Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are waiting for Senator Dayton to come over with his modified amendment which I hope we can accept, and Senator Harkin is coming over with an amendment that requires some debate--not much, but some; he says he can do it in a brief amount of time--and any amendments on the minority side as well, if they have people coming over. I urge those who have filed amendments to offer them. Some Members approached me during the vote, and I am going to sit down and see if we can agree to some of these so Members do not have to actually come over, and we can offer them on their behalf. Pending the arrival of Senator Dayton, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD. The majority accepts the Gramm amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes to review the bidding and give our colleagues a status report on the election reform bill-- where we are, what we have accomplished, and what we can look forward to during the remainder of the day. This could be a very historic day if we can finish work on this bill today. My hope is we can. We still have a little less than two dozen amendments that I know of. A couple of them will require some debate. There are many I think can be resolved without much debate, and many of them could actually be accepted if we can work out some language. After three full days of debate on the bill, over a week ago on Thursday and Friday and then yesterday, we have disposed of 22 amendments. To give my colleagues an idea of the bipartisan nature of this measure, we have adopted a total of 16 amendments by voice vote--8 by the majority, 8 by the minority--to indicate the balance we have been able to achieve so far. We will be working through the remainder of these amendments today, and my hope is we can finish this bill this evening or by tomorrow-- hopefully this evening. We still have a couple of very important amendments that will have to be debated and will probably require roll call votes. It would be my expectation that most of the amendments that are either pending or filed can be agreed to perhaps with some minor modifications. I again thank my colleague from Kentucky for his assistance and that of his staff in helping us move this product along. I know there are a number of other measures awaiting Senate action. I encourage my colleagues to complete debate on this bipartisan election reform compromise today so we can get to those other issues, including campaign finance reform and the energy bill. In that spirit, let me, if I may, tell my colleagues what I think we will do. Senator Gramm of Texas has an amendment to which we are going to agree. In fact, he has asked me to offer it on his behalf, and I will be happy to do that. Then Senator Dayton has an amendment which he is modifying which will be a study amendment, for the information of my colleagues on the other side. He will be coming over with that amendment. We can adopt the Dayton amendment because I believe by making this a study, it becomes acceptable to the minority. Senator Harkin has an amendment--I am not sure which one of his he is bringing over. It is the pending amendment which may require very limited debate. I know Senator Clinton is presently meeting with the First Lady. She will be back as soon as possible. We then can debate her amendment. My goal is to dispose of as many amendments as we can over the next hour and a half, and then if a couple of amendments require debate and votes, we will stack those votes just prior to the respective conferences for the traditional Tuesday luncheons. So we may have some votes just prior to lunch, but we will not ask people to break up the hearings they are engaged in this morning. We will not interrupt the hearing flow that is going on in a number of committees. That is the goal. I see my colleague and friend from Kentucky wants to make some opening remarks. He can offer the Gramm amendment, or I will be happy to do it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from New Hampshire has been here quite some time, seated. I want to give him a chance to engage in this. First of all, let me thank our colleague from Missouri and colleagues from New York and Oregon. They have been engaged in meaningful debate. I regret there are not more Members here-- it has been a long day--not here to listen to this, what I think has been a very valuable discussion. Hopefully, through the vehicles of C-SPAN and other such methods, people in the country have had a good opportunity to hear what I think has been a very worthwhile discussion about a very important issue. I thank all of them for their very generous comments about the miles we have traveled to get us to this point, which is only a few yards away from what could be final passage of a historic piece of legislation. Significant resources are being committed by the Federal Government to our States and localities to improve what I think the Senator from Missouri properly described as a shoddy system, and I think maybe he was being polite about not one State but the entire country, one which is desperately in need of repair, so that our great Nation should be a model to other societies on how a great democratic society chooses its leaders. Certainly anyone who has looked at this has concluded that this is a system in need of repair. The Senator from Kentucky and I have worked very hard to bring us to this point. We have adopted over 30 different amendments, in addition to what we tried to do ourselves. We thought we were thinking about a lot of things that people might anticipate. This is a subject matter where every Member of this Chamber is an expert. We are talking about elections, and everyone had to go through one to get here. So this is not a subject matter about which any Senator believes he or she does not bring something to the table when it comes to a discussion about how people vote and how those votes are counted. What I would like to suggest--we are planning, obviously tomorrow, now, at sometime around 10 a.m., to have a vote. I am hopeful that everyone will try, even at this late hour, the Senator from Oregon has raised the prospect, to see if there might not be, despite our efforts over the weeks to find a resolution--maybe there is a possibility of finding some common ground that might avoid what I think might be a very close vote on this subject matter. I don't know the votes. I haven't been participating in any vote counts. I haven't called Members. I haven't asked Members how they would vote on this. The leader has done that. I have stayed out of it. But I hope we might find some way to resolve this issue without having it come to a vote. Maybe we can't. Every now and then you can try your best to bring people together and ultimately they decide they just want to cast a ballot. That being the case, and I don't know the outcome, all I want to say is that this is how the process works. You have to accept to some degree, I suppose, allowing the process to function. I just hope in the passions, the emotions that people feel on this, we would not place ourselves in a situation where we take out literally dozens of amendments and dozens of ideas in the hopes of crafting something worthwhile. So I am hopeful we may work something out. That is all the comment I want to make this evening, except to thank the two Senators who have spoken so eloquently on the subject matter. Senator Schumer was involved for a long time and introduced one of the first bills, with our colleague from Kentucky, on this subject matter over a year ago. Senator Wyden cares about it clearly, and his State uniquely, along with the State of Washington, is acting as sort of pioneers in the area of 21st century voting with mail-in voters that has successfully worked in his State. He has very rightly sought, along with his colleague, Senator Smith and others, to see to it that we would not in any way jeopardize his State or the State of Washington from continuing to pursue some novel, unique, and very worthwhile ideas on how people can cast their ballots. I thank him and his colleagues for those efforts to bring us to this particular point. Of course, I thank again my good friend from Kentucky. He has a lot on his mind. He is in the middle of the campaign finance reform debate and there has been no more diligent and articulate spokesman for an alternative point of view in that debate. I admire his courage. He has taken a real beating around the ears from people all across the country. While I disagree with him, I admire immensely his guts; that he doesn't back down on something in which he believes. He has been a great ally in this effort. It has not been easy trying to juggle a lot of different balls in the air. The one on campaign finance reform is one in which he has been deeply involved, and has borne, I think, the brunt of unfair criticism about what he cares about. I didn't want the evening to end without expressing my emotional appeal to my colleague from Kentucky that my respect for him is unlimited in terms of his commitment to the things and principles in which he believes. I just hope we might find some way to resolve this matter. Senator Bond was one of the first people I talked to about this bill, in addition to my colleague from Kentucky, and about his determination to try to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, fraud in the country. My colleagues from New York and Oregon have identified their remarks with his ambition to seek a system that would be devoid of fraudulent behavior. We deplore it wherever it occurs. But my hope is that with the balance struck between where Senator Bond wants to be and where others raise legitimate points, there is still room to find common ground. That is my fervent hope--to the staff, and to others who are involved in this--before we cast votes or find ourselves in a position where the middle ground becomes impossible to find or is lost. With that simple plea, let me yield the floor to others who want to make any closing comments. My colleague from New Hampshire has an amendment he is going to raise. I will certainly be happy to sit here and listen to his proposal as he offers it, and then urge our staff, Senator Bond's staff, and the staff of Senators Wyden and Schumer to maybe sit down and see if there isn't some common ground, along with the staff of Senator McConnell. We are prepared to stay around as well to see if we can help in that regard.

