[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5220-5222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SEATING DEMOCRAT DELEGATES

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the reason I asked to speak as 
in morning business is because I wish to talk on another subject that 
is not the subject of the Mortgage Foreclosure Protection Act but is 
the continuing saga we have about seating the Democratic delegates to 
the national convention from the States of Florida and Michigan.
  Over the weekend, in the State of Florida, the State party met. 
Having already elected the delegates under their rules from the various 
congressional districts, the only thing to complete the election of the 
Florida delegation was the remaining delegates who are selected at 
large of the whole State, proportionate to the amount of votes both 
Senators Obama and Clinton got in the January 29 primary--a primary, by 
the way, that had a record turnout of 1.75 million, almost 2 million 
Florida Democrats who turned out and voted. As a result of that, in 
that proportion to which Senator Clinton got 50 percent of the vote and 
Senator Obama got 33 percent of the vote, the rest of the delegation of 
the total of 211 delegates were selected.
  So Florida's delegate selection process has gone through under the 
normal procedures set out by the rules and bylaws of the Florida 
Democratic Party. So the question now is, now that we have our 
delegates duly elected, are they going to be seated? Well, of course, 
you know the position of this Senator from Florida, who has been trying 
for 9 months now to work a compromise by which we can get the delegates 
seated. But the Democratic National Committee has completely rejected 
all the attempts.
  Just think, if we had done this last August and September, when we 
were trying this and had this issue behind us in Florida, how much 
easier it would be going forward not to face the nail-biting scenario 
and drama we see playing out in front of our eyes, since both the 
candidates, Barack and Hillary, are so close, not only in delegates but 
in national vote and so forth.
  At the end of the day, I believe, as the Good Book says, come and let 
us reason together, that will prevail and the delegation from my State 
of Florida, as well as Michigan, will be seated. Because at some point, 
the party chieftains are going to understand that if you want to win 
the election in November, you can't ``dis'' the delegations from 
Florida and Michigan. Why? Conventional wisdom says that there are four 
big States. In order for a Democratic nominee to win, they must get 
three of those four. What are they? They are Michigan, Ohio to the 
east, and further to the east, Pennsylvania. What is the fourth? 
Florida. Well, lo and behold, of those critical States in winning a 
Presidential election in the electoral college, as a result of the 
November election, lo and behold, two of the four are Florida and 
Michigan. So

[[Page 5221]]

