Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. We are not going to be able to have recorded votes until after 2 o'clock because of the conference lunches. I suggest we lay it aside temporarily and see if there are amendments to be offered and try to work out language that may make this an acceptable amendment. The Senator understands the problem. He identified the problem area for us. My suggestion to the Senator from Kentucky is to try to do that.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we will take a further look at the amendment and discuss this with the Senator from Arizona. Let me raise the concern my colleague from New York has already expressed. Senator Bond said it; he really gets credit for coining this phrase. Others of us have repeated this over the last number of months. And that is, what we are trying to achieve with this bill is to make it as easy as possible for people to cast a ballot in America, to exercise their most fundamental right, and simultaneously make it hard to cheat the system. My concern with the amendment of the Senator from Arizona is that it could set up a situation where, while it is protecting a voter, to some degree, from being unceremoniously denied the right to vote, it could make it much harder for that individual to actually register to vote because a State may decide that this is the only way you can register to vote. There are literally millions of people in this country who do not have a Social Security card. If that were the case, they could be denied in that State the opportunity to register. I do not think any of us want to do that. I understand if they make this one of the criteria, but we could have other criteria. That would be one set of circumstances. But as the Senator from Arizona very candidly--and I appreciate it--said in response to the Senator from New York when asked the question, Could a State then mandate this is the only criterion? we would then create a hurdle while we are trying to diminish the hurdles as much as possible.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me urge Members to come over and to please speak with the staffs, Senator McConnell's and mine. Many of the amendments are just technical in nature, and we can move this bill along. Some will require votes. But if we can at least get the numbers down pretty quickly, there is no reason we can't deal with the overwhelming majority of the amendments that look to be fairly straightforward and acceptable. Some are actually duplicates, where they have offered the same idea with slight variations. Perhaps we can combine them and reduce the number. Hope springs eternal, Mr. President, that we might actually get this bill done. I realize that may get harder as the afternoon wears on. I urge Members, if they have amendments, don't wait until 5 or 6 o'clock to come over. Bring them over and we will try to clear them or work them out and accept them. If we can't, we will try to arrange for a time for you to consider the amendment and vote on it. My colleague from Arizona is ready. Amendment No. 2891

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I will request of Members who have amendments to come and talk to staff. I understand the Senator from Arizona has an amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we are about to vote on this amendment. I believe the Senator from Nevada is going to ask for a recorded vote. I happen to agree with the thrust of the amendment of my dear friend, offered with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. When people have paid their dues to society, they have completed their probation and whatever else is required of them, the restoration of their rights is something we ought to embrace and encourage. I think it may contribute, in fact, to the rehabilitation of people who may otherwise become recidivists and rejoin the criminal element. The fact that 36 States have already, to one degree or another, embraced that concept, some more so than others, is an indication of the direction in which the country is clearly heading when it comes to how we treat former felons, even those who commit crimes that are highly objectionable, to put it mildly, to any average citizen of the country. I have made an appeal to my good friend from Nevada. We have worked very hard on this bill. One of the features of this bill that I like, offered by my friend and colleague from Kentucky, is the establishment of a permanent commission on elections. We do not attempt to resolve every issue in the election lexicon in this bill. I know there are, among my colleagues, some who feel strongly about having a holiday for election day. Others would like to see election day occur on a weekend. There are good arguments. Some would like to just keep it as it is. We do not attempt, in this bill, to deal with that. It seems to me we have taken on a lot with this bill. To try to move the process forward I am, therefore, going to urge colleagues, under this circumstance, to put this issue aside for another day. I urge that the commission itself take a look at the very provisions the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Pennsylvania have raised; that is, how we might do a better job of restoring the rights of people who have paid their dues to society. I will be very blunt with my colleagues. My fear is that the adoption of this amendment would provide those who do not like what we have done on all the other parts of the bill a justification for undermining the significant improvements in the election laws of our country. Again, 36 States are moving in that direction; 14 are not doing anything. Some States still make it rather difficult. But it seems to me the trend lines are pretty good for moving in that direction. My fear is, as I say, from a purely rhetorical standpoint, that I can hear the arguments of people who do not like the minimum standards on provisional voting, statewide voter registration, dealing with access for the disabled community, the right to review your ballot when overvotes occur, establishment of the commission, dealing with some of these other broad provisions. These are major accomplishments and ones I know my friend from Nevada thoroughly endorses. So I am in a very awkward position because I am attracted to the thrust of what he wants to do, with Senator Specter. But my fear is, if this were to be adopted on this bill it would make it very difficult for my friend from Kentucky and I and others to convince people who might otherwise vote for the bill to do so. With that expression of my thoughts, I will oppose the Reid amendment--not because I disagree with what he is trying to do, but I think this is not the right place for us to be dealing with that idea.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before we turn to our colleague, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. Let me pose this--I will not make the unanimous consent request so staff can check with Members--I would like to get time boiled down, if we can. I know my colleague from Nevada wants to accommodate this. I suggest 45 minutes equally divided. Why don't we try that? If Members believe they can do it in a half hour, that would be even better. We have a series of amendments, and the hope is--I will state it again--I have been told; I am not going to speak for the leader; I will let my colleague from Nevada speak for the leader or the leader can speak for himself--I am told if we can get this bill done this evening, there is a great possibility there will be no votes tomorrow and Members can head for their States. Particularly Western Senators who may have amendments, I urge you to offer your amendments so we can complete this bill today. With that, I turn to my colleague from Nevada to see if we can constrain time, and then the Senator from Wisconsin can speak.

Mr. DODD. May I make a suggestion? How much time does Senator Bond need?

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment be the one offered by the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. First of all, let me again commend my colleague from Connecticut for a very helpful proposal. I do not know if we are going to adopt this today. I do not know how the votes would come out on all of this, but I think the idea of making elections more accessible and making available the opportunity for people to participate more is a good idea. As the Senator pointed out, Congressman Hoyer in the House- passed version of this bill has a provision that actually encourages the participation of college students in the electoral process, volunteers. Our colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, has a similar proposal he intends to offer at some point before final passage of this bill, as well as Senator Hollings and Senator Boxer. I can think of several others who have proposed the idea. Senator Byrd has had a strong interest in the idea of a holiday or a day other than the first Tuesday after the first Monday as a way to increase citizen participation in elections. What the Senator from Connecticut has offered is, of course, a way in the interim period for people who will be able to take time away from their jobs to deal obviously with Federal elections and to be volunteers. So I am very attracted to his proposal. What I am going to recommend is we might set aside this amendment while we consider two or three other amendments, and then ask for these votes, if the Senator so insists on a recorded vote, to occur at a time we can determine shortly after we consider the Burns amendment, the Nelson and Graham amendments, maybe those three, as a way of trying to deal with some amendments en bloc. My colleague from Connecticut and the Senator from Missouri may want to respond, or the Senator from Kentucky, to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. In the interim, let me say it is about 10 minutes of 4 p.m. I urge Members to come or send staff over. We have a long list of amendments. I have shown the list before. There are Senators who have indicated they may be interested in offering amendments. I also know they may not be interested. But at 5 p.m., if I have not heard from Senators, I am going to draw the conclusion that they are not necessarily interested in offering it at this time or on this bill. So Senators have an hour to let us know whether or not they intend to move forward so we can come up with a list of amendments, maybe settle on some times and resolve many of them. I think we can probably come to agreement on some of the amendments without votes in order to move this product along. So by 5 p.m., if I have not heard from Senators, I am going to assume that their amendment would not be offered.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Missouri, or his designee, be recognized for 15 minutes; that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized for 5 minutes; that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be recognized for 5 minutes, and that the vote occur on or in relation to this amendment at 10 of 3, with no other amendments in order to this amendment, with no intervening action.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire--the Kyl amendment has been temporarily laid aside. Is my colleague filing this or is he offering it?

Mr. DODD. If we look at this, maybe if it is in conference or before the conclusion of the bill, with a technical amendment to accomplish whatever it may be, I ask my colleague if he would be willing to accept such language in order to clarify that.