Mr. DODD. I so modify the request to read on Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized to offer the Schumer-Wyden amendment; that the amendment be debated this evening, and that when the Senate convenes on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m., there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, in relation to the Schumer-Wyden amendment, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no-second degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I believe the hour of 4:55 p.m. has arrived.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in consultation with the two leaders and with my colleague from Kentucky, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to the Cleland amendment No. 2883 at 4:55 p.m., with no second-degree amendments in order prior to that vote. As a source of information for my colleagues, there will be two votes based on an earlier unanimous consent agreement. There will be a vote on a judicial nomination immediately following the vote on the Cleland amendment.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Georgia has decided the 4 minutes is an appropriate time. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Georgia be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, my colleague from Georgia has been very patient. He has an amendment to offer on the bill. Can we limit this statement? How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania need?

Mr. DODD. And then come back to it.

Mr. DODD. Why don't we wait until he comes to the Chamber--I want to give him a chance to respond to this--and temporarily lay this aside?

Mr. DODD. I want to make sure my colleague from Kentucky is all right on this amendment. I am fine with it.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, this is a study to be done on Internet voting. As my friend from Utah points out, there are jurisdictions which are examining how this would work. Obviously, there are some very serious problems one might face on privacy issues and the like with Internet voting. We have accepted a number of amendments that look at studies to be done to report back to us on this area.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 26, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Raymond L. Orbach to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know Senator McCain wanted to be heard on other subject matters. I am going to put in a quorum call. There are five or six amendments, maybe none, maybe one, maybe all, that we can come back and adopt, but I will report back very quickly to the Chamber the results of those discussions. In the meantime, if Members come over and would like to speak in morning business or on another subject matter, the floor will be theirs. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I finished explaining what the amendment is. It is technical in nature. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

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