[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1142-S1149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 565) to establish the Commission on voting 
     Rights and Procedures to study and make recommendations 
     regarding election technology, voting, and election 
     administration to establish a grant program under which the 
     Office of Justice Programs and the Civil Rights Division of 
     the Department of Justice shall provide assistance to States 
     and localities in improving election technology and the 
     administration of Federal elections, to require States to 
     meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and 
     administration requirements for the 2004 Federal elections, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Clinton amendment No. 2906, to establish a residual ballot 
     performance benchmark.
       Dayton amendment No. 2898, to establish a pilot program for 
     free postage for absentee ballots cast in elections for 
     Federal office.
       Dodd (for Harkin) amendment No. 2912, to provide funds for 
     protection and advocacy systems of each State to ensure full 
     participation in the electoral process for individuals with 
     disabilities.
       Dodd (for Schumer) modified amendment No. 2914, to permit 
     the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of 
     verifying the identify of voters who register by mail.
       Dodd (for Kennedy) amendment No. 2916, to clarify the 
     application of the safe harbor provisions.

  (The text of amendment 2894, as modified and agreed to on February 
25, is as follows:)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out its duty under section 
     303(a)(1)(G), the Commission, within 6 months after its 
     establishment, shall provide a detailed report to the 
     Congress on the advisability of establishing an election day 
     holiday, including options for holding elections for Federal 
     offices on an existing legal public holiday such as Veterans 
     Day, as proclaimed by the President, or of establishing 
     uniform weekend voting hours.
       (b) Factors Considered.--In conducting that study, the 
     Commission shall take into consideration the following 
     factors:
       (1) Only 51 percent of registered voters in the United 
     States turned out to vote during the November 2000 
     Presidential election--well-below the worldwide turnout 
     average of 72.9 percent for Presidential elections between 
     1999 and 2000. After the 2000 election, the Census Bureau 
     asked thousands of non-voters why they did not vote. The top 
     reason for not voting, given by 22.6 percent of the 
     respondents, was that they were too busy or had a conflicting 
     work or school schedule.
       (2) One of the recommendations of the National Commission 
     on Election Reform led by former Presidents Carter and Ford 
     is ``Congress should enact legislation to hold presidential 
     and congressional elections on a national holiday''. Holding 
     elections on the legal public holiday of Veterans Day, as 
     proclaimed by the President and observed by the Federal 
     government, or on the weekends, may allow election day to be 
     a national holiday without adding the cost and administrative 
     burden of an additional holiday.
       (3) Holding elections on a holiday or weekend could allow 
     more working people to vote more easily, potentially 
     increasing voter turnout. It could increase the pool of 
     available poll workers and make public buildings more 
     available for use as polling places. Holding elections over a 
     weekend could provide flexibility needed for uniform polling 
     hours.
       (4) Several proposals to make election day a holiday or to 
     shift election day to a weekend have been offered in the 
     107th Congress. Any new voting day options should be 
     sensitive to the religious observances of voters of all 
     faiths and to our Nation's veterans.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  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.

[[Page S1143]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I reiterate that it is our intention to 
finish the bill today, and I believe we are on a glidepath to do that. 
I fully support the effort of the chairman to move this along.


                           Amendment No. 2927

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send and amendment on behalf of 
Senators Gramm and Hutchison to the desk. It has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Gramm, 
     for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2927.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel, 
merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and 
                            local elections)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 402. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY VOTING 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) Registration and Balloting.--Section 102 of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
     1), as amended by section 1606(a)(1) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 
     115 Stat. 1278), is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--'' 
     before ``Each State shall--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State 
     shall--
       ``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use 
     absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee 
     ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for 
     State and local offices; and
       ``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election 
     described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter 
     registration application from an absent uniformed services 
     voter if the application is received by the appropriate State 
     election official not less than 30 days before the 
     election.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for title I of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.

  Mr. DODD. The majority accepts the Gramm amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2927) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2928

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment from the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments will be set aside. The 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2928.

