Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the distinguished leader leaves the Chamber, I know at the appropriate time the Senator from Massachusetts will want to respond to the wonderful comments of our colleague from West Virginia. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has received a lot of well- deserved recognition over the last number of days, having achieved the milestone of his 70th birthday. He will not receive any more gracious, more thoughtful a gift than the one he has just received from his friend from West Virginia, the person with whom he has served over these 40 years and with whom he has been a partner on so many of the issues about which the Senator from West Virginia has talked. When the annals of the latter part of the 20th century are written, there will be those in coming generations--as I have been privileged to do most recently with my colleague from Kentucky to fill out the portals in the reception room--going back in our history and identifying those who served with unique distinction this wonderful body over the plus-200 years of its existence. I cannot say with any certainty what future generations will do, but I am quite certain that when they are debating and discussing what names, what profiles ought to inhabit those eternal spots on the reception room wall the name of the Senator from West Virginia and the name of the Senator from Massachusetts will be on those lists. My commendations to both Senators for their wonderful friendship which has been an example of people who had some differences when they began their careers. In fact, at times they disagreed on issues and many more times they worked together. This country is a richer and better place because of their service. I will have more remarks tomorrow about the service of our wonderful friend from Massachusetts. I commend the Senator for his comments.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. This lead editorial captured what we are trying to do. I note that the editorial writers specifically commended the Senator from Kentucky and point out the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona are together on this bill and talked about the bipartisanship of this proposal. Many thought we could never actually come to the floor of the Senate with a proposal on election reform that would enjoy the cosponsorship of Democrats and Republicans, particularly when you consider what a partisan division there was in the country a year ago at this time coming off the November 2000 general election. So it is no small achievement. I know a lot of attention is being paid to campaign finance reform and the upcoming energy bill and other matters. Memories do fade, and certainly they have with regard to the emotions that ran so deeply and so passionately a year or so ago on one of the closest elections, if not the closest, in American history. Certainly there was the revelation that our system was in desperate need of repair. We are responding to that call a year later. But it took that long to sit down and work out differences and bring a product to the floor of the Senate. We could have come up here earlier with a partisan bill. I could have laid down a proposal that was just a Democratic proposal. In fact, I had one, with every single member of the Democratic side having cosponsored the bill, without a single Republican. My friends on the Republican side could have had their bill, and we would have been able to have a screaming match about partisan politics, and nothing would have happened. So it took a real effort to try to meld these ideas together to bring us to this point. We are not without controversy in this bill, and there will be some controversy in the remaining hours. We still have to go to conference with the House of Representatives and their proposal and then present it to the President for his signature. It is my hope that we can do that fairly quickly. This bill has $400 million in it for immediate authorization. The President, to his credit, put $1.2 billion in his budget for the next 2 or 3 years for election reform. If we can get this bill done and signed by the President, there is a supplemental appropriations bill coming up quickly, and we can actually make moneys available to the States right away for them to modernize their election systems so they will be in place to work by the November elections of this year. That will be a singular achievement, in my view, if we are able to do that. I am hopeful that for the remainder of today, and tomorrow, we will be able to resolve these differences. I urge my colleagues to understand that I embrace some of their ideas. But we are interested in putting together a bipartisan bill. If I were writing it myself, it would look different than this bill looks. I know, without asking my friend from Kentucky to comment, if he could write the bill, it would look very different than it does today as well. But that is not how matters get resolved in a democracy and in an institution such as the Senate. You have to listen to the views of each Senator and try to accommodate them so you can put together a proposal that satisfies all of our needs and improves the American election system, regardless of party. That is what we have tried to do with this proposal. So I am very hopeful that that will be done in the next 24 hours and that we can then sit down with the other body and resolve the differences. Maybe this will not attract the same degree of attention as campaign finance reform, but this will establish permanent election commissions in this country--the idea of the Senator from Kentucky-- which will deal with the issue of fraud in the country. We will say to millions of Americans who have never been able to vote in private or independently, for the first time they will be able to do so, setting minimal standards for provisional voting and statewide registration. My hope is that in the next few days we can resolve that. This will not attract the attention that some other matters do, but it will be one of the singular achievements of the 107th Congress. My colleague from Arizona is on his way to the floor and will speak on an unrelated matter. When he does, I will be glad to yield to him. Let me make some points on