Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and our friends on the Republican side for working out this modification. Senator Harkin raises a very good amendment. There was concern raised by Senator McConnell, and maybe others, that we would be utilizing some of these dollars to promote litigation in this bill. That has never been our intent. There is nothing in this bill that would do that. Because it was possible that some small percentage of these dollars could be used for that purpose, there were concerns raised by the amendment. Senator Harkin has modified his amendment with language that would explicitly prohibit any of the funds provided under this bill from being used for purposes of litigation. It does not, however, otherwise affect the use of existing funds. That being the case, our friends on the Republican side have withdrawn their objection to this amendment. I urge its adoption as modified.

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for this amendment. Briefly, the Dayton amendment asks for a study of eliminating the need for postage requirements on absentee ballots. The suggestion initially had been that it be a pilot program to be instituted at the 2004 elections on a Federal level, utilizing some 3 million voters to determine whether or not such a pilot would be worthwhile. There were concerns which States would be included. The commission, if this bill becomes law, would want to look at this issue. By recrafting the amendment calling for a study, it will guarantee that will be done. Then we will try and figure out the best way to conduct that study. For those reasons, the amendment is acceptable, I am told, on both sides. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. This is a very worthwhile suggestion. It is exactly the kind of issue at which the permanent commission on elections wants to look. Because he has proposed this amendment the way he has, it will guarantee that will be done. With this modification calling for a study, rather than a pilot program, the amendment is acceptable by both sides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the modified Dayton amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. DODD. I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I think we may take care of at least one or two more amendments.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment provides that the States and localities must ensure the security and confidentiality of information made available on the free access system established for the purpose of permitting individuals casting provisional ballots to determine the final disposition of their vote. It is a privacy amendment. I thank the Senator for offering it, and I thank my colleagues on the minority side for accepting this amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the second amendment cleared by both sides is the amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2931

Mr. DODD. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for offering the amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 2869. I believe that is the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I inquire of the Chair, is that the amendment that is a sense of the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. DODD. I was trying to restrain debate a bit so we might get to a couple other matters. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Iowa. We have a couple of amendments we can work on that may be accepted. There is a possibility that we might have a vote on the Harkin amendment before we break for lunch. What I would like to do, with my colleague's permission and agreement, is to go into a quorum call.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me state for the uninformed--and there may not be many on this particular point--there has never been, in my view, a stronger or more articulate advocate on behalf of the disabled in this country than the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. He and I have known each other for a long time. We have served together for a quarter century. We arrived on the very same day in the House of Representatives, back more than 25 years ago. We served together there and now have served together here for almost two decades. But for his advocacy, but for his determination, millions of Americans who suffer from one form of disability or another would not enjoy as many of the opportunities that they do in our country. He has made that much of a difference. When the issue is raised, Can one person make a difference? you need go no further than the name of Tom Harkin to answer that question. Truly, for millions of people, his presence in public life has made a difference. And he is obviously living up to that reputation by suggesting the amendment he has offered to us on the election reform bill. So I commend him immensely for it. He has been a great friend, a great advocate for so many years. I guess sometimes the personal experiences in life are what sort of galvanize one's attention. I know in both of our cases--different kinds of cases--siblings of ours have suffered from physical disabilities. We both grew up in a family knowing of the tremendous efforts our parents, respectively, made to see to it that our respective siblings would enjoy the full opportunities of life. I do not know of any more courageous a person than my sister. And I am sure the Senator from Iowa might say the same about his brother, God rest his soul, whom the Senator lost a couple years ago. So, in fact, had the Senator not come forward and advocated this, we might wonder what was wrong here in some ways. So his standing here advocating these positions is as normal as anyone might expect. I thank him for his kind comments, and the Senator from Kentucky for his generous comments as well, on what we have tried to do in this bill. I know there will be some efforts, to some degree, to suggest maybe we ought to make these provisions dealing with the disabled less than a requirement. But we did not do that in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act, and there are millions of Americans who do not vote because of the inaccessibility of the ballot. What we have done in this bill is to make that an accessible ballot for the blind, the manually disabled, and others with disabilities. If we did nothing else in this bill but that, I think we can call it a major achievement in providing additional resources to everyone, make polling places more accessible, given the fact, in many places, there are still polling places that are not accessible. The discretionary grant money of $100 million in this bill, which I know the Senator from Iowa appreciates immensely, is going to help. So I commend the Senator for this proposal and thank him for his continuing efforts on behalf of millions of Americans who have no greater voice than his in the Congress of the United States, and I thank him for that.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a study of the technical ability of voting systems to accommodate multiple languages. This bill potentially expands the number of languages which a voting system must accommodate based on the number of people within a given jurisdiction who speak those languages. It does not include every language, but would recognize certain language groups that current law does not recognize. It is a slight change from existing law. Obviously, in places such as California the number of languages has been increasing. We have all experienced this in our respective States, with the number of immigrants who have come into the country. This is a study proposal that Senator Feinstein suggests. We think it is a good amendment. It is something the commission will look at anyway. We urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment from the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to the desk and ask for its consideration.