  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To determine whether voting systems are able to accommodate 
 as many voters who have a limited proficiency in the English language 
                              as possible)

       On page 54, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       ``(k) the technical feasibility of providing voting 
     materials in 8 or more languages for voters who speak those 
     languages and who are limited English proficient; and''.

  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. McCONNELL. We are agreeable to this as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2928.
  The amendment (No. 2928) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2912

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 2912.
  This is a very simple amendment, a very short amendment. It is one 
that is needed to improve full and equal access to the polls for people 
with disabilities. The election reform bill sponsored by my colleagues 
from Connecticut and Kentucky does indeed provide a good first step to 
equal access. It requires every polling place to have at least one 
fully accessible voting machine. That is a good start. What is the 
benefit of these voting machines if people with disabilities--say, 
those who are using wheelchairs--cannot get to the machines from 
outside or from a parking lot?
  We have an anomaly. We have a voting machine that is accessible and 
usable; but what about from the sidewalk to the voting machine, from 
the parking lot to the voting machine, if that is not accessible? The 
bill requires nothing to ensure this access. Now, the bill does provide 
$100 million in incentive grants. That is better than nothing. But I 
believe we need to do more.
  In each State there are nonprofit agencies called protection and 
advocacy agencies which have been set up through the law. They work 
with local communities to provide equal access for people with 
disabilities in public places. They have been doing this for a long 
time. Unfortunately, they can only do so much with Federal assistance 
they receive. Last year, all of the P&As--as we call protection and 
advocacy groups--in the entire United States received $15 million. That 
is for all 50 States. That means they can only focus on a few access 
issues. They do not have the resources to work on training or educating 
local election officials on polling access requirements under current 
law.

  My amendment simply authorizes $10 million a year to the protection 
and advocacy agencies to give additional focus to voting access for 
people with disabilities.
  A GAO report that Senator McCain and I requested found in the 2000 
election more than 80 percent of the 496 polling places surveyed had 1 
or more physical impediments. The GAO said 80 percent of the 496 that 
they surveyed had 1 or more physical impediments.
  Consider this: 28 States do not even have curbside voting 
requirements. If you live in a State that does not have

[[Page S1144]]

