happening in Colombia and recognize that a war is going on in that country every day. She seeks to use her own situation as a rallying point for the international community against violence in Colombia. I spoke to Mrs. Betancourt's husband this afternoon, and expressed my sympathy to him and his family, and my admiration for his courageous wife, and expressed as well those same sentiments on behalf of all of us in this Chamber. I pray for her safe and quick return. Attention in America is rightly focused on Afghanistan and the war against terrorism. However, we cannot allow the brave sacrifices of people like Ingrid Betancourt to go unnoticed. We have to reserve some of our attention to expend on the festering problems of Colombia. If we turn our backs on this corner of the world, I fear that we may see another situation arise like that which we saw when we ignored Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation. We cannot and should not allow this to happen. And so, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be deeply aware of the sacrifices of people such as Martha Daniels, Ingrid Betancourt, and their staffs. They have paid the ultimate price for their commitment to democracy and have shown great courage by serving as politicians in such a volatile and strife-torn country. Their service is a testament to the democratic commitment of the vast majority of Colombian people, a commitment that was reconfirmed on March 11, when huge numbers of Colombians went to the polls even though they had been threatened with violence as they sought to execute their constitutionally given right to vote. Colombia is a troubled country in desperate need of our assistance and the assistance of other democratic nations around the globe. But the spirit of democracy lives on in the dedicated public servants and citizens of our friend and neighbor to the South. I want the Colombian Government, and more importantly the people of Colombia, to know their courage and sacrifice has been noted by the American people and by this individual in this body speaking, I am very confident, on behalf of all of us in this Chamber in urging the FARC and other organizations to cease in the abduction of political figures, to cease in the abduction of innocent civilians, in that country and to go back to the bargaining table and try to figure out a way to resolve this four-decade old conflict. The deaths and the abductions shredding this country deserve the attention of this Congress, the American people, and freedom-loving people everywhere. I ask my colleagues to take an active interest in this problem and act as friends of Colombia. The Colombian people, people like Ingrid Betancourt and Martha Daniels, deserve no less.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am saddened today to hear about the death of a great citizen of Connecticut, Marilyn Seichter, who passed away on Feb. 10 of Huntington's Disease. As the first female head of both the State bar association and the State Ethics Commission, she was a pioneer for women in the legal profession. Her brilliant career and life came to an end far too early, at the age of 56. Marilyn Seichter earned her law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1970, and went on to practice family law for 25 years as a partner with the law firm of Hyman, Cantor, Seichter and Klau in Hartford. She spent her career fighting for women, children and families in Connecticut. In 1971, fresh out of law school, she joined a team of lawyers in bringing an abortion rights case against the State of Connecticut. This case had a profound influence on the Supreme Courts decision in Roe vs. Wade. Later in her career, she represented the National Organization for Women in a lawsuit to stop newspapers from distinguishing between jobs for men and jobs for women in help wanted sections. Marilyn Seichter's accomplishments include serving as president of the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, and as a member of an ad hoc committee to advise Governor Ella Grasso on judicial appointments. I would like to express my condolences to her sister-in-law, Jacqueline Seichter; her niece, Deborah Seichter; her nephew, Daniel Seichter; and her grandnephew, Jacob Seichter; as well as her many close friends and admirers. She was truly one of Connecticut's treasures, and she will be missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will not take more than 10 minutes. I see my colleague from New Hampshire here as well. I voted against the so-called stimulus package a few moments ago. I didn't have a chance before the vote occurred to explain why I was going to cast that ballot, voting no. Obviously, there are provisions that I strongly endorse and support, including: The extension of unemployment benefits; teacher expenses which is an item we argued about a number of years ago that I thought would be very worthwhile; and the New York recovery package--certainly I would like to see us do what we can to help New York City as a result of what happened September 11. If those were the only issues, this would have been an easy vote. They were not the only issues. In fact, they were minor issues by comparison to what else was included in this package. Based on whatever estimates you want to rely on, at least over the next 10 years, there are $42 billion in revenue losses to the Federal Treasury. Yesterday, the Presiding Officer, I, and others who sit on the Senate Banking Committee had the pleasure of listening to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board say their analysis at the Federal Reserve was that we are on our way out of this recession. The worrisome figures that indicated this recession could be deeper or be a double-dip recession apparently will not bear out. The country is getting stronger, the economy is getting much stronger. While there may have been a strong case for this bill that just went through by 85-9--it is becoming the law of the land--and a strong case could have been made for it 2 or 3 years ago or even a number of months ago, but I do not think the case could be made for it today. Using the most conservative