the party chieftains need to start focusing on November and the 
treatment of Florida and Michigan.
  Now, I can only speak for Florida--and I know Senators Levin and 
Stabenow can certainly speak for their State, and they have been trying 
as well--but it is time to get a formula by which we can seat the 
delegations.
  We have tried everything since the Democratic National Committee last 
September said: No, the rules say we can take away half your delegates. 
But, no, we are going to take the full pound of flesh, and we are going 
to take away all your delegates, Florida. Then they left me no choice 
but I had to sue the chairman; my party, the Democratic National 
Committee, I had to sue them in Federal court. The Federal district 
judge in Florida did not agree with my constitutional arguments and 
dismissed the lawsuit. I disagreed with his reasoning because I think 
the constitutional protections of due process and equal protection of 
the laws do apply, but nevertheless I didn't have time to file an 
appeal because January 29 was fast upon us, so it is what it is.
  Since then, I have been trying several different things, along with 
members of the Democratic congressional delegation of Florida. This is 
one of the most recent I have suggested, and other members of the 
delegation have as well. Since the Democratic National Committee's 
rules say that if a State moves earlier than February 5, that the DNC 
will take away half of that State's delegates to the national 
convention, let's try that as a means, in the spirit of compromise, of 
getting the Florida delegation seated. Of course, since all 211 are now 
elected, duly, in the processes of Florida, you can seat the whole 
delegation if such a compromise were struck by giving each of them half 
a vote. In the spirit of compromise, let's get that done.
  Four weeks ago, on this floor, when we had that all-night session, 
the Presidential candidates were all here. Of course I took the 
opportunity to speak to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton about such a 
compromise. In terms of raw politics, if the whole delegation were 
seated, Senator Clinton would have an advantage of 38 votes, but if you 
seat the delegation with half of its vote, in the spirit of compromise, 
you cut that in half, and her advantage from Florida would be only 19 
delegate votes.
  I make my appeal again to the DNC. Nobody is happy with where we are. 
Every time anybody gets on the news programs talking about the 
Presidential contest, which is vigorous and close, everybody asks the 
question about what to do about Michigan and Florida. Everybody is 
starting to understand that it is time to get this decision done, a 
compromise to get the delegation seated, and to move on. The problem 
is, when you come to these kinds of decisions, one candidate sees that 
it advantages them and the other candidate sees that it disadvantages 
them, and it is very difficult to get an agreement. However, the 
question has to be injected: At the end of the day, what is most 
important? I submit that at the end of the day, it is clearly in the 
interests of the Democratic nominee to be able to win the votes, on 
November 4, from the State of Florida and from the State of Michigan. 
You say: Does that mean those States wouldn't vote for the Democratic 
nominee? I can only tell you what the data say. The data--surveys in 
Florida--say 22 percent of independents in Florida would be less likely 
to vote for the Democratic nominee because of all this fracas.
  In truth, once we get a nominee, the electorate is going to be 
focused on the November election and choosing the leader of the free 
world and a leader who can straighten out the mess we find ourselves in 
and the huge challenges facing this country.
  Let me give an example. I was stunned over the weekend to find this 
result to this question in a major national survey: Is this country 
going in the right direction or is it going in the wrong direction? I 
was stunned to see the results, that 81 percent of the American people 
were saying the country was going in the wrong direction. That is a 
phenomenal response that begs for leadership in whom we select as the 
next President of the United States. I do believe we will see down the 
road, once we have our nominee, that people get focused on that instead 
of the fracas we now have enveloping Florida and Michigan.
  My final comment, since we have been joined by the esteemed senior 
Senator from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee: If ever 
there is an opportunity for reform, it is now. If ever there is a 
reminder to us that this chaos begs for order to emerge out of the 
chaos, if ever there is an example of Americans being dissatisfied with 
a nominating process, it is now. If you leave it alone and let it take 
its natural course, what is going to happen is States, in the next 
election, 4 years down the road, are going to be jumping each other. 
Suddenly, your first caucus or primary is going to be on Halloween, and 
as a result you will have an even more chaotic situation. So this begs 
for a rational plan.
  Senator Levin and I have offered such a rational plan. It is one 
idea. There are many. Ours would have six primaries, interregional. 
They would start in March and go through June, and the order of the 
States collected together interregionally around the country, big 
States and small States together, would be done by lot, by drawing a 
number out of a hat, 1 to 6, whether they go first in March or are 
last, No. 6, in June. Then 4 years later they would rotate, and the 2's 
would go to 1's and the 1's would go to the end for the June primary.
  That bill has been referred to the Rules Committee. It is an idea. 
Obviously, in the tumult and the hurly-burly of a Presidential 
campaign, we are not going to move on legislation such as this. But 
down the road, in the next Congress, after this election, the chaos 
begs for order, a rational plan of selecting our Presidential nominees.
  I have offered a number of other suggestions as well. Make elections 
easier. Why do we have to vote just on 1 day--a Tuesday--when people 
often find it very difficult to get off of work or to go to work late 
or to get home early in order to vote? Why don't we make elections 
easier for people? Why don't we give them a 2-week period prior to the 
election that they could go to designated places in their county to 
vote early? Why don't we make it a lot easier for people to vote, if 
they want to vote by mail, which is--we traditionally call it an 
absentee ballot. Let's enable them to call up the supervisor of the 
elections office and get an absentee ballot without them having to 
swear they are not going to be in their community on the day of the 
election or without them having to swear they are sick and cannot get 
to the poll. Why don't we make it easy? Why don't we give grants for 
people back in their communities and counties and States to do pilot 
projects, to study whether we could, in fact, do what Oregon does, 
which is to vote by mail, where they get 90 percent participation? Why 
don't we give grants to do a pilot study as to whether the integrity of 
the voting process could be retained by voting by the Internet in 
certain circumstances, such as military overseas ballots? Why don't we 
do all of this in election reform?
  Indeed, this Senator would propose the ultimate reach: Why don't we 
amend the U.S. Constitution and abolish the Electoral College where, in 
fact, the popular vote for President will determine who is going to be 
President instead of this arcane, archaic institution called the 
Electoral College which has caused, several times in our history, a 
Presidential candidate to get the most votes but the other candidate is 
the one who wins because of the Electoral College votes?
  What I am saying is we ought to put all these ideas on the table. We 
ought to make voting easier. We certainly ought to reform the 
Presidential nominating process. And we ought to consider letting the 
majority rule in this country.
  We have had a reminder in the chaos of this year. Americans are 
dissatisfied with this process. We need to make it better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[[Page 5222]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the 
distinguished Senator from Florida. I have watched him over these 
months, and no one has tried harder than he to move toward a solution 
with respect to the Florida situation. He has told me on several 
occasions that never before have as many people voted in an election as 
did in Florida. I think the Senator mentioned some 2 million people 
voting in some primary election. It is inconceivable to you, and 
therefore to us, I believe, to have a convention where Florida is not 
represented. Of course, the same comments would go for the great State 
of Michigan.
  I just want the Senator to know that I am very appreciative of the 
efforts he has made to try to settle the situation. I only wish they 
could have been successful. I do not believe the door is closed. I 
think the more the people of this country understand how important 
Florida and Michigan are to the democratic process, there will be 
strong support to reach some accommodation.
  I thank the Senator for all he has done.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the submission of S. 
Res. 504 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Are we currently in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.

                          ____________________