a curbside voting requirement and you have a polling place that has 
several physical impediments to get to the polling machine, what good 
is it to have a polling machine that is accessible if you cannot get to 
it and you don't have curbside voting?
  Even in the States where curbside voting must be an option, the 
rights of people with disabilities are still compromised. Curbside 
voting does not allow private or independent voting, as it does for the 
general public. For example, a poll worker meets the voter at the car 
or in the parking lot. The poll worker provides the ballot to the 
voter, or actually fills out the ballot for the voter, and the voter 
must trust the poll worker to submit the ballot inside. That is an 
unacceptable alternative to getting around current laws that require 
physical disability access to the polls, unless the voter requests 
curbside voting.
  Again, we have a system we are about to vote on and pass that would 
deny equal access to many people in our communities to vote as we 
vote--in private, ensuring that your ballot is your ballot, making sure 
you can go in the voting booth like everyone else. We are only setting 
aside $10 million, a very small amount of money, to be used by the 
protection and advocacy groups to work with local officials to help 
train and educate them on how you make places accessible.
  Again, one might ask, why would we need someone from protection and 
advocacy to meet with local election officials to make sure a place is 
accessible when the local elected officials know how to do that? Maybe 
yes, maybe no.
  There is a lot of expertise within the protection and advocacy groups 
throughout the United States as to how to do things, how to make things 
accessible with the least interference with the general public and at 
the least cost to the taxpayer.
  I myself have seen instances in my State and others, because of my 
work in disability rights, where local elected officials think they 
have to do something that is going to cost several hundred thousand 
dollars, to change this and do all this modification, and the 
protection and advocacy people come up and say: You do not have to do 
all that. Maybe just for a couple of thousand dollars you can change 
some things.
  One classic case that always comes to mind, and this happened some 
time ago, is where a local school system decided that to be compliant 
with the Americans With Disabilities Act, they had to change all the 
drinking fountains in all the public schools, that they would have to 
lower all of the drinking fountains so a kid using a wheelchair could 
have access to them; all the other ones were too high.
  This was going to cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
all the schools, to go in and do all the plumbing and lower all these 
drinking fountains. This created kind of a firestorm in the community. 
They said: My gosh, we are going to have to spend all this money to 
lower these drinking fountains for a few people using a wheelchair.
  Finally, one of the P&A groups came through and said: You do not have 
to do that. If you would just set a paper cup dispenser by the water 
fountain with a wastebasket to throw it in, someone in a wheelchair 
could roll up, take a paper cup, fill it with water, take a drink, and 
throw the paper cup away, and that would not cost you very much. That 
is what they did. It saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars. These 
are the kinds of things the protection and advocacy groups can do.
  A lot of local officials might think they have to do so much. Here is 
an example. A local elected official says: We have to make our place 
accessible. And they go to a local engineering group and say: What do 
we have to do? The local engineering group says: Hey, this is taxpayer 
money; we are going to knock out this wall, put in these doors, put in 
this ramp, do all this; we have to shift this around and maybe take 
this part of the lot out. All of a sudden you are into hundreds of 
thousands of dollars.
  A protection and advocacy group, knowing the law and knowing the 
requirements of ADA, might come in there and say: No, you don't have to 
do all that. There are other ways you can meet these requirements at a 
much cheaper cost, and much more efficacious, not only for people with 
disabilities but for the general public.
  This is the experience we have had in the past in many places where 
they have had problems of accessibility. The P&As, as we call them, 
have just been great, working with local officials to train and educate 
them about how to make places accessible. That is what this amendment 
does. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I regretfully rise in opposition to the 
Harkin amendment. This amendment proposes to add a new grant program of 
$40 million to the cost of the bill over 4 years. Unlike the other 
grant programs authorized by this bill, this amendment proposes to fund 
just one organization with the $40 million. That one entity is the 
protection and advocacy system, a federally mandated program currently 
in place and functioning with an office in each State.
  In Kentucky this office is a division of State government, but I 
understand in other States the office functions as a nonprofit 
organization. The protection and advocacy system is a federally 
mandated program that receives funding from several different Federal 
sources as well as funding from each State. This organization has 
offices in each State, and they advocate on behalf of people with 
disabilities. The protection and advocacy system can mediate, 
intervene, counsel, investigate, and even sue on behalf of those it 
represents.
  I have a couple of concerns about this amendment. First, I can 
appreciate the important work this group does. In fact, there are 
numerous groups out there that provide important and meaningful 
assistance to people with disabilities. I wholeheartedly support their 
efforts. But the group singled out by this amendment is already well 
funded by the Federal Government. They receive funding through Health 
and Human Services, the Department of Education, and even the Social 
Security Administration. I am not sure giving this particular group 
another $40 million makes sense when we can just as easily spend $40 
million on numerous other causes that are actually underfunded or not 
funded at all.
  The States are in dire financial straits. We could certainly devote 
this money to helping them make additional election administration 
improvements and upgrades.
  Protection and advocacy systems do not need this amendment to broaden 
their mandate to encompass accessibility. That is already included in 
their broad statutory mandate. This amendment seeks only to increase 
the funding of one organization, an increase that nearly doubles the 
amount this group received last year. But as I said a moment ago, there 
are many worthwhile groups out there that provide services to help 
people with disabilities. They, too, would like an additional source of 
Federal funding. Some of these groups have contacted my office, and I 
am sure my colleagues have heard from them as well.
  Other groups that help the disabled are calling my office and asking 
the question: Why does the protection and advocacy system get 
additional funding? We do good work, and we could use additional funds 
to help ensure full participation in the electoral process.
  These other groups are probably right. They do good work and could 
use additional money. But if we proceed down that road, we will soon 
deplete all the funds available under this bill. If we increase the 
funding for every group out there that does good work and may in fact 
need additional money, we will soon spend the entire Social Security 
surplus.
  If we had unlimited funds available, this amendment would be one of 
several good uses for that additional money. If we had unlimited funds 
available, I would propose additional funding for a host of 
organizations that do good works, some of which are in my home State 
and have said they could use the money. But we do not have unlimited 
funds available, and for that reason I do not think we should earmark 
additional money exclusively for this one organization, especially when 
that organization already received millions--millions--in Federal and 
State funds.