this pending amendment so Members understand what I am suggesting here. I pointed out that in the compromise bill, the substitute, we wanted to keep the same criminal intent standard provisions that are in existing law when it comes to the fraud provisions. That language specifically refers to ``knowing and willful'' as the standard. What we have done is referenced those provisions very explicitly in the bill. This amendment is purely a technical amendment in that it clarifies the standard for criminal penalties in the same manner it was done in earlier legislation. It is accomplished under the cross-reference statute that we cite in the bill. Our stated intent under this compromise was to ensure that with regard to any false statements made under this bill, the provisions of titles 18 and 42 of the U.S. Code would apply. The standard for review under title 18 is a ``knowing'' standard. This amendment merely adds that word to ensure that the intent is clear. Similarly, with regard to potential allegations of conspiracy, the compromise references of title 42 provide for criminal penalties and the standard for review under that act is ``knowingly and willfully.'' So this amendment merely adds the current legal standard of review to the existing provisions in 401 and 402 of this bill. This is not a substantive amendment but merely restates what we have stated in the bill. That is the reason I proposed it this afternoon--to make that technical clarification. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pending the arrival of one of our colleagues who wants to look at the amendment, let me address the status of play as to where we are, coming back from the Presidents Day recess. It is my privilege once again to be managing the pending matter before the Senate, the Equal Protection Voting Rights Act, as amended by the bipartisan compromise substitute. Let me advise colleagues and others where we stand. Last Thursday, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement governing the remaining amendments to this measure. That agreement provides for a finite list of first-degree amendments which can be offered to this bill; relevant second-degree amendments are in order. Upon the disposition of the ordered amendments, the Senate would proceed to third reading of the bill and final passage. That was done, my colleagues may recall, to expedite matters for Members who wanted to get back for the Presidents Day break to their respective States. Rather than carry votes on into Friday and Saturday to finish the bill, we agreed to that unanimous consent request that the distinguished majority leader and the Republican leader worked out. We adopted an amendment by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire that was incorporated as part of the bill and then agreed to this unanimous consent request to have a finite list of amendments and then go to third reading of the bill to complete the matter. My hope is we can complete consideration of this bill by tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. It may go into Wednesday, depending upon the schedule. My hope is we can get it done soon. Let me tell my colleagues where we stand with the number of amendments. Having said we will get through by tomorrow, when I tell them how many amendments have been introduced, they may wonder what I could possibly be thinking of to suggest we might get through by then. There are 105 amendments. This is one of the dangers of asking for a finite list. All of a sudden you get a finite list. One hundred five amendments are in order under the unanimous consent agreement. I don't expect all of these to be offered. In fact, many are duplicative amendments or issues we had already resolved with previews amendments that were adopted or rejected in the debate a week and a half ago. It is my hope we can complete action by tomorrow evening or, at the very latest, on Wednesday. There will be no rollcall votes today, as the distinguished majority leader indicated. I expect tomorrow to be a busy day if we are unable to resolve some of these outstanding amendments. There are six amendments pending at this time. In the week of our departure, we disposed of 15 amendments in 1 day. Nine amendments were adopted; four amendments were debated, subject to rollcall votes--all rejected--and two amendments were offered and withdrawn. All in all, that is not a bad work effort for a day and a half. The majority and minority Rules Committee staff worked over the weekend to try to clear those amendments for which we have language, and there are about 40 amendments--about half the 105 I mentioned--that are unknown. They are called relevant amendments. That could be any subject matter, other than being relevant to elections. So to the extent those relevant amendments may have some text to them, I urge the authors to let us know as soon as possible what those relevant amendments are. Some we may actually be able to clear today; others, we may not. I suspect many of them may just be placeholders, so that the 105 number is substantially less. And when we get down to the number that actually require some votes, we may be talking about 10 or 12. My hope is that there are far fewer than that. If there are authors of relevant amendments who want them to be considered, they should let us know today. I hope we can also clear the six pending amendments. These are amendments that we could hopefully adopt or modify in some way, if they require such for acceptance to both sides. That would leave tomorrow with only those matters that require some debate. That is where we stand. Again, I thank the majority leader and minority leader, my colleague from Kentucky, and others for getting us to this point. I ask unanimous consent that a lead editorial of the New York Times be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DODD. This is the amendment we raised earlier. I thought it was going to be accepted. This is the one that references the criminal statutes in the bill specifically and repeats the words ``knowing'' and ``willful.'' I talked about this earlier as a way of reemphasizing the point that there is a standard used on existing criminal statutes that is applicable here, to which we had agreed. It should be accepted. