Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri be allowed to proceed for another 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri be allowed to speak for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly thank my good friend Jorge Castaneda, Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations, for taking the time out of his busy schedule to address the U.S.-Spain Council last weekend. I have had the pleasure of chairing the U.S.-Spain Council for two years now, and each year our annual meetings have been informative and thought-provoking. At these meetings American and Spanish members of the Council discuss U.S.-Spain bilateral relations, but we also focus on the unique triangular relationship between the U.S., Spain, and Latin America, particularly Mexico. Our meetings are always candid, constructive, and informative, and I believe that they are particularly valuable for our membership. Part of what makes our annual meetings so successful is the high quality of the speakers that attend our conferences. This was truly evident when Secretary Castaneda delivered the address at our closing dinner last Friday in the Senate Caucus Room. Having been an elected public servant for over 25 years, I have attended numerous dinners and receptions, and have heard countless dinner speeches. I can honestly say that Secretary Castaneda's speech ranks among the best I have ever heard. In his insightful remarks, Secretary Castaneda detailed his analysis of Mexican political history, and outlined his vision for the future of democracy in Mexico while drawing several parallels between Mexican political liberalization and the democratization of Spain after the fall of Franco. Secretary Castaneda's remarks were astute, thought-provoking, and engaging. Indeed, they are among the most comprehensive analyses of modern Mexico to date. I think that my colleagues, especially those with an interest in the Western Hemisphere, would have enjoyed and greatly benefited from the substance of these remarks had they been present at the dinner. Dr. Jorge Castaneda is uniquely qualified to speak about Mexico's political situation. He is a man of enormous talent and experience, a leading intellectual, and now an important diplomat. He has thought and written extensively about international relations, and particularly Mexico's role in the global community. He was a world renowned academic before joining the Fox Administration, and has taught at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and at New York University. He is the author of twelve books, published in English and Spanish, and he has been a frequent contributor to noted publications such as Newsweek magazine, El Pais, and Reforma. As Secretary of Foreign Relations, Secretary Castaneda has worked to build the image of a safe, honest, and peaceful Mexico that respects human rights and engages in political and social reform. He has also sought very successfully to strengthen his government's involvement on the global stage, both in this Hemisphere and in Europe. In light of the fact that my colleagues were not able to be present to hear Secretary Castaneda speak, I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to take the time to read them. I know that they will enjoy and be better informed having done so.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to commend our colleague from Pennsylvania who took a trip to Latin America. He talked about it and I commend him for doing that. A lot of attention is being focused-- rightfully so--on Southwest Asia because of events since 9-11. I think it is refreshing that a couple of colleagues took the time to visit this hemisphere and the countries they did and to bring back to the U.S. Senate their own observations about events in Cuba, Chile, Uruguay, and Brazil. I commend our colleague from Pennsylvania. I believe our colleague from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, was along on that trip, and others may have been there also. I thank him for reporting to us on their observations.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I just want to give the Presiding Officer a little bit of an update on where things are regarding negotiations on the Schumer-Wyden-Bond issue involving the question of voter identification. Staffs are meeting. There has been no resolution, I am sad to report, at this juncture, but they are meeting and are working on this. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Wyden and their staffs, along with Senator Bond and his staff, to see if they can come forward with a compromise proposal. As I mentioned two or three times already today, I hoped that would have happened before we got to the vote today. I made a pitch and appeal on numerous occasions, but there was not much of an appetite for a compromise until now. My hope is we can come to this sooner rather than later. I apologize to my colleagues. I apologize to Senator Daschle, who has been absolutely stellar in all of this. I am sure he is going to remind me for years to come, when he asked me how long this bill might take, I said I thought we could do it in a day. I suspect I will hear that story over and over again for many years to come. We have been on it 2 days. We were on it for 2 days when we were not in session, a Friday and a Monday. We did get some work done then. On the Thursday of the week before recess, we were here, and yesterday, now today, so at least 2\1/2\ days. My hope is that by later this afternoon, sooner rather than later, we can report a compromise proposal, then the rest of the amendments we can deal with fairly quickly. There will be votes on some. I don't anticipate that any one of them, regardless of the outcome, would provoke the kind of situation we are in at this particular juncture. Hope springs eternal, even in February. I am hopeful that before the afternoon is out, we can make a favorable report to the Chair and to our colleagues that the election reform bill is prepared to move forward and get to final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators allowed to speak for not to exceed 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from