  Other disability advocacy groups see this amendment as unfairly 
benefiting

[[Page S1145]]

an organization that is already well funded by the Federal Government 
and already effectively advocates on behalf of those with disabilities. 
It seems these other advocates of the disabled have a very good point.
  There is one other concern with the amendment that has been expressed 
by my colleagues and by several election officials. Because the 
protection and advocacy systems are authorized by Federal statute to 
sue, many are concerned that this amendment would essentially fund 
litigation against our State and local election officials.
  There are at least two provisions in the Federal laws governing 
protection and advocacy systems that govern suits against States. One 
provision says:

       Nothing in this title shall preclude a system from bringing 
     a suit on behalf of individuals with developmental 
     disabilities against a State, or an agency or an 
     instrumentality of a State.

  The other provision says, in part:

       . . . such system shall have the authority to pursue legal 
     . . . remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of, and 
     advocacy for, the rights of such individuals within the 
     State. . . .

  Now it may be that some protection and advocacy systems do not sue 
that often. But the fact remains that they can sue and they do sue. In 
fact, their broad authorization allows them to sue a State and an 
agency or instrumentality of a State.
  Unfortunately, the election officials I have heard from are not 
particularly comforted by claims that these groups ``don't sue that 
often.'' These groups may very well need the ability to sue when they 
advocate on behalf of disabled people who face illegal discrimination 
in employment or in housing. But when it comes to elections, this bill 
seeks to help States improve elections systems and comply with the law. 
This bill makes great efforts to encourage States to upgrade their 
systems and work in a cooperative manner with the Federal Government.
  If this amendment is agreed to, we will essentially be giving money 
to the States to help them upgrade their election systems with one hand 
and we will be giving money to an outside group to help them 
potentially sue the States with the other.
  Of course, States will then have to devote even more resources to 
defend against lawsuits, and the real cost of this amendment goes even 
higher. Perhaps we should set up a separate stream of funding for 
States to use to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits, or, if 
we wanted to fund litigation, I am sure my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Missouri, would suggest a few groups that could use some 
Federal money to investigate instances of voter fraud and pursue 
litigation.
  As I said earlier, I support the important work done by the States 
for the disabled, as we all do. I support making voting easier for the 
disabled, which this bill does. And I think this bill makes great 
strides for the disabled, thanks largely to the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who is very passionate about this issue. But I 
think this amendment would do some harm to the delicate balance we have 
achieved with the bill.
  Folks with disabilities should be able to vote. There are numerous 
groups out there that provide education and assistance to help make 
that happen. In fact, this bill makes grant money available that States 
can use for outreach and education for the disabled. But I do not think 
it is wise to fund one group exclusively when there are so many other 
similar groups that could benefit from a special earmark.
  Nothing in the underlying bill prevents the protection and advocacy 
system from consulting with election officials. They can and do already 
consult with State governments on these issues.
  For all of those reasons, I hope this amendment will not be agreed to 
when we ultimately have the vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond a little to the 
arguments made by the Senator from Kentucky regarding my amendment.
  First, the Senator from Kentucky says the P&As can already handle 
cases dealing with access to places that are already within their 
purview to do so. I would say that is true. There is one P&A for each 
