S320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

being appropriate. As members of his 

party said when they were in the minority, the Senate is not the House. I 

think there is a growing appreciation 

on both sides of the aisle that we ought 

not to operate that way. 

With regard to the organizing resolution, I agree with the majority leader 

that we are very close to being ready 

to move forward on that. It is a difficult process for the two of us, but I 

think we have gotten close to being at 

a point of completion, which is, of 

course, essential to beginning our business. 

TARP

Now, on another matter, Mr. President, a few months ago some of our Nation’s top economic minds came to the 

Capitol to tell us about an impending 

crisis. The crisis, of course, was the accumulation of toxic assets at banks 

here and around the world that threatened to paralyze America’s economy, 

jeopardizing the livelihood of literally 

millions. Without action, we were told, 

the Nation faced certain calamity. 

For many, the normal impulse would 

be to let the bad actors who caused this 

mess face up to their mistakes. But 

since millions of families and small 

business owners, who did nothing 

wrong, were caught up in the errors of 

the few, we decided, with some degree 

of reluctance, to approve funding for 

the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 

now commonly referred to as the 

TARP. 

Fearful of waste and abuse, Republicans insisted on a number of taxpayer 

protections. We also insisted on releasing the money in two installments so 

we could review how the first one was 

spent before approving the second. Yesterday, a request for the second installment was made. I had an opportunity 

to talk to the incoming President 

about that matter yesterday. 

Throughout this ordeal, I have not 

wavered on one basic principle: I voted 

for the first installment on the condition that it be used to prevent a systemic—a systemic—economic collapse 

affecting every single American. And I 

continue to believe this money should 

be used for the reason it was first approved. The current administration, regretfully, used these funds for the auto 

industry, a move I opposed. Now congressional Democrats are suggesting 

more of the same. The American people 

still do not have assurances that this 

money will not be wasted or misused to 

play favorites. 

So far, the incoming administration 

has not said whether it plans to limit 

the funds to their original purpose or 

to expand their use to help specific industries. The taxpayers are eager to 

hear the new administration’s plan, 

and so are Republicans in Congress. We 

will hear from the incoming administration soon. We will be happy to listen. They will have a receptive, albeit 

cautious, audience. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

leadership time is reserved. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

Senate shall proceed to a period of 

morning business for up to 1 hour, with 

Senators permitted to speak for up to 

10 minutes each, with the time equally 

divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the 

Republicans controlling the final half. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the remaining 

time on the Democratic side be reserved. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MINNESOTA SENATE ELECTION 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to 

speak briefly about the contest in Minnesota involving the Senate seat currently held by Senator NORM COLEMAN. 

Obviously, the other new Members of 

the Senate were sworn in last week, 

but this seat remains empty, a winner 

yet undeclared. 

To be clear, under Minnesota law, 

that is the way it has to be right now 

because there is an election contest 

that has been filed in the courts, and 

under Minnesota law, therefore, neither the Secretary of State nor the 

Governor can declare the seat filled. 

Senator COLEMAN had been declared 

the winner on election night and 

through the ensuing administrative 

canvassing process. But throughout the 

following State Canvassing Board stage 

of the proceedings, there were numerous inconsistencies and problems uncovered, and the board-certified totals 

were different. They are, obviously, at 

issue, and they are preliminary. 

The Minnesota State Canvassing 

Board totals, for example, include 

more votes than voters in a significant 

number of the Minnesota precincts. So, 

clearly, there is something wrong, and 

it has to be resolved by the court. 

The Coleman campaign has followed 

Minnesota election law in filing an 

election contest, and that comes before 

a three-judge panel in Minnesota before the end of this month. 

The contest is based on significant 

errors. I wish to mention four of these 

categories so folks will understand 

what is at issue. 

First is newly discovered ballots 

which appeared for the first time during the recount and are included in the 

State Canvassing Board totals. 

Second is missing ballots supposedly 

tallied on election night but which 

could not be found during the recount 

process—obviously a problem. 

Third is double-counting of duplicate 

and original ballots of the same voter 

during the recount process. 

Fourth is wrongly rejected absentee 

ballots and inconsistent standards regarding what constitutes a wrongly rejected absentee ballot applied in different locations throughout the State. 

Let me discuss each of these briefly 

in turn. 

On the newly discovered ballots, 

there are 171 such ballots that appeared 

without explanation several days after 

the election in Ramsey County precinct Maplewood P6. Election officials 

were unable to reconcile the number of 

votes cast with the number of voters 

signed in, but the board, nevertheless, 

included the additional votes in Al 

Franken’s favor in its totals. Furthermore, the board directed that this issue 

should properly be dealt with during 

the contest phase, and that, of course, 

is now occurring. 

On the missing ballots, there were 133 

ballots in Hennepin County that could 

not be found during the recount and 

were declared ‘‘missing,’’ despite the 

fact that there are any number of possible reasons for the change, including 

the possibility that the ballots never 

existed in the first place. But instead 

of following a consistent standard and 

including the new recount total, the 

board reverted to election night totals, 

again resulting in more votes for Al 

Franken. 

On the double-counting, in at least 25 

precincts in Minnesota, there are more 

votes than voters in the Canvassing 

Board’s totals, and there are 150 separate incident logs prepared by local recount officials describing issues involving duplicate and original ballot counting. This is due to the counting of both 

the voter’s original ballot and a duplicate ballot which was created to take 

the place of the original ballot, resulting in double-counting of some votes 

when both of those ballots are included 

in the total. That is, obviously a blatant error and one that threatens the 

sanctity of ‘‘one person, one vote.’’ Obviously, most people get one vote. 

Those who got more than one vote 

have an advantage for whom they cast 

their ballot. 

Both the Canvassing Board and the 

Minnesota Supreme Court directed the 

issue to be dealt with during the election contest. So that issue is now being 

dealt with. 

Finally, on the category of wrongly 

rejected absentee ballots, during the 

recount process, a ‘‘fifth pile’’ was created for absentee ballots that were rejected but not because one of the four 

reasons stipulated by Minnesota election law. This fifth pile was requested 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE