Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, we have been talking about poll workers, and we would be remiss if we did not point out, because there are literally thousands of people across this country every election day, not just on the first Tuesday after the first Monday but also referenda that occur in our States and communities all during the year, that these are dedicated volunteers. It is really a remarkable thing, despite the shortcomings in the process today, that from the beginning of our Nation's history it has been voluntary citizens who have offered their time at all the polling precincts across the country to participate in the election process of the country. I would not want the day nor the discussion to end and not point out that we have great respect and admiration for these people throughout the years who have given so much of their time and effort to see to it that the election process works in this country. The Senator from Connecticut, my colleague, made a wonderful suggestion for expanding the ranks of people who would like to do this. Senator Sarbanes, I believe, will offer an amendment to encourage young people in college to get involved. We ought to applaud the efforts while we simultaneously thank those who have given so much. I urge Members--and I think my colleague from Kentucky will do the same--if Members have amendments, get them over here and talk to our staffs to shorten the list and complete the bill, hopefully. I yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Montana, and I ask unanimous consent to consider the amendment of the Senator from Montana, with the 20 minutes equally divided on both sides, pros and cons.

Mr. DODD. There have been a number of proposals such as this throughout the years for the District of Columbia to have representation. It is one of the great travesties, in my view. Many people live here. It has the population of many States, and they don't have a vote or a voice in the Senate. They have a voice, but no vote, in the House of Representatives. I appreciate the fact that we are not going to press the issue on this bill. I commend the Senator for raising the issue, for articulating the point of view that I think many Americans, when confronted with the facts, embrace. I think they are shocked to see that this many people are excluded from representation.

Mr. DODD. I am prepared to do that as well. In the meantime, my colleague from Montana very graciously has offered to wait because I did make a commitment to my colleague from Connecticut. You don't want to get me in trouble in Connecticut. Let me turn to my colleague from Connecticut. Amendment No. 2889

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the Senator's consideration. What we might do is proceed with the Senator from Connecticut, then the two Senators from Florida--they need a very short amount of time on their proposal, and it may be accepted--then the Senator from Montana. We will try to get some time agreements and see if we can't get some other Senators to come forward. We will move these things in order. We will move in that fashion, if that is all right.

Mr. DODD. That would be a first, Madam President. How much time does the Senator from Montana want on his amendment?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senators from Florida had a proposal they want to present and on which we are prepared to rule. The Senator from Connecticut also had a proposal, as well as the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DODD. Before he does that, I want to be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, with all due respect, I agree with much of what my colleague said, but I want to make a couple of corrections. The $3.5 billion, we are told, is the number if every single precinct in the country decided to change every voting machine. It has to be the most sophisticated equipment you can buy. The number we have put in this bill is not drawn out of thin air. This is a number that should accommodate virtually every jurisdiction to make changes. Obviously that will not happen in every jurisdiction. But the money will be there, provided the Appropriations Committee supports what the President asked for in this budget and what we included. Second, I make the case again, this bill gives people the right to be able to verify how they have voted and to have the right to ask for that check to occur. It says nothing in here to prohibit that. In fact, the resources are going to the States, and in this particular case, so they can get the equipment that Illinois will have in Cook County, to be able to update its punchcard system or whatever else it wants to have. These are very significant steps forward that come closer to addressing the problem that the Senator from Illinois identified. Not as comprehensively as he would, I add, with his amendment; his amendment goes much further than that. I am not really disagreeing except to the extent I try to present to this entire Chamber a bill that would enjoy the support of an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans. That is not an easy task when it comes to election reform. I have great respect for my colleague from Illinois, and I urge our colleagues to vote their conscience, although on this issue I happen to disagree. If there is no further requests for time, I urge we get to a vote on this amendment.

Mr. DODD. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Senator from yielding back time.

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor. Does the Senator from Missouri want to be heard?

Mr. DODD. What my colleagues are requesting is that we mandate that in this bill. There is nothing in this legislation that says Florida is going to insist--the State of Florida has abandoned their punchcard system, but in the case of Illinois, which is a live example, under a court order, the State has said you must notify voters of an overvote. That is fine. No one here is suggesting in this bill that the State of Illinois should not be able to do that. What is missing, what the Senator from Illinois would like, is that we absolutely require in every jurisdiction where a punchcard system is located that that system notify the voter of that overvote. I do not disagree with him in that sense, but understand in putting this bill together, I was not able to get that far. We had to compromise.

Mr. DODD. The bill does not prohibit that.