State and they do receive some state assistance. We gave $15 million 
last year for 50 States. Even with some of the small amounts they get 
from the State or other sources, they have very little with which to 
operate. The average P&A's budget is $1.2 million. Yet they have to 
cover the entire State in terms of working with local officials on 
accessibility. They have very small staffs.
  Their purpose is to educate, train, and advocate for compliance under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no extra funding to work 
on voting access. They are already strapped. But now we are saying with 
this bill that we want to have voting access. Again, we have an anomaly 
here. We have within the bill a requirement that there be at least one 
voting machine that is acceptable for voting places. But there are no 
minimum standards for accessibility to the machine from the parking lot 
to the sidewalk from the outside. The bill is silent on that. It is 
absolutely silent.
  Rather than just setting a minimum standard, which I don't think we 
ought to be doing right now, the best thing is to give a small amount 
of funds--this is $10 million a year for all 50 States. An average of 
maybe $150,000 per P&A to have them train, educate, and work with local 
officials on how to make sure the voting place is accessible.
  Again, the Senator from Kentucky said there are a lot of groups out 
there that would like to do this. The protection and advocacy system is 
set up under law--one per State. They have been there for a long time. 
They have the expertise and the history. They are well integrated in 
every State in terms of the State structure to do this.
  The Senator from Kentucky went on at great length about litigation--
that he didn't want to give resources to P&As to litigate because that 
would use money and the States would have to come up with the money to 
defend it. Again, we have to look at the facts. What P&As do 99 percent 
of the time is basically train and educate local officials on access 
issues. I mentioned earlier about how we have reams and reams of 
examples from every State on P&As, as they are called--protection and 
advocacy--about how they have been able to help State governments and 
local governments meet the requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act at least cost and with the least interference with the 
general public. This is well documented.
  When people call in, they provide over-the-phone advice. This is 
someplace where a local official can be out there, and someone could 
come and say: You have to do this to make something accessible. The 
local official does not know. They pick up the phone. They call the 
P&A, and they say: I have been told I have to make all of these changes 
to make something accessible. Do I have to do it? What do I have to do? 
They can get that advice. All the P&As around the country sit on local 
and State task forces and boards to ensure that accessibility is part 
of all the project planning. Remember that you have public planning for 
parks, recreational facilities, public buildings, courthouses, 
whatever. They are part of the planning process to make sure that they 
are accessible. They do handle individual cases. We do have data from 
the 50 States.
  The P&As are able to take about 1 of every 10 who ask for assistance. 
For every 10 people who call up the P&As and ask for some kind of 
assistance on a personal basis, they can take only 1 of them because 
they typically don't have the resources. They do not have the staff, 
and they don't have the money.
  I have a listing of all of the intervention strategies used in 
serving individuals by every State. Again, most of what they do is, as 
I said, education and technical assistance. On a lot of it, they 
negotiate and go to administrative hearings. But there is a column here 
on litigation. Here are the facts:
  The Senator from Kentucky went on and on about litigation. There were 
43,092 cases that came into the P&A system last year, 2001. Out of 
43,092 cases, 178 wound up in litigation.
  And the simple truth is, the P&As get the most bang for their buck 
through education and training and working with officials proactively--
not through the courts.
  The reason they don't litigate is that they do not have the 
wherewithal. I