number, the $42 billion, that is $42 billion more to the deficits with which we are grappling, which according to the CBO, may be $120 billion in this coming fiscal year. The administration had initially said $80 billion. We are now told that over 10 years it is $1.8 trillion. Well, $42 billion in a $1.8 trillion deficit may not sound like much, but it is when we are trying to see if we can do more, for instance, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, where we need maybe $100 million to $200 million to beef up enforcement and accounting divisions to deal with an Enron-type situation. It is a lot when we know, as a result of increasing the workload of working mothers, we need additional funding for child care, that we ought to do more on the child abuse treatment and prevention programs--to mention a couple. In transportation, we have an $8.6 billion shortfall. I don't know a section of the country that will not be hurt by that budget decision. Yet we just took $42 billion off the table this morning by a 85-9 vote. State budget shortfalls will total more than $42 billion for the current fiscal year. A few months ago, we had a stimulus proposal on the table that would have included State assistance. The previous House version of this bill contained capped assistance for State Medicaid Programs and also provided dollars back to the States as a result of the revenue losses on the bonus depreciation. My State just lost $240 million this morning. New York lost more than $2 billion. So on one hand we are giving money for relief and providing assistance on the September 11 tragedy, yet we will take $2 billion away from the State of New York. And again, in my state, this bill is taking $240 million! The Governor and others are wrestling with how to provide needed resources to our area. I mentioned the $8.6 billion deficit reduction in the administration's budget for transportation. That is a huge issue in my State, as I know it is in the State of the Presiding Officer and others. Listen to what we have done and the analysis of this. The most expensive component of this bill that we just passed is the 3-year bonus depreciation provision that will costs close to $97 billion during the next three years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, a nonpartisan budget office, concluded that allowing depreciation bonus for 3 years rather than 1 year--which is what we should have done--would sharply reduce the effectiveness of this proposal as an economic stimulus. These are their words. With a 3-year provision, firms can delay investment until well after the economy has recovered. This provision will worsen the financial situation in States which are facing cumulative budget deficits of more than $42 billion. Unlike the last two stimulus bills the House passed and the stimulus bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last fall, this bill we adopted includes no fiscal assistance whatsoever to States to offset the State revenue offices that the depreciation provision would cost. As I said, this bill might have been fine 5 months ago, but today it is a mistake. The provision calls for 3 years at 30 percent, but the 3- year period begins on September 11. So all investments since September 11 will qualify; new investments have to be made by September 10, 2004, long after the recession is over. This is overreaching and it goes too far. We have to learn to have a sense of balance about these things when we take these steps. In 2002, the bonus depreciation provision will cost $35 billion. This is unfortunate when I know there are many great demands. How do you not have interest rates go up if the deficit continues to mount? On the net operating loss, I am sympathetic to some of the issues, but this provision allows a carryback to 1996--1996, as a stimulus package? It is overreaching, way overreaching. There is a lot we did not include: There are no health care tax provisions. No rebates--the bill drops the $14 billion included earlier. No small business expensing. No general increase in small business expensing. And no State assistance. I know there are provisions that Members did not want to be seen voting against, such as extension of unemployment benefits. I know we wanted to help out in the case of September 11 and what happened in New York. But typically what happens is we list all of these things as if they were of equal wait in the budget. They are not. We just voted for a huge addition to the fiscal deficit of this country at a time when we are struggling to find payments for transportation, health care, child care, and education. We have a 2- percent reduction in the elementary and secondary education accounts, and the President's budget. We may change it. We just passed a bill with additional reforms for which we are going to have to pay. This stimulus bill results in a tax increase for people at the local level. Local communities are going to raise taxes. States are going to have to raise taxes. We just made, I think, a mistake by voting for this so-called stimulus package. Those are the reasons I cast a ``no'' vote this morning on that proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on February 1, 2002, the World Trade Organization adopted a report by its Appellate Body that concluded that a U.S. law known as Section 211 violates U.S. obligations to protect and enforce intellectual property rights under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS. The WTO urged the United States to take the necessary steps to bring the United States into compliance with its international obligations. This decision provides Congress with an opportunity--a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the protection of intellectual property rights by repealing Section 211 in its entirety. Section 211 is a special interest provision that was added into the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act at the behest of Bacardi, Ltd., a Bermuda-based corporation, just prior to enactment. It was not considered in conference, in any committee, or on the floor of either House of Congress. This ill-conceived provision triggered the WTO