Missouri for his expression of trying to find some common ground. We know each other pretty well, and I would never question the motivations of my friend from Missouri. He brings a lot of passion to matters he cares about. I like people who do that. As he knows, there has been a tireless effort to cobble together a proposal here that would enjoy the broad-based support of this institution. We are dealing with 98 other colleagues, and when you deal with a matter like elections, everybody is an expert. We have all been through them and everybody has a point of view--unlike in other matters where members can defer to other colleagues. Here everybody has something to contribute to the discussion and debate. I accept his words here to try to find some resolution of the situation we are in. That is what I have tried to do for a couple of weeks. Sometimes you need to have the votes, because then you know where; you are. Votes will let you know. This place is pretty equally divided on this issue. We have to try to find something here where a center can gather and move the bill forward. We are hoping to do that. On the second-degree amendment--and I appreciate him offering an amendment that is substantive and that goes to the heart of this. It is not a frivolous amendment. It is one not the least of which is--I presume the amendment refers to the U.S. Attorney General. My colleague indicates that is the case. The concern, I suppose, we hear from all States is that in this bill they want to avoid to have the Justice Department all of a sudden be reaching into States. We are already trying to become a better partner in the election process, and that attorneys general, regardless of party, can all of a sudden, under this amendment, be engaged in some ``fishing expeditions'' on some of these matters--I think we would all be concerned about that. There may be something we can work on that may provide a means by which we can come to an agreement on the issue of signatures and attestations. Let me say to my friend as well--and he and I went through this a great deal, back an forth, on how we can resolve these issues. As I understand it--and it gets hard trying to identify exactly what each State does--there are 28 or 29 States that do an attestation or signature. I may be off by a State or 2. As I went down the list and tried to determine how many States do that, many of these States believe that is a very viable means by which to deal with the fraud issue. I know my colleague from Missouri has had different experience in his State. I don't argue with that, except to say that around the country there are different views on how best to achieve these results. There is nothing in here, obviously, that precludes the photo ID from being a part of that means of identification. The issue is whether or not we are going to, in some way, restrict these other means of verification that a majority of States have been comfortable with over the years, and then if there is something else we might add to that to address the concerns the Senator from Missouri raised. Aside from these particular amendments that are pending, I will point out that, historically, the efforts of enforcement have to be in the States; that is, where there is a problem of fraud, the States have to pursue it. The Presiding Officer brings to this issue more than a casual acquaintance with these issues having been--the Secretary of State in his State worked directly in these areas. I presume he could bring to this discussion some additional thoughts and ideas, and I am grateful to him for that. As I said, the attestation and signature have been used, and many States are comfortable with that. I am hopeful we can find some mechanism which will allow us to get beyond this particular issue in such a way that while it would not do everything, as my colleague from Missouri might want, it certainly will do more than the present situation. What I suggest, because we have to resolve this one way or the other, is that we take some time and get our respective staffs together and sit down and skull on this and see if we can hammer out some ideas and come back with some proposals on how we might deal with this. My friend from Missouri is nodding in the affirmative. Rather than talking, it seems to me we would be advised to sit down and see, over the next half hour or hour, if we can come back with some ideas for consideration. That is the path we will follow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the authors, the direct opponents of the amendment are not here. I will make the case again, as I tried a week or so ago. I see where we are headed with this. We need to try and find a compromise. Obviously, people feel strongly about this. The debate went on for some time. When Members feel strongly, no matter how you try and resolve it, sometimes you have to go through the vote process to have some clarity. Then a compromise can emerge. That is how this works from time to time. We have all been in that situation at one time or another. Certainly, that is where we find ourselves in this case. I have great respect for how Senator Bond feels. We all bring a very strong local experience to this national debate. He had a very strong, in his view, local experience which provoked his interest in the matter. I respect that. I respect very much the point of view of others that feel there are ways, particularly with statewide voter registration efforts, that we can take major steps to reduce the dangers of fraud or the realities of fraud. The establishment of our Election Commission in this bill will allow on a continuing basis examining the election structures of the country, rather than waiting for a crisis to occur, so we can continue to address matters like this and others we have not considered in this bill. I had hoped that might occur. I think it will. We can find a way to get together. There are only 6 or 7 other amendments that I know of to consider on the bill. There could be more out there. We were down to either amendments that could be accepted or modified to some degree and become acceptable. I am still hopeful that can be the case. I know where some of the Members are now on this issue. Perhaps we will go into a quorum call for a while and see if we can find some language that could satisfy both sides.