[[Page S1146]]

can say without any fear of contradiction that each 1 of those 178 
cases was an egregious case. This is where the P&As have gone through 
negotiations, they have gone through mediation, they have gone through 
counseling, they have gone through administrative hearings, and nothing 
gets done. Yet, at that point in time they litigate.
  I don't think the Senator from Kentucky would like to take that right 
away from the P&As on the most egregious cases.
  The facts belie the fear of this burgeoning litigation.
  Again, just one of the things that P & A's do is handle individual 
cases. They only take 1 out of every 10 complaints--and then they do 
everything they can which is required by law--to remedy the problem. 
And only in those most egregious instances--3 percent of those 
individual cases--do they consider the courtroom as an option.
  So again, what my amendment will basically do is give to a nonprofit 
group that has a strong record in education, training and advocacy. It 
is a nonprofit entity. It is recognized by the States. As I said, State 
governments rely on them. They sit in on State boards and local boards, 
work with them in the planning process, and give technical assistance 
to help make sure we have accessibility for people with disabilities.
  Again, my amendment has been pending for over 2 weeks. It has been 
out there during the break and before the break. My amendment has been 
out there. I have not heard one complaint from any group or any 
election officials that this is a bad amendment. The disability 
community, I can tell you, is united behind this amendment.
  I think it is a modest approach. As I said, the more drastic approach 
would be for us to demand a minimum standard on physical accessibility 
to the voting place. Maybe that is what we should have done. But we 
decided to take the perhaps more cautious approach, one that would 
leave the maximum amount of flexibility for States to do what they 
needed to do. And the P&A system can help them do that.
  The funding will give the P&As the resources they need to focus on 
voting accessibility, which they can't do now because of their limited 
budgets.
  That is what the P&As can do. It is not a cookie-cutter approach, but 
to work with local officials, find the lowest cost, least interference 
method of making sure we have accessibility for everyone: People with 
disabilities and people without disabilities.
  As I said, they have great expertise. They have been doing this for a 
long time, going back to the 1970s, when they were created. Quite 
frankly, as the former chair of the Disabilities Subcommittee, and one 
who has been involved in this ever since, I keep close tabs on the P&A 
system. They are funded under the Appropriations Committee that I am 
privileged to chair.
  So we keep pretty good tabs on the P&A groups in the United States. 
With a meager amount of money, they do a great job. In fact, I hear 
from my secretary of state in Iowa about what a great job they do in 
Iowa.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  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. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his very kind 
and overly generous remarks. We have been, as he said, close friends 
for a quarter century now. We first came to the House together. We were 
sworn in on the same day. But I think the Senator is being overly kind 
in his comments about this Senator.
  As we all learn, as we go through life, the famous saying, no man is 
an island, around here, no man or woman gets legislation through by 
himself or herself. It takes a team effort and takes people working 
together.
  On all the legislation we have passed that has made lives better for 
people with disabilities, Senator Dodd of Connecticut has been in the 
forefront of the fight every single time from day one. We have served 
together on the Labor, Health, and Human Resources Committee all these 
years. He is senior to me on that committee. I have been proud to 
follow his lead on so many of these issues that make life better for 
our citizens with disabilities.
  I respond in kind by thanking the Senator from Connecticut. As he 
said, both of us, in our own individual families, have had personal 
experience with siblings who have had disabilities. We bring those 
personal experiences here. It gives us a better feel for what is 
happening to a lot of people around the country who want a full and 
fair life, want accessibility, want to be integrated in society, want 
education and travel, employment, and, yes, one of the most fundamental 
of all rights that make us uniquely American--the right of the secret 
ballot.
  The bill before us that Senators Dodd and McConnell have put together 
is a great bill. But like anything else, there are little parts that 
may need to be tweaked. This is considered one of those little things 
we need to do to help ensure that access from the curbside or from that 
parking lot to that voting machine, which they have rightly done in 
this bill, so there has to be at least one in every voting place. I 
applaud the Senator from Connecticut for taking the lead on that. But 
this is just something that will help ensure that we are able to have 
the access at the least cost, least interference, and the best method 
possible.

[[Page S1147]]

  Again, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on 
this issue and for his friendship for a quarter of a century to me 
personally, but to all Americans with disabilities. I thank the 
Senator.
  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. McCONNELL. I wanted to make a couple more observations about the 
amendment of Senator Harkin.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2869

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2869.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding State and local 
           input into changes made to the electoral process)

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING STATE AND LOCAL INPUT 
                   INTO CHANGES MADE TO THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Although Congress has the responsibility to ensure that 
     our citizens' right to vote is protected, and that votes are 
     counted in a fair and accurate manner, States and localities 
     have a vested interest in the electoral process.
       (2) The Federal Government should ensure that States and 
     localities have some say in any election mandates placed upon 
     the States and localities.
       (3) Congress should ensure that any election reform laws 
     contain provisions for input by State and local election 
     officials.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Department of Justice and the Committee on Election 
     Reform should take steps to ensure that States and localities 
     are allowed some input into any changes that are made to the 
     electoral process, preferably through some type of advisory 
     committee or commission.