complaint against the United States and has undermined U.S. leadership in promoting strong protection for intellectual property rights in the global marketplace. The Appellate Body concluded that key provisions of Section 211 violate two fundamental principles of WTO rules--national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment--which prohibit WTO members from discriminating against intellectual property right holders based on nationality. For over 100 years, these principles have obligated our trading partners to protect U.S. trademark and trade name holders from discrimination abroad. The Appellate Body found, however, that Section 211 violated these longstanding U.S. obligations by imposing obstacles on foreign intellectual property right holders that do not exist for U.S. and other nationals. The United States cannot appeal the Appellate Body's conclusion that Section 211 clearly violates WTO rules. Following last week's formal adoption of the Appellate Body report by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, the United States has only a short time to correct its violations and come into compliance with WTO rules. If the United States fails to do so, it will have to offer compensation or face possible retaliatory measures against U.S. intellectual property right holders and other trade interests. Even more troubling than the threat of retaliation, however, is the fact that Section 211 and the Appellate Body decision may serve as a model for other countries that wish to make it more difficult for U.S. intellectual property holders to protect and enforce their rights abroad. While the Appellate Body concluded that Section 211 violates national treatment and MFN, it let stand other U.S. arguments that suggest that WTO members are free to deny protection to trademark right holders on grounds other than those provided in the TRIPS Agreement and Paris Convention. In other words, in order to defend Section 211 the U.S. argued that TRIPS is limited in its scope. These arguments were not only contrary to long-established U.S. international intellectual property policy objectives; they could ultimately invite arbitrary treatment and abuse of U.S. brand names overseas. The only appropriate response to the WTO decision is to repeal Section 211 in its entirety. Repealing Section 211 will underscore that the United States abides by its international commitments. It will safeguard U.S. intellectual property rights in foreign markets, remove the threat of retaliation against U.S. exports, and restore U.S. leadership in the fight to secure strong protection and enforcement for intellectual property rights worldwide. I call on the administration to work with the Congress to quickly repeal Section 211 in its entirety to restore the U.S. to its rightful place as the world's guardian of intellectual property rights.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senator from Oregon may want to make additional comments. I agree with those sentiments, and our message would be to both sides and the media that this has been very productive. This is a complicated issue. It obviously involves local communities, States, up to the Federal Government, in the decisionmaking process. It has not been easy to pull this all together. We are on the brink of doing something very worthwhile, something very historic, as we both described over the last number of months. The decision to set this aside while we move to energy--normally one might say that is a death knell. I have been assured by the majority leader, who cares deeply about this issue, that as soon as we have a package that we can bring forward, which I am convinced we can, we will get to that matter and resolve it. This is not putting it on a side track where it will languish in the coming weeks. We intend to work intensely over the next several days to bring back an agreement, hopefully the end of the week.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, we have made some great progress today. In fact, we have pretty much agreed on a package dealing with issues such as the uniform standards, the savings clause, and several other items. I will not go through them now. I will provide a litany of what we have agreed upon afterwards. We are down to maybe the issue of Oregon and Washington. In order to get us moving along, and rather than trying to write that last piece here tonight, we wanted to indicate to our colleagues where we were on this issue. This place works on comity, and we have to rely on good-faith commitments. I am satisfied that what we have agreed to today will be part of a final package. I turn to my colleague now.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am about to make a unanimous consent request on behalf of the Senator from New York and the Senator from Oregon, so we can move and get to the cloture vote. I thank all of those who have worked over the weekend and all day today. We are down to an issue or two--maybe one, frankly. I hope we can resolve that. In order to demonstrate the good faith we have in this effort, I ask unanimous consent--and I have spoken with Senator Schumer--that the Schumer-Wyden amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to yield to our colleague from New York, whose amendment I just withdrew on his behalf.