Transcripts show senators support investigation Options

[searchingforsani...]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi
f

OBJECTION TO COUNTING OF OHIO ELECTORAL VOTES The VICE PRESIDENT. Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 1 and section 17 of title 3, United States Code, when the two Houses withdraw from the joint session to count the electoral vote for separate consideration of an objection, a Senator may speak to the objection for 5 minutes and not more than once. Debate shall not exceed 2 hours, after which the Chair will put the question: Shall the objection be sustained? The clerk will report the objection made in the joint session.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Ms. TUBBS JONES, a Representative from Ohio, and Mrs. BOXER, a Senator from California, object to the counting of electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you so much.

For most of us in the House and in the Senate, we have spent our lives fighting for what we believe in, always fighting to make our Nation better. We may not agree from time to time, but we are always fighting to make our Nation better. We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice. Now we must add a new fight: the fight for electoral justice.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect and personal regard for my friend from the State of California. It is not often I find myself rising in disagreement, but I emphatically disagree and say respectfully that I believe those involved, citizens from around the country, with all their good intentions, are seriously misguided and are leading us into a very unfortunate precedent that was not in any way contemplated by the Constitution, by the law, or by historical precedent.

I am not the complete authority, but as I have read some of the assertions made about the conduct of the election in Ohio, I find serious imperfections. If we shed that spotlight on most States in this country, including my own State of Minnesota, we would find other imperfections.

Democracy is not a perfect process, but it is a process that we have a responsibility, not in hindsight but with foresight, to try to structure and to continue to perfect so it is as close to perfect as is humanly possible. I share entirely the concerns expressed by my colleague from California and others who said despite our best efforts—and I was part of that collaborative effort in this body and under the Rules Committee in the last couple of years—we made some progress but we still fell short.

I respectfully ask the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator LOTT, who is here today, if he would be willing to convene hearings in the very near future and look not just at Ohio but at the experience from this election and how it can instruct us to improve that process for the future.

The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I commend and thank our friend from California, Senator BOXER, for giving us this opportunity to address the Senate on this issue.

The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. Every Member of Congress has a duty to protect and uphold that right. When that right is threatened, Congress must act to protect it. Clearly, the legislation we enacted to do so after the 2000 election was not adequate for the 2004 election…

Some voters gave up in the face of endless lines and waits of many hours at polling places unable to handle the large turnout of voters. In other cases, voting was frustrated by broken or ancient voting machinery, by confusion over applicable rules for voting precincts, or because States decided that certain votes did not comply with arbitrary and inflexible State or local procedures.

We saw all those problems in Ohio. It is far from clear the extent to which these serious problems were the result of intended manipulation or widespread incompetence, but either way, the voting process did not live up to the standards worthy of our democracy.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Congress gathers to exercise the role laid out by the Framers in the Constitution of the United States. The past two national elections have been surrounded in controversy, not just controversy over issues and ideas— which is important and healthy in a democratic system of government—but also controversy over the mechanics of the election and the counting of the votes…

We had high hopes that the 2004 election—under much closer scrutiny than the election of 2000—would provide the public with confidence that everyone who registered would be able to vote, and that every vote cast would be counted accurately.

Yet, despite the legislation and the more than $2 billion dedicated to fixing the election problems, the election of 2004 was marred with reports of irregularities and, as a result, there is a significant group of our citizenry that seriously questions the results of the vote, and particularly the vote in Ohio.

There are several groups and organizations that are investigating the reported irregularities in the Ohio election.

That is important work and it should and will continue. When the investigations conclude, should there be solid evidence of criminal activity, those responsible should be prosecuted, no matter how high that responsibility may reach. But the Senate should not prejudge the results of those investigations…

But the question before us today is whether we uphold the objection to the certification of Ohio’s electors in the count of the electoral vote. The Senate must vote, based on the information available to us at this moment, and absent the clear conclusions of the ongoing investigations into reported irregularities in Ohio, I shall vote to allow the electoral count to proceed.

In this session of Congress, I hope that we can take the lessons learned from November and continue to improve the integrity of elections and encourage greater faith in the results.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I was pleased at the large number of Americans who turned out to vote in last year’s Presidential election, I am deeply concerned about the many credible allegations of voting irregularities that surfaced in the weeks following the election…

In the months leading up to Election Day, I joined with Senator KENNEDY in writing with great frequency to Attorney General Ashcroft about our concerns about voter suppression and possible partisan activity by the Department of Justice. It is with dismay, then, that I have learned about the secret counting of votes in Warren County, OH, allegedly prompted by an FBI terrorism warning that the FBI denied making. I have read also of the nearly 4,000 votes President Bush was mistakenly awarded in a Franklin County precinct with only 800 voters. Although this mistake was corrected, such a malfunction suggests the possibility that other problems with the vote count may have been missed.

Finally, I would point to the shocking misdistribution of voting machines in Ohio. Voters from minority and urban communities frequently waited in line for four to five hours to cast their votes, while suburban voters faced far more manageable waiting times…

I look forward to the results of the Government Accountability Office’s investigation of election irregularities called for by Representative CONYERS.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are here today in this extraordinary session to discuss a challenge to Ohio’s electors.

It was gratifying to see the high level of interest in the election create such a large voter turnout. However, it was discouraging to hear of the problems that affected the election in many parts of the country, including Ohio.

Representative CONYERS, other House Democrats, and individuals across this country deserve our thanks for the important work they have done to document the issues that arose from the 2004 election.