  Mr. DODD. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I commend 
the Senator from Louisiana for offering the amendment. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2869.
  The amendment (No. 2869) was agreed to.
  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. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2931.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To ensure the security, confidentiality, and integrity of 
 personal information collected, stored, or otherwise used by the free 
  access system established for the purpose of permitting individuals 
casting provisional ballots to determine the final disposition of their 
                                 vote)

       On page 14, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       The appropriate State or local official shall establish and 
     maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the 
     security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal 
     information collected, stored, or otherwise used by the free 
     access system established under paragraph (6)(B). Access to 
     information about an individual provisional ballot shall be 
     restricted to the individual who cast the ballot.

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2931.
  The amendment (No. 2931) was agreed to.
  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 suggest the absence of a quorum. I think 
we may take care of at least one or two more amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2898, As Modified

  Mr. DODD. I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
modified Dayton amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2898), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 68, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY AND REPORT ON FREE ABSENTEE BALLOT POSTAGE.

       (a) Study on the Establishment of a Free Absentee Ballot 
     Postage Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Election Administration Commission 
     established under section 301 shall conduct a study on the 
     feasibility and advisability of the establishment by the 
     Federal Election Commission and the Postal Service of a 
     program under which the Postal Service shall waive the amount 
     of postage applicable with respect to absentee ballots 
     submitted by voters in general elections for Federal office 
     (other than balloting materials mailed under section 3406 of 
     title 39, United States Code) that does not apply with 
     respect to the postage required to send the absentee ballots 
     to voters.
       (2) Public survey.--As part of the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1), the Election Administration Commission shall 
     conduct a survey of potential beneficiaries under the program 
     described in such paragraph, including the elderly and 
     disabled, and shall take into account the results of such 
     survey in determining the feasibility and advisability of 
     establishing such a program.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) Submission.--Not later than the date that is 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Election 
     Administration Commission shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the study conducted under subsection (a)(1) together with 
     recommendations for such legislative and administrative 
     action as the Commission determines appropriate.
       (2) Costs.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     contain an estimate of the costs of establishing the program 
     described in subsection (a)(1).
       (3) Implementation.--The report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain an analysis of the feasibility of 
     implementing the program described in subsection (a)(1) with 
     respect to the absentee ballots submitted in the general 
     election for Federal office held in 2004.
       (4) Recommendations regarding the elderly and disabled.--
     The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) include recommendations of the Federal Election 
     Commission on ways that program described in subsection 
     (a)(1) would

[[Page S1148]]

     target elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities; 
     and
       (B) identify methods to increase the number of such 
     individuals who vote in elections for Federal office.
       (c) Postal Service Defined.--The term ``Postal Service'' 
     means the United States Postal Service established under 
     section 201 of title 39, United States Code.

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified, of the Senator from Minnesota.
  The amendment (No. 2998), as modified, was agreed to.
  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 suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted we finally have the 
opportunity to consider election reform. I am especially glad we are 
doing so in a way that is probably as close to bipartisan as anything 
we will work on this year. I commend Senator Dodd. I commend Senator 
McConnell and a number of other colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
who have worked diligently for a year now to hammer out this compromise 
we are considering today.
  As we all know, the 2002 elections brought to light a number of 
problems in the way we run elections. While Florida got a lot of 
attention, we found out the problems do not reside solely in Florida 
but persist in a number of other States as well. The bill that we will, 
hopefully, adopt this week goes a long way toward fixing not all those 
problems but a number of them. Let me mention a few.
  This legislation sets strong standards that State voting systems must 
meet so that all voting technology that American voters use allows them 
to correct mistakes and meet set error rates, acceptable lower error 
rates. This ensures voting machines are accessible to handicapped 
voters and voters with limited English proficiency. Third, this 
legislation provides for provisional balloting so voters mistakenly 
left off official registration lists are still allowed to vote. Fourth, 
this legislation provides for balanced antifraud measures to ensure 
voters are not disenfranchised.
  Fortunately, in my State of Delaware there were few problems on 
election day in 2002. Delaware has uniform electronic voting machines 
with good error rates. All of our precincts are called election 
districts. The machines were purchased during the time that I served as 
Governor of our State. Delaware also has a computerized statewide voter 
registration list put in place under the leadership of our former 
Election Commissioner, Thomas Cook.
  We have some work still to do in Delaware to assure our machines 
allow the handicapped to vote in privacy and to put a provisional 
voting system into place. Some States need to do a whole lot more than 
that. I am happy to see the bill provides the money to enable them and 
Delaware to do the work that needs to be done. This bill includes no 
unfunded mandates. This bill provides $3 billion in grants to pay 100 
percent of the costs to States for implementing the voting machines or 
provisional balloting and for antifraud requirements.
  We must work hard to ensure, however, that the money we are 
promising, the money we propose to authorize, actually gets to the 
States and that there are enough dollars at the end for the States to 
meet the requirements we are placing on them, especially now that a 
number of States, including my own, are faced with very tight budgets.
  According to the National Governors Association, combined State 
budget shortfalls are at $15 billion and could go higher if State 
unemployment, health care, and homeland security costs continue to 
rise.
  Most States have balanced budget requirements in their constitution 
and face the prospect of having to raise taxes or make budget cuts to 
cover the budget shortfalls.
  Having said that, this is a good bill. In fact, this is more than a 
good bill; it is a very good bill. I am pleased to urge my colleagues 
to join me and others to pass it overwhelmingly. I hope at the end of 
the day if we begin to see in the future that States continue to have 
problems meeting these new standards for budgetary reasons that emanate 
more from Washington than our State capitals, we find a way to get 
those States the resources they need or, if necessary, to amend the 
timing of requirements so that States can meet those requirements 
responsibly.