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the assistant leader and again I thank the other staff, Brian Lewis and Leon Sequeira of Senator McConnell's and Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's staff. I thank my own staff as well, Ronnie Gillespie, Kennie Gill, and Shawn Maher specifically. I would also like to include in the record a special thanks and appreciation for two interns, Laura Roubicek and Candace Chin, who have both taken extraordinary measures to support election reform and bring the this landmark legislation to final passage. There are also many others in my office who have done a terrific job as well and I thank each and every one of them. I thank the people from the civil rights community. We spent about 5 hours yesterday going over what this bill does and what are its shortcomings and what are its strengths. Before this debate is complete, I will list all the groups around the country participating in this effort and have been at the table, including yesterday, who bring a passion and interest in fairness and justice that I wish America could have watched. We only have cameras in the Chamber and in committee rooms, but this was not a hearing, it was a group of people sitting down trying to figure out what was right for justice, for people who are in the corners, who fall through the cracks too often when we talk about legislation. I was deeply proud as an American to be sitting in that room listening to people who do not hold an elective office, do not run for office, but fight on behalf of the people they represent. I thank Corrine Brown, Congresswoman from Florida, for whom, as I said yesterday, this is not an intellectual issue alone. It is one she feels passionately about. She watched all that happened in her own congressional district in Florida. Others in attendance included Eddie Bernice Johnson, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus; Sylvestre Reyes, head of the Hispanic caucus in the House; and John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-author of the original Dodd-Conyers election reform bill. They were all present at this gathering yesterday to talk about the importance of this compromise bill and how valuable it is to move forward and complete the legislative process. Even if it means, as part of what I think the arrangement will be, withdrawal of the Schumer-Wyden proposal, and consideration of a package of civil rights provisions that will protect and preserve existing civil rights laws as they are and administrative provisions dealing with some state and local issues as well. That is the way we are going to try to get through this Gordian knot that sits on the path to final passage of the legislation. There are a lot of people who were disappointed that the final result is going to be that the Schumer-Wyden amendment may be withdrawn from this bill at this particular point. However, there are others, such as Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who will tell you while she is disappointed about that, she understands there are a lot of other things to recommend in this bill, such as the very strong provisions in this bill. Congresswoman Brown spoke passionately about the compromise bill and moving forward, as have Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sylvestre Reyes, and John Conyers. That in no way should reflect their disappointment over the fact that Schumer-Wyden may not be part of this bill. It deals with the situation where a person who registers by mail but does not provide identification in the mail-in registration package, and then shows up in person to vote. Under our compromise bill, that voter would have three alternatives to cast a vote. First, that voter could provide a photo ID and then cast an actual ballot. Next, that voter could provide any of the documents listed in the bill, such as a utility bill, and cast an actual ballot. Finally, that voter could not present any identification and then be eligible to cast a provisional ballot, not an actual ballot. The Schumer-Wyden amendments permits two additional alternatives for that voter to cast a ballot on election day. The Schumer-Wyden amendment would add both the alternative of voter signature verification and attestation as legitimate methods for such first time voters who register by mail and want to come in to vote in person to cast a vote on election day. Under our compromise law, without the Schumer-Wyden proposal, that voter could still vote, but it would be a provisional ballot and would count only when the registration was corroborated. I don't know the approximate number of how many fit into that category. Even if it is a few, it is wrong, in my view. But I understand the passions and feelings of my colleagues from Missouri and others are such to stop this bill in its entirety from going forward. The Senator from Nevada mentioned those who are disabled. I have a sister who is blind. I have talked about her in the past. She represents the National Federation of the Blind in my State. Her eyesight is such she can see some things. She is a teacher and has been for 35 years. The idea that a person who is blind has never been able to cast a ballot in private, independently in the same manner as others, in the history of our country, is changed with the underlying law. If this bill becomes law, no longer will millions of Americans have to rely on somebody else to walk into a voting booth to be told how they will cast a ballot. For the first time in the history of this country we will have voting systems in every precinct in America that allows people to cast the independent and private ballot--for those who are disabled, those who are blind--and we do it by paying for it, not by asking local States and jurisdictions to do so because we think it is the right thing to do. For the first time in the history of our country, a person will be able to cast a ballot, and in fact check how they voted. They will know whether or not they overvoted. That is included in this legislation as well. There will be provisional voting process for every voter in America, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, so they can go in and if there is a battle over whether they are properly registered, they can cast the provisional ballot, and it will be counted and not be thrown out. We require statewide voter registration, which will go to the heart of the fraud issues in many respects. I mentioned the disabled provisions, the language minorities provisions. We expand the numbers of language minorities now included in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill establishes a permanent commission on elections at the request of Senator McConnell of Kentucky. We have never had one before charged with Federal elections. It will give a permanent place so that we will not have to go through this process of waiting for a crisis to occur and come to the Congress of the United States to fix something. We will have a place where we