Mr. DODD. Certainly.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we do, but it is about balance. No one has claimed perfection. We are trying to strike a balance where the Federal Government, for the first time, becomes a better partner with our States and simultaneously saying, in exchange for that partnership, there are certain minimum requirements--certain ones, not every one I would like, not every one one might imagine, but certain ones on which a majority--hopefully a large majority--of Democrats and Republicans, with very different points of view on this issue, can find common ground. That is what we try to do when we legislate, and that is what I tried to do with this bill. I could think of 20 more minimum Federal requirements I would write into this bill if I were king. But I am not king, yet. So I am working with my friend from Kentucky. If he were writing this bill, he would have a very different set, I presume, and it would be the same with my colleague from Missouri. I say to my friend, this is not easy, I admit. It is complicated, and we are not writing this bill in tablets. We have established a commission so there will be an ongoing process. We do not have to wait another 40 years to talk about changes to be made in the system. I urge States to do this. If I were writing the bill alone, I would have written exactly the provision my friend from Illinois has suggested, but in trying to cobble together provisions that will allow us to take a major step forward in improving the election system of this country, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment without rejecting the idea.

Mr. DODD. Certainly.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, will my colleague yield? I want to make a point. I said to my colleague, I certainly do not disagree with what he wants to do. Let me make the case again. One is, nothing in this legislation, in fact, prohibits any State from making a decision requiring this equipment and notifying voters of an overvote. In fact, in Cook County there is a court order that requires that very result. Other States may do the same. Again, I make the point to my colleagues, this was putting together a bill with a lot of different features to get a bipartisan product. Unlike the other body, the Rules Committee in the Senate does not control the debate and whether there are no amendments. They just bring the product out and you vote for or against it. Here we have already dealt with seven or eight amendments, and I have a book thick with amendments people may offer on this issue. Senator Bond, Senator McConnell, and myself tried to work something out that will move us along on some very important underlying provisions. Again, this equipment is not inexpensive. States can apply through the grant program to get the money to buy this equipment. They can put it in place. There is nothing here that prohibits people from doing that whatsoever. In fact, I encourage them to do exactly that.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Illinois. Again, I urge Members to follow what he has proposed here. He said it very well. We do require in this bill that there be overvotes, not undervotes. I don't know if my colleague from Illinois made that distinction. There is nothing in this bill that requires that a person be notified of an undervote. Senator McCain, in fact, raised this issue with me. I thought he brought up a very good point. There are many of us--we can all identify with this--who have gone in to vote and there were some positions where we just did not know the people. We did not know anything about them whatsoever. So from time to time, we do not cast a ballot on those particular races. We make the conscious decision not to cast a ballot. We don't want to necessarily be notified that we have not voted for the deputy sheriff in some place. So we have excluded any reference to undervote references, only to overvote where, again, everyone wants to be notified if they voted for two candidates for President or two candidates for Senate, or Governor. The overvote issue is extremely important.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct. That is exactly what the bill does. As I said before, he urges me to follow my heart. I would be very much inclined to do so. He also is a very accomplished legislator and knows how difficult it is. In fact, he has been in this very chair I now find myself in where he has been confronted with not dissimilar proposals where his heart said one thing and, as he tried to cobble together a piece of legislation that enjoyed the bipartisan support I am seeking with this bill, he was torn between trying to produce an underlying bill and agreeing with the proposal that one of his dear friends offered. I have no argument whatsoever with the proposal, but he knows the quandary his friend is in.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. In Cook County, excuse me--that is requiring they do just that. So I say to people who are wondering about this issue, while we do not go to the extent that my colleague from Illinois would like us to in this bill, by requiring, as one of the minimum standards in this legislation, national standards that every jurisdiction in the country that uses a punchcard system must use a punchcard system that would allow the voter to be able to determine whether or not an overvote has occurred. We say nothing in this legislation that would, in any way, restrict a State from requiring exactly what the Senator from Illinois is seeking. In fact, I would encourage States to do it, to use the grant funding and acquire them because I think it is a great service to be able to provide for your voters, and to avoid exactly the situation the Senator from Illinois describes. We all remember, very vividly, the pictures every night on television of people holding up these butterfly ballots where to say it was a confusing situation was a mild description of those ballots. And there were the punchcards that were also very difficult to read. People were holding them up to the light and showing hanging chads and the like. So the Senator's point is an excellent one. It is not a point with which I disagree. But anyone who has ever had to manage a bill on the floor, where you have 99 other colleagues and you are trying to put together a compromise bill that includes some very important changes and advances in the law, then you know how difficult that can be. This is exactly one of those points. I agree with what my colleague wants to do, but I also know in putting this bill together, the decision was made to allow States to do that but not require in the punchcard system that it be done. I am in an awkward position because I agree with my colleague, but I am in a tough position because I am trying to work out a bill.