Mr. DODD. No.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Florida, who has had a longstanding interest in the subject matter. He brings a wealth of knowledge about the intricacies of these laws. As the person who managed the campaign finance reform bill here on the floor of this body, along with the help of my colleague from Nevada, there is a sense of parochial pride in the House action last evening in that the major cosponsor of the legislation, Chris Shays, is a longstanding friend of mine, a member of the Connecticut delegation, a House member for some 15 years. He has been a dogged advocate of campaign finance reform. So there is a sense in those of us and the overwhelming majority of my constituents in Connecticut, as across the country, who support the notion of trying to get a handle on the issue of campaign financing, a sense of pride in the work of Chris Shays and the job he did on behalf of the entire country, not just Connecticut. As was said by others, this is not an end-all, a piece of legislation that will solve all the problems. I express my regret that what I thought may have been one of the most effective pieces of legislation, dealing with the cost of media, was struck from the bill last evening. For those of us in this Chamber who have to go out and raise money to engage in a campaign, the one single item that absolutely drives the cost of a campaign is the cost of media. About 80 cents on the dollar goes to TV and radio advertising, but most of it is TV advertising. There have been literally pioneers and visionaries in the media industry at a local level who have found it in their own business practices to open up their media outlets for an open debate and discussion. I think, particularly, of a gentleman who owns TV stations in Minnesota, who is a very effective leader in the television industry but has, for years, made it possible for statewide candidates in that State to have some time around the news to express themselves on why they would like to be elected to the office they are seeking. My hope is that we would adopt provisions that would make it possible for candidates to have access. The airwaves are public property. Maybe I am old school, but I was always raised to believe that. It was a privilege that we extended to people to use the public airwaves. So the idea that the public ought not to have the opportunity to listen to people who are going to represent them, whether a Governor, Congressman, or Senator, is something I find disturbing, that they would object to the notion of having opportunities. I am sorry that was stricken. It is a very good bill over all, and I commend the other body for their leadership, and particularly my friend from Connecticut. Congratulations to my colleague from Wisconsin as well.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request which has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that at 5:16 p.m. today the Senate resume consideration of the Lieberman amendment, No. 2890; that there be 2 minutes of explanation and the Senate then vote in relation to the amendment; that following the vote, regardless of the outcome, the Senate resume consideration of the Burns amendment and there be 2 minutes of explanation prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that no second-degree amendments be in order to either of the two amendments prior to the vote, with all time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and that if an amendment is not disposed of, it recur in the order in which it was voted, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, most of us know February 14 as Valentine's Day, but for the past few years, it has shared that date with another vitally important, and unfortunately less well-known, event: National Donor Day. Thanks to the selflessness of thousands, February 14 has become our Nation's largest one-day donation event. On a day that celebrates giving the gift of life, we should make a commitment to increasing our donation rates and saving even more lives. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation with Senator Bill Frist to do just that. The Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act will bring attention to this critical public health issue by increasing resources and coordinating efforts to improve organ donation and recovery. I am proud to be working with my friend and colleague, Senator Frist, whose leadership and professional experience as a heart and lung transplant surgeon has been critical in making this issue a priority. At this very moment, more than 80,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and one person is added to this list every thirteen minutes. This has increased from 19,095 people on waiting lists a decade ago. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between the need and the number of available of organs is growing exponentially. From 1999 to 2000 transplant waiting list grew by 10.2 percent, while the total increase in donation grew by 5.3 percent. Tragically, in 2000, approximately 5,500 wait-listed patients died waiting for an organ. Undoubtedly, the task before us seems daunting. However, each person who makes the decision to donate can save as many as three lives. These are our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends. None of us wants to imagine the anguish of watching a family member or a friend wait for an organ transplant hoping that their name reaches the top of the list before their damaged organ fails or having to bear the emotional, physical, or financial costs of undergoing a transplant procedure. For those that do, and for all of those that will, we must improve and strengthen our systems of organ donation and recovery. We must also work to remove the barriers that stand in a donor's way as he or she seeks to help another person continue life. States need the resources to determine for themselves how best to increase donations and a vital part of increasing donations lies in education and public awareness initiatives. We must work to improve the science of donation and recovery and address legal issues relating to donation, including consent. More than 20 states currently have registries that may prove indispensable in ensuring that we honor a donor's wishes. We should study the benefits, and potential shortcomings, of these arrangements and work to create a national sense of urgency that matches the national need for donors. I would like to recognize the invaluable support and guidance we received, in drafting this bill, from the American Society of Transplantation, the American Liver Foundation, the Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition, North American Transplant Coordinators Organization, and the National Kidney Foundation. I would be remiss not to mention the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations and the OPOs nationwide that have worked so tirelessly to bridge the gap between the immense need and the inadequate supply. In my home state of Connecticut, we are well served by the tremendous work of the Northeast Organ Procurement Organization and the New England Donor Bank. Finally, I look forward to working with my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Durbin, whose commitment to this issue has been unparalleled. I urge Congress to take swift action on bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing organ donation and saving lives.

Mr. DODD

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. I thank a lot of people for their work. I note the presence of the Presiding Officer. Cathy Cox, who is Secretary of State of Georgia, I want the Presiding Officer to know, has been incredibly helpful in this process. She is a remarkable person. I know the Senator from Georgia appreciates that extremely. I want to let him and others know how helpful she has been in helping us see through ideas that would be productive and constructive. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business and that Senators be recognized to speak for a time not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, before we move to the business which has been agreed to, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute as in morning business.