can reform and modernize our election process so it will serve the voters of this country over and over again, as well as the election administrators. The antifraud provisions, the open access of the voting process for others, as well as the provisions for the disability community and our language minorities are major achievements. These are the reasons why Corrine Brown, why Eddie Bernice Johnson, and why John Conyers, why Sylvestre Reyes all believe this is the right thing to do. Even though there is a provision in this bill with which they will end up disagreeing, their view is, go forward, get to Senate-House conference, see if we cannot work out other differences and pass landmark legislation. The White House will be involved. We are not done with this. I believe we can get out of the Senate with a good bill, as I believe we can get to conference, resolve it with the Ney-Hoyer bill, and come back for the 2002 elections this year. The President has put $1.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2003 budget for election reform issues. There is no reason the $400 million provided in the bill cannot be drawn down by States so voters who vote this fall can see changes they never would have imagined occurring as quickly as they can. That is what is at stake. That is how we hope to resolve the roadblock in this process. We are aware and are working on the Oregon and Washington issue. Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith and Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have spoken eloquently on behalf of their unique situation on how they conduct vote by mail Federal elections and cast and count ballots. We are trying to accommodate them. Our goal in this bill has never been to deprive a State of the ability to conduct its elections in the unique way they do. We are trying to accommodate their interests. I apologize for reviewing where things are. I want people to know how much is at stake. This is not another bill we are dealing with, as the Senator from Nevada has graciously pointed out. This is fundamental. Thomas Paine said more than 200 years ago, this is the primary right to vote, upon which all other rights depend. If you get this one wrong, it is awfully hard to get the other ones right. We are talking about something that is so important to the long-term health and well-being of our Nation. We saw how much harm was done, how many people were hurt in the 2002 elections when things went wrong. We bear a responsibility as the national legislative body to come up and respond to what occurred in this country in 2002 and occurred before that. We only became aware of it to the extent we did because of what happened in the Presidential race. The country believes we need to make this process work better. It is in shoddy condition. To engage in this Congress and not engage this question would be a shortcoming we should not endure. We must accept and meet this challenge. I apologize to my colleagues, particularly the leadership, for the time this has taken. It is my fervent hope we are coming down to the final few hours of this. This is the last major hurdle. It is not to minimize the significance of other amendments that Members have, but this is a major battle between a House divided in many ways, as we saw by the vote that occurred on the tabling motion, almost 50-50 in terms of how people felt. If we get beyond that and deal with the other issues, I am fairly hopeful by Monday night or Tuesday morning Members will have an opportunity to vote on the first election reform proposal before this body of this size almost in 40 years, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I don't know what else we will accomplish in this Congress, but I hope at the end of the day when we look at the 107th Congress we can point to this landmark election reform bill as one of the significant achievements of this Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. He is a good man.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, the distinguished Democratic majority assistant floor leader, for yielding. To give some flavor and idea about where this is, let me thank, first of all, Senator Daschle, the majority leader. His patience--I may be testing it. I hope I am not. I have such deep affection for my leader, and he has been generous beyond belief, and his staff's cooperation has been just stunning. I want to publicly thank them. I thank my Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Lott as well. I know he is feeling a certain amount of pressure from his Members, too. I know there are other issues with which this body needs to grapple in debate on. I am very in tune with that desire. It certainly was not our intent that this matter end up taking as long as it has. In fact, I had predicted it might take substantially less time. However, how we ended up--when we have a matter such as this one cannot accurately predict with any certainty what is going to happen. Actually, we ended up in a logjam earlier this week on the Schumer-Wyden amendment, with Senator Bond and other Members. I am prepared to say we are literally attempting to resolve this issue as I speak. We do not have it in writing yet in final form. It appears that we are not going to have it this afternoon based on my conversations. I thank the staffs of Senator McConnell and Senator Bond. Both Brian Lewis and Leon Sequeira of Senator McConnell's office and Julie Dammann and Jack Bartling of Senator Bond's office have been very supportive and helpful. I thank particularly Senator Bond's staff, Jack Bartling, who worked with me last night until almost midnight to try to work out appropriate language. Again, today we have spent any number of hours in our cloakrooms trying to come together with some bipartisan language that is very important to those of us who are interested in completing action on this compromise election reform bill. There has been concern this bill might die because we have not been able to resolve certain issues. That is not going to happen today. This bill is going to be resolved, in my view, by Monday night or Tuesday morning at the latest. Then we will