  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                    Amendment No. 2912, As Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2912, the Harkin 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2912), as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide funds for protection and advocacy systems)

       On page 28 of the amendment, after line 23, add the 
     following:
       (c) Protection and Advocacy Systems.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other payments made 
     under this section, the Attorney General shall pay the 
     protection and advocacy system (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 
     Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)) of each State to ensure full 
     participation in the electoral process for individuals with 
     disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a vote 
     and accessing polling places. In providing such services, 
     protection and advocacy systems shall have the same general 
     authorities as they are afforded under part C of the 
     Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15041 et seq.).
       (2) Minimum grant amount.--The minimum amount of each grant 
     to a protection and advocacy system shall be determined and 
     allocated as set forth in subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), 
     (e), and (g) of section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
     (29 U.S.C. 794e), except that the amount of the grants to 
     systems referred to in subsections (c)(3)(B) and (c)(4)(B) of 
     that section shall be not less than $70,000 and $35,000, 
     respectively.
       On page 30, strike lines 23 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Protection and Advocacy Systems.--In addition to any 
     other amounts authorized to be appropriated under this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and 
     for each subsequent fiscal year such sums as may be 
     necessary, for the purpose of making payments under section 
     206(c): Provided, That none of the funds provided by this 
     subsection shall be used to commence any litigation related 
     to election-related disability access, notwithstanding the 
     general authorities of the protection and advocacy systems as 
     are otherwise afforded under part C of the Developmental 
     Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 15041 et seq.)
       (c) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authority of this section shall remain available until 
     expended.

  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

[[Page S1149]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2912), as modified, was agreed to.
  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. I think we have done some good work. I thank Senator 
McConnell and his staff. We are going to be breaking for the weekly 
luncheons by both caucuses. I think we have adopted some six amendments 
this morning, debated the Harkin amendment, and modified that. We are 
getting this list down. I am beginning to think we might actually be in 
a position to adopt this legislation by this evening.
  We are going to be talking over lunch to see if we can't work out 
these amendments. Staffs will meet over the luncheon period to see if 
we can resolve some of the differences. But I thank the individual 
Senators for their cooperation. Senator McConnell and I are grateful 
for their cooperation.
  When we come back, there will be a special order period between 2:15 
and 3:15, but after that we will be back on this bill--I believe that 
is the case--in which case we will try to line up some amendments to be 
debated at that time so we can move the product along a little further.
  I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas who is here, I believe, 
not just to listen to the Senator from Connecticut but he may have 
something to say. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 2 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes even though it may be a few minutes beyond 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I was afraid you might object, Mr. President.

                          ____________________