[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18882-18883]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE NEW JERSEY ELECTION

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise briefly to express my 
disappointment and dismay at what is going on in the neighboring State 
to Pennsylvania--New Jersey. What we are seeing play out in New Jersey 
is not something that, as an elected official, I find particularly 
ennobling for public officials. This is not something that gives people 
a whole lot of confidence in the political process in which we are 
engaged.
  It is obvious some are trying to change the rules right at the end of 
the game, and in a way to advantage one political party. I find that 
very disconcerting. I find it potentially--as the New Jersey Supreme 
Court contemplates what they are going to do in this case, seeing the 
precedent that could result, it could result in a lot of ridiculous 
things happening at the end of a lot of elections. If you find a 
candidate behind, you simply change horses right at the end. Instead of 
having the people decide, you have the courts decide.
  Remember just 2 years ago a lot of people were gnashing their teeth 
saying elections should not be decided in the courts. They should be 
decided by the people on the ballot. Here we have a situation where 
there are people on the ballot, and now we are having people go to 
court to change that ballot.
  That is very disconcerting. But I guess one of the things that 
bothers me the most is that there is a connection here in Washington, 
DC, to what is going on in New Jersey. The connection here in 
Washington, DC, as the Senator from New Jersey announced, is that it is 
his intention, by trying to get his name removed from the ballot, to 
save the Senate for the Democrats. It was not to give the people of New 
Jersey a choice, as many of the pundits are arguing and many of the 
politicos are arguing, that the people of New Jersey deserve a choice. 
No, this was about potentially having a candidate who was going to lose 
the election and that could result in the Democrats losing control of 
the Senate.
  So from the press reports, we see lots of pressure being brought to 
bear on the Senator from New Jersey, from a variety of different 
quarters, to take one for the party and step aside so the Democrats can 
continue to control the Senate. That is what this is about. This is not 
about giving the people of New Jersey a choice. It is about trying to 
keep power, whether breaking the rules or not, trying to keep power.
  There are a lot of discussions in this Chamber about the rule of law, 
that we have to respect the rule of law. We preach all over the world 
about the importance of the rule of law. Yet we have a statute that is 
in place under the Constitution because the Constitution says the 
legislature shall set the laws of elections within the States, not the 
courts. The legislature clearly acted in New Jersey.
  So what are people here trying to save the Democratic majority trying 
to do? Well, they are trying to change the law through the courts so 
they have a better chance of winning the election.
  Again, the disturbing part is from press reports that some of that is 
being orchestrated out of Washington, DC. We have a report from the 
Washington Post that says:

       Senate majority leader Tom Daschle warned McGreevey, the 
     Governor of New Jersey, that substantial national party 
     funding

[[Page 18883]]

     for the race would be in jeopardy. ``It was basically, `Not 
     with my money,''' Democratic officials said.

  --unless they picked a particular candidate to substitute for Senator 
Torricelli.
  Again, I am hearing a lot of talk that the people of New Jersey 
deserve a choice. Yet it sounds like the choice is being dictated here 
in Washington, DC.
  Another quote from the Newark Star-Ledger:

       In what may be the strangest twist yet in a bizarre 
     election year, New Jersey Democratic leaders last night chose 
     Lautenberg as their standard bearer on the insistence of 
     Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.

  They quote a Democratic source saying:

       ``Lautenberg or nothing.'' The nothing in this case was a 
     threat by the national Democrats to abandon New Jersey in 
     order to put stronger campaigns for incumbent Democrats in 
     other states where they stood a better chance of winning. . . 
     .

  So let's put this in context, the highbrow comments that ``the people 
of New Jersey deserve a choice.'' Let the people of New Jersey 
understand whose choice it was. It was not their choice. It was a 
choice dictated by the political operation here in Washington, DC, and 
according to these reports, by the Senate majority leader, as to who 
that choice would be for New Jerseyans to choose from.
  That is deeply disturbing. That is deeply disturbing that we see this 
kind of interplay, in an attempt to change the outcome of an election 
that did not seem to be going in a positive direction.
  I find it very interesting we have another case that just occurred on 
the unfortunate death of a Representative in Congress from Hawaii, 
someone who served this country through a long and distinguished 
career, a very popular Member of the House, and very popular in her 
district. What I understand is that the Democratic Party in Hawaii is 
not going to remove her name--is not going to remove her name from the 
election ballot. Why? Because she is a very popular Member and there is 
the suggestion that has been reported in the press that even though she 
is deceased, that she would probably still win the election.
  Yet we have in New Jersey someone who is alive and well who they are 
insisting must be removed from the ballot. This is the kind of crass 
political calculation that undermines people's faith in the electoral 
and political process in this country. The sad part is, in part, some 
of this is being orchestrated out of Washington, DC. This is a crude 
attempt by those who took power in the Senate, not through the 
electoral process, to regain power in the Senate through the court 
process, not through the electoral process that has been established by 
the State of New Jersey.
  How far do we go to keep power? How important is power? What rules 
must be broken? What principles must be set aside to keep power?
  That is what is going on here. That is why the public is outraged and 
deeply disturbed at what they are seeing in New Jersey.
  I find it very troubling that we have Members from this body who are 
participating in orchestrating those developments. It is not something 
that reflects positively on the Senate. It certainly does not reflect 
positively on the electoral system in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________