[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 152-153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             JOINT SESSION

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I would like to address a few subjects 
this morning.
  First, regarding the joint session of the House and the Senate that 
will be meeting this afternoon, I have received a great number of calls 
and expressions of interest and concern about that historic event--
where the two bodies meet in joint session to certify the tally of 
votes from the electoral college.
  Our role is a very limited one under both the Constitution and under 
Federal law which was passed and has stood since 1887. The role of the 
House and the Senate is not to adjudicate last November's Presidential 
election. That should not be our role. Those who want us to insert 
ourselves into that process are very well intentioned, but the role 
they envision for us is, in my judgment, inappropriate and potentially 
even dangerous. Our role today in this joint session of the Senate and 
the House is one of witnessing the tally of the electoral college vote. 
If there is an objection, it is based on very limited circumstances.
  In fact, only once in the entire history of this legislation since 
1886, only one time has there been a formal objection made, and that 
was for one electoral vote cast by one elector who did not vote in the 
way in which they pledged--in this case, the District of Columbia; not 
a State, a district. That objection was rejected by the House and the 
Senate in 1969.
  There has never been in the history of the country an entire State 
slate of electoral votes objected to or rejected by actions of both the 
House and the Senate.
  If an objection is made today signed by at least one Member of the 
House and one Member of the Senate, under the law, under the 
Constitution, the Senate separates from the House and meets for 2 
hours. Our debate is limited by law to 2 hours. We each can speak up to 
5 minutes and speak only once. Then on the basis of that debate we are 
supposed to vote--each of us--on whether to accept that electoral slate 
and the tally certified by the election authorities of the respective 
States or reject it.
  We are a partisan body. We are well intentioned. We are all honorable 
men and women, as are our colleagues in the House. But we are elected 
as Democrats or Republicans, and in one case an Independent. For us on 
the basis of a 2-hour meeting and a 5-minute presentation by each of us 
to vote on whether to accept or reject the will of the people of a 
particular State is an enormously dangerous precedent. In my judgment, 
the standard and the bar under which any objection must qualify for our 
consideration, much less for our rejection, needs to be a very high 
one. That is what our Federal law envisions. It says:

       No electoral vote or votes from any State which have been 
     regularly given by electors whose appointment has been 
     lawfully certified from which but one return has been 
     received shall be rejected.

  In other words, if the procedure that was followed by the election 
authorities of the State is a proper one and if it is certified as 
proper, if there is only one tally received from a State--in other 
words, if there are not two different representations of that State's 
electoral tally--then our function is to witness and acknowledge that 
that function has been performed properly; it is not to say whether 
that election was conducted properly. That review, if it is warranted, 
is the proper role of the Judiciary, which is supposed to be 
nonpartisan, which is supposed to be objective, impartial, fair, and 
ultimately make the decision which, under the respective States and 
Federal laws and the facts of all sides presented and carefully 
considered over whatever necessary period of time and finally in that 
very careful and sober deliberation, is determined to be the proper 
judgment.
  That is not our capability. That is not our role. Under the 
restrictions of 2 hours today, that would be a travesty of justice. It 
is a situation where it would be reversed if John Kerry had won this 
election. If a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled 
House had objected based on the

[[Page 153]]

information I have seen regarding the electoral conditions in Ohio or 
any other State in the election, if they had been rejected and those 
electoral college votes had thrown the election into the House of 
Representatives where a partisan majority voted on partisan lines to 
elect the other candidate as President of the United States, there 
would be such a public outcry and loss of confidence in the integrity 
of our electoral process that I fear we would not recover as a nation--
at least not for a long time. I would say the same if the situation 
were reversed.
  This is not about partisanship. This is about ensuring the integrity 
of the legislative process. That is in its broad sense the proper role 
and responsibility of Congress; that is, one where those who are 
objecting to the conduct of this last election have solid ground and 
where we properly should insert ourselves once again as we did after 
the 2000 election when on a bipartisan basis in this body and the House 
we passed election reform legislation.
  We provided funding for State and local governments to conduct these 
elections. And the intention was, I might add, under the Constitution 
they can do so more effectively and more accurately. The principle is 
everyone should have the right to vote, and that vote should be counted 
accurately, which is fundamental to our democracy. If we fail at that, 
if we are not perfect in carrying that out, we are not carrying out our 
responsibility to protect the sanctity of this great democracy.
  I take that responsibility very seriously. As a member of the Senate 
Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over that, I will ask the 
chairman, Senator Lott, to convene hearings into the 2000 election. We 
need to learn from that experience. A lot of focus and attention has 
been directed on Ohio, as it appropriately should. It was a State that 
ultimately in the final development of events on election night 
determined the outcome. There were probably other States which had some 
perhaps even greater imperfections in their voting procedures. That 
should be used as the basis for further legislation as necessary to 
safeguard this process so that, in fact and in perception, the American 
people know they had the right to vote, the chance to vote, and their 
vote was counted, and that the will of the majority, as reflected in 
the Presidential election through the electoral college, was 
faithfully, honestly, and accurately carried out by everyone 
responsible for doing so.
  How much time remains under the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to 
complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________