be able to get on to other business in the Senate. We do not have a unanimous consent request to that effect, and I have urged not to propose one. I do not want to find myself having the UC become a vehicle for some people taking advantage of these circumstances. I think the managers of the bill on the minority side are committed to getting this bill done. I thank them for that. We have come a long way. We have some amendments yet to resolve. We have not voted on everything. However, we will on Monday consider remaining amendments and work on some compromise where needed. Over the weekend, the staffs will be finalizing some language, and then on Monday night we have a cloture vote, as I understand it, at 6:15 p.m. My hope is that, regardless of the outcome of that cloture vote, we will then consider amendments that evening with the possibility of stacking some votes Tuesday morning. This will be considered in light of the fact that some Members may not be back even for the cloture vote on Monday night. We would accommodate them in such a way that we would have the stacked votes, go to third reading, and complete work on this bill by Tuesday morning. That is my desire. I further believe it is the desire of Senator McConnell and the desire of Senator Bond and others who have been involved with this process. That is not a suggestion that they would accept the unanimous consent request to provide for such. However, I believe their intent and their desire is to mutually achieve the same goal as I seek to achieve. In this body, the Senate works on comity. We look each other in the eye and we make commitments to each other to the extent we can fulfill them. I still believe this may be one of the few institutions left in America where you do not need a written contract to achieve those agreements. So I am working on the assumption that my colleagues are as committed as I am to seeing this unique and historic legislation become the law of the land with respect to the administration of elections for Federal office. I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much time. I am sorry it has gone to this length. However, when you are legislating in something this unique and this novel, that goes to the very heart of who we are as a democracy and how we cast and count our ballots for the most important offices in our land, then there are an awful lot of people who are at the table. Even the legislative process is inclusive, not exclusive. The Presiding Officer on several occasions has been in the chair. I say to my colleagues, he knows these matters that have been discussed over the last number of days. He is a former secretary of state. He knows these issues as well as anyone--in fact, better than anyone in the Chamber probably, given his most recent work in the area. So he knows when I speak that there is deep interest at a local level from all the local election administrators and officials in this subject matter. I do not have to mention that this is also the case for all the secretaries of state across the country, obviously all of us in the Senate, the people in the other Chamber, and people at the White House. There are a lot of people who are at the table when you are discussing the future of how elections are going to be conducted in light of what happened in the November 2000 elections for Federal office and what had occurred in previous Presidential elections. So this is a major undertaking. It is not an annual appropriations bill. It is a fundamental change in how we are going to do some things with respect to Federal elections. We think we have been inclusive and worked in a very cooperative fashion with our States and localities. I should have maybe anticipated it might have taken a bit more time. I guess my optimism for the bill exceeded my ability to see how many people would like to be heard and offer ideas to the underlying proposal we brought to the Chamber now 2 weeks ago. So I commit to my colleagues I will do everything I can to get this done at the very first of the week. I make this commitment to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader and to the majority leader and to others who I know are very anxious to get moving on other matters. I will not stand in the way of that occurring if you will give me a bit more of a window to try to achieve what I have sought to do over these last couple of weeks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, so my colleagues know, we had hoped as a result of hours of negotiation--and I am not exaggerating--over the last 48 hours, we would resolve the issue at hand. I mentioned the other day the efforts have gone on for several weeks. Unfortunately, not everybody has seen every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t,'' and obviously if that is the case, then we cannot get the unanimous consent necessary to either vitiate cloture or to withdraw amendments and consider others. So we are in a situation where the rules of the Senate make it very difficult, if there is not complete agreement on everything, to move forward. Let me say to those who are interested in where this debate is going, we are very close to a resolution of this particular issue that has caused the stall on this bill. It is my fervent hope and belief that come the first of next week we will be able to complete action on this bill. When we get beyond this issue, there are several remaining issues that will need to be voted on. My view is none of them is of such a nature, whether adopted or defeated, that would go to in any way derail the process. On the cloture vote, Members will vote for or against. At this point, it is a matter on which we are going to vote, but it does not go to the issue of whether we are voting for dead dogs or live people or dead people and live dogs. The issue is whether or not we are going to get to an agreement, and I believe we can. I regret we did not have it done by this morning. I thought we had, but obviously we do not, and so I am disappointed by that fact. I am optimistic we can get there in the next couple of days.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Oregon may need.