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleague from Kentucky, I don't know know if we can resolve the amendment at this moment, but there are other matters we might consider on the bill. I don't know if there is the appetite to temporarily lay these aside to consider the other matters, knowing nothing gets resolved until this issue gets resolved. I Know there are colloquies, including Senator Thomas, and Senator Smith had an amendment we can try and work on.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, if I can see a copy of the amendment so I can know what we are talking about. Maybe my colleague would like to explain what we are doing.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to see a copy of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague speaks--and I will be 30 seconds on this--I had hoped, and I say this to my two friends on the other side with whom I have worked very closely to put this bill together, I had hoped we could find compromise language on this last provision. That is still my hope. We have worked very hard. We have considered around 35 amendments. Both sides have added to the bill with accepted amendments. We have modified some; some have been withdrawn. We are very close to final consideration of this bill. We still have to go to conference--the White House, obviously, will get involved-- with the House-passed bill. We will not have completed this process when we vote this bill out of the Senate. My hope is we can find some way to work on this amendment while we are considering other amendments--the energy bill is waiting to be considered--rather than have this now splintered off. Too much effort has been made to get us to this point. It is my fervent plea to my friends on the minority side to try and work on some resolution of this issue. That is what we ought to be doing as legislators. That is my plea to my colleague from Missouri and my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank Members here who have argued both in favor and in opposition to this amendment. It has been a very worthwhile debate. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Kentucky pointed out, we didn't have enough Members around last night to hear the full debate, but it was very worthwhile. I repeat what I said a week or so ago. This is one of those issues that has come down and is a clear, almost equal division, I think, in the Chamber about what ought to be done about this particular issue. I had hoped we would find some compromise to it. That is what you do in the legislative process. We did this on 35 amendments that have come along here. I didn't like voting against Dick Durbin's amendment. I happen to agree with it. I did not like having to accept amendments from my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and other amendments that we worked on to make this process reach the point it has today. I am still hopeful. I don't know how this vote will come out. But my plea would be, to those on either side of this question, to see if we can't find some common ground. That is not going to happen, obviously, in the next 5 minutes. So this vote will go forward. Then my hope is that we can find some resolution here that will satisfy the concerns that are raised--legitimately, in my view--by the proponents of the amendment and the concerns raised by my friend from Missouri who has raised from the very beginning his concerns about this. My desire has been to try to find some common ground and compromise on this proposal. That has not happened yet, but I am prepared to try to work that out when the time arrives. With that, I thank the Members for their time in debate. We still have a few minutes left for the proponents of the amendment to make some closing arguments, and then we will get to the vote.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the proponents of the amendment be equally divided between Senator Schumer and Senator Wyden.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 10:05 a.m. so as to provide for 30 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand that is 30 minutes equally divided?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I agree. I thank my friend from Utah, the Senator from Nevada, and the Senator from Montana. Everyone feels very strongly about this in the difficult times for all of our jurisdictions. That is why we have not made this a percentage mandate but a 100-percent Federal budget, and becoming a far better partner with our States and localities in the conduct of elections. I enthusiastically support this modification.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Harkin.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2912, the Harkin amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Securing our Ports Against Terror: Technology, Resources and Homeland Defense'' on Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 3:15 p.m., in Dirksen 226. Witness List Panel I: Capt. William G. Schubert, Maritime Administrator, Department of Transportation; Bonni G. Tischler, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Fields Operations, Customs Service; and Rear Admiral Kenneth T. Venuto, Director of Operations Policy, Coast Guard. Panel II: Richard Steinke, Chairman of the Board, American Association of Port Authorities, and Executive Director, Port of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA; F. Amanda DeBusk, Former Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, Commerce Department, and Former Commissioner, Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, Washington, DC; Kim E. Petersen, Executive Director, Maritime Security Council, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Rob Quartel, Chairman and CEO, FreightDesk Technologies, Inc., and Former Member, Federal Maritime Commission, McLean, VA; and Charles Upchurch, President & CEO, SGS Global Trade Solutions, Inc., and Representative, Global Alliance for Trade Efficiency, New York, NY.