Mr. DODD. First of all, Madam President, I commend my colleague and friend from Illinois for his support on the underlying bill. I am very grateful to him for helping us craft this proposal and lending his name as a cosponsor of the bill. He has been tremendously helpful. The Senator from Illinois makes a compelling case. We have tried, in this legislation, to strike a balance. I suppose it is a painful lesson we all have to learn from time to time. But we would like to write our own bills. We all have our own ideas of exactly what we would do if we could just write the bill ourselves. Coming to the floor with a bill that is endorsed and cosponsored by the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, and others, obviously did not happen miraculously. It happened through the work of trying to offer proposals and negotiating out provisions that will allow people to achieve a level of comfort with a product to which they are willing to lend their names, and to be able to present it to our colleagues for their overall support. That is where we find ourselves and where I find myself with this particular proposal. Again, I am one who believes, wherever possible, where the equipment allows, that people ought to be able to know if there is an overvote. The Senator from Illinois makes an irrefutable case for it, in my view. While memories fade a bit, and other events have overtaken the events of 14 months ago, it is not that hard for people to remember how distraught this country was over the fact that we could not seem to get a Presidential election straight. We discovered--obviously, not just in Florida, and it was not just for this race--that all across the country there were serious problems with the election systems and that voting systems were outdated. Depending on what community you lived in--how affluent it was--you might have better equipment than other communities. There have been all sorts of problems that have been identified by every single study and commission that has looked at election processes in the country. What the Senator from Illinois has proposed is that when we are talking about punchcard systems--and there is a machine that can indicate over-votes on a punchcard. Under our bill, we provide grant money to States and localities to help them acquire equipment. The $3 billion is there for that purpose. You can actually buy a voting system that does exactly what the Senator from Illinois would like to see done. When I wrote the bill with Senator Bond and Senator McConnell, there were tradeoffs. I had to give up on some things I did not like giving up on--and this is one of them--in order to get support for other provisions of the bill. I am not going to speak for my colleagues from Missouri and Kentucky, but there were things they did not want to particularly give up on. So we struck an agreement on this overvote issue that presently does not require as a matter of national law that punchcard systems must report an overvote. But let me also say, there is nothing in this legislation which prohibits any State from doing exactly what my friend from Illinois wants to do. In fact, I think the State of Illinois does require that there be an overvote requirement--or there is a court order pending that----

Mr. DODD. I heard the comments of my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, talking about the bill and one of his concerns that has to do with the issue of how the $400 million authorizing grant money would be allocated. Again, Senator Jeffords, I think maybe Senator Reid, certainly Senator Brownback, and maybe others, have raised the issue of having some floor so every State would have an opportunity to receive some of the grant money to modernize their election equipment. That is a very fine suggestion. Let me say that those Members who are interested-- Senator Collins of Maine, I think, as well, is interested in a similar idea--I think we could very quickly put together a proposal that will be accepted by both sides as a way to guarantee that every State would qualify for some of this assistance so it wouldn't all be absorbed by just large States. There are four amendments that will be very similar. If they come over, we can accommodate them. I see my friend from Illinois is here, and I know he has a number of ideas he wants to raise on this bill. I yield to him. Amendment No. 2895

Mr. DODD. Let me say, in the absence of my colleague from Kentucky-- he will be back shortly--there are a number of our colleagues who expressed the same interest as the Senator from South Carolina. I think Senator Boxer from California has expressed an interest in the same subject matter. There may be others who will want to take a look at this. I think the Senator from South Carolina is making a very fine suggestion. This is a legitimate issue. I heard some of his comments as I was making my way up here. The point he makes is a worthwhile one. There are people who, because of their work obligations, find it difficult. Other countries have tried this. We can learn from others who have been able to increase voter participation by making the time available to them. There are a lot of different ideas. As he pointed out, there is the holiday idea, using existing holidays, weekends. There are objections people raise to almost any idea you bring up as well. But I think it will be worthwhile. With the establishment of this permanent commission, they can gather information and come back in 6 months or a year and make a recommendation to us and let us deal with this issue. It really ought to be confronted. It is long overdue, and I commend him immensely for raising the idea and turning it over to the commission for their analysis and reporting back to us. I hope many of our colleagues on the other side would agree with this proposal and we can accept the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am holding this loose-leaf binder in my hand. These are all amendments that various Members have suggested they would like to offer. Many of them I think we can accept, but I cannot accept them if they do not come over and offer them. So I am making an appeal. We have an hour when we are not going to be able to vote because of the lunches that are occurring, but if there are Members who would like to be heard on this bill, I am urging them to please come over and offer their amendments. We cannot vote on it right away, but they can explain the amendment. They can submit it. We could lay it aside and go through a number of these and then try to work them out, either accept them or set up the time for recorded votes or vote on them, but we cannot get through the bill if we lose an hour or so sitting in a quorum call. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to the Chamber and offer their amendments if they have gone to the extent of drafting an amendment and going to legislative counsel. Many of the amendments are very good ideas and I think would strengthen and make this a better bill, but I need to have them offered. So as I am sitting in the Chamber, I will wait for Senators to take the time and come over in the next few minutes and we will consider their proposals. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We have to round up another amendment.