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Yes. I urge we accept the amendment as well.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that clarification. Again, I think this is one way of getting the resources out. I point out, one of the issues raised is whether or not there will be an adequate amount in the authorization to meet all of the demands not only of grants but also the minimum requirements in the bill. I inform my colleagues that number is not selected out of thin air. We went and asked the Congressional Budget Office and others to give us an analysis of what would be needed if every single State in the country wanted to completely change their voting systems, what would be the ballpark figure if that would occur--not that anyone would believe that is going to be the case. Many people are very satisfied with the election equipment they have and feel no need to change it at all. But the number we have incorporated in the bill works on the maximum extent; that is, all jurisdictions in every single State wanting to replace every voting system. If that were to occur, we would reach the number that is in the authorization of this bill. So we are more than satisfied that the number we have identified as an authorizing figure would accommodate virtually every jurisdiction in the country should they so desire to exchange their present equipment. Nothing in this bill mandates that to occur at all, as we have repeated over and over. Again, we believe very strongly that States ought to be allowed to decide what works best for them. Many jurisdictions have come up with unique means of casting ballots, modernizing their systems completely. We know about the States of Oregon and Washington, for instance, with mail-in voting. We took into consideration a week or so ago what Senator Cantwell, Senator Wyden, Senator Murray, and Senator Smith were all interested in: making sure that we do nothing in this bill that in any way impinges upon those two States being able to continue their present voting system. Of course, we never intended to eliminate absentee mail-in voting systems, and the language is as clear as it could be here that would not be the case. So, again, I state for the Record I think what the Senator from Maine has offered is a very sound proposal. It would ensure that no State would receive any less than $17.5 million. There may be an occasion, actually, when a State might not need that amount of money. And we are not encouraging them necessarily to apply for $17.5 million unless they actually need it. But certainly it would guarantee, at the very least, they would get that amount with respect to expenditures under the incentive grants. So I commend the Senator from Maine for her proposal. I see the arrival in the Chamber of my colleague from Kentucky. I will listen to his comments on this amendment. We might even be able to accept this amendment today. I prefer to clear up as many amendments as we could, to move them through the process so we can limit, to the maximum extent possible, the number of rollcall votes we would ask our colleagues to cast tomorrow. So with that, I thank my colleague from Maine for her proposal.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Maine for offering this amendment. We talked about it. I think I offered the amendment on behalf of my colleague from Maine when the Senate was not voting, but we were in session and considering amendments at that time. I think this is a good amendment. It is one that we probably should have written into the bill initially. It is not unprecedented for us to try to do this. Coming from a small State myself, I know what can happen in this area. I want to ask, if I could, my colleague only one question. She is talking here about States and not localities. There are thousands of localities, obviously, in the 50 States, and we want to keep this focused on the States themselves. So my question is: The language of this amendment, the one-half of 1 percent, would apply to the respective States because there may be applications coming from localities for grants, and to that extent you would have to accommodate that in terms of the total amount for that State?

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. I am modifying my own amendment. The line numbers are wrong.

Mr. DODD. Second, I ask consent that my amendment, which is at the desk now, No. 2922, be modified with changes at the desk to conform with the amendment, the line numbers in the compromise.

Mr. DODD. The Hollings-McCain amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will make a couple of unanimous consent requests to modify amendments. This has been discussed with the minority. Amendment No. 2919, as Modified I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 2919, previously agreed to by the Senate, be amended with the changes now at the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, that is all we have.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: amendment No. 2913 offered by Senators Harkin and McCain; amendment No. 2866, as modified, offered by Senator Lugar; amendment No. 2900, as modified, offered by Senator Ensign; amendment No. 2865 offered by Senator Grassley; amendment No. 2894, as modified, as offered by Senators Hollings, Reid, and Kohl; amendment No. 2926 offered by Senator Lieberman.

Mr. DODD. I thank in advance my staff, the staff of Senator McConnell, and the staffs of the respective authors of these amendments and others for their cooperation this afternoon. We have handled over 20 amendments. It means that while tomorrow we still have some to deal with, we now have a manageable number, and it is looking better and better for getting this bill finished tomorrow afternoon or early evening. That is our hope. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to tell the Chair and those who may be following the proceedings, we have come to an agreement on six amendments this afternoon. Rather than explain each amendment, which would take some time--the authors of the amendments will certainly know what we are talking about--I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open so that those who want to be heard on the amendments--some have cosponsors--can add remarks this evening.