I would also like to thank Senator BOXER and Representative TUBBS JONES for their diligence in bringing this issue to the forefront.

All voters deserve to get answers, and corrective actions, to the reported irregularities and flaws of the 2004 election.

As my colleagues may know, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, is currently conducting a comprehensive investigation of many of the issues raised in the 2004 election.

I am very supportive of this investigation, and believe that through a complete and full investigation by the GAO, answers to the questions raised regarding the 2004 election will be obtained.

The information the GAO obtains will allow the Congress to take appropriate action to address the problems uncovered…

The solutions to the irregularities of the election will not be found or enacted in this 2-hour process today.

They will come from a complete investigation, like the on-going GAO one.

(At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.) ∑ Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, as we prepare to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are called on to look back and reflect on whether we have fixed the systemic problems that this historic legislation sought to address. Have we ensured that all citizens are provided equal access to the ballot, regardless of race, ethnicity, or language-minority status? Have we created the proper safeguards and procedures that make certain that every vote is counted? Have we done enough to protect our democracy’s most sacred right—the right to vote? The accounts from our most recent Presidential election suggest that we have not yet met our goal of securing a free and fair election for all Americans.

Driving this point home is yesterday’s 102-page report published by the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic staff. The report goes into great detail describing the voting irregularities that arose in Ohio last November.

The allegations include accounts of voter registration barriers, voter intimidation, voting machine shortages and failures, and confusion over the counting of provisional ballots. These accounts raise serious doubts about whether Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law or Federal requirements and constitutional standards.

The most troubling revelation from the committee staff’s report is the seeming disproportionate impact these voting irregularities had on minority voters. And so I ask, 40 years later, have we done enough to make sure the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act is being enforced? I ask my colleagues to join me in pushing for congressional hearings on the alleged voting irregularities witnessed in Ohio and elsewhere this past election season. I also ask them to join me in examining whether we need to reform our election laws to ensure that we have free and fair elections for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity….

I am traveling overseas on a humanitarian mission to Southeast Asia to visit the areas most affected by the recent tsunami and regret that I will not be available to participate in this afternoon’s debate. I nonetheless commend my colleagues who are raising these important issues, and applaud their efforts to give a voice to those who were disenfranchised last November.

(At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.) ∑ Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy. Thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of citizens, millions more Americans registered and went to the pools this year. But despite this dramatic expansion in public participation, many voters faced barriers to casting their ballot. Disenfranchisement and barriers to voting are fundamentally undemocratic and should be unacceptable in the freest nation in the world.

On November 3, I conceded the Presidential election to George Bush and also expressed my commitment to ensuring that every vote in this election is counted. The questions being raised by my colleagues in Congress about the vote in Ohio are important. As evidenced by the media and Congressman JOHN CONYERS’ report of the vote in Ohio, there were many voting irregularities in the November election that led to the disenfranchisement of voters.

These included long lines at predominantly minority polling places resulting from the failure to provide sufficient number of voting machines; voter intimidation and misinformation; the restriction of provisional ballots in a fashion that likely disenfranchised voters; and instances in which malfunctioning voting machines transferred Kerry votes to Bush.

I strongly believe that we need to investigate this election and reform our system. However, while I am deeply concerned about the issues the questions and issues being raised by this objection and think they are very important, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the objection and change the outcome of the election and I am not joining their protest of the Ohio electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

It is critical that we investigate and understand any and every voting irregularity anywhere in our country, not because it would change the outcome of the election but because Americans have to believe that their votes are counted in our democracy…

I will be meeting in coming weeks with key leaders on both sides of the aisle and from civil rights and voting rights groups across the Nation. I plan to use the information gathered by Representative CONYERS in his report, and information from other investigations underway, to guide my legislation.

∑ Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe it is extraordinarily important for both sides to be gracious when an American election is over. But I also believe it is extraordinarily important not to ignore urgently needed election reform, such as requiring a paper trail for every single ballot that is cast in our country. Such a paper trial is required in my home State. In this last election, record numbers of Oregonians voted…

Now, in the name of justice, when hundreds of thousands of Americans feel they have been disenfranchised, I don’t think their concerns ought to be swept under the rug.

Credible journalists have now documented voting irregularities across the country, and that ought to trouble every Member of the body. Incredible reports come from the States of North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, Florida, and Ohio. In my view, while not proving to be of a volume that would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election, when you take these findings together, they raise very significant and troubling matters that this body should be tackling on a bipartisan basis. I do believe there is critical work ahead of this body with respect to election reform. So I did write in November to Representative CONYERS to ask that he examine these voting irregularities. The problems with provisional ballots in the State of Ohio particularly concerned me because I was one of the principal authors of the section of the Help America Vote Act that involved provisional ballots. The decision of the Ohio Secretary of State to restrict the ability of voters to use provisional ballots, I thought, was troubling. His decisions raised serious questions with respect to whether they were consistent with what the Senate had in mind as we wrote that provision.

I was also concerned about the reports from Ohio, where in one county only 800 citizens were registered to vote and more than 4,500 votes were counted. This just defies common sense, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to the floor to make the case for a continued focus on the issue of election reform.

The problems of election abuse are not ones that can be given short shrift if we are to keep faith with our citizens and ensure that their fundamental belief that our democratic system is sound is maintained. Otherwise, we will see a growing lack of confidence in the conduct of our elections, and that lack of confidence will come to overshadow some of our elections altogether.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the contention of the junior Senator from California that we have to take a very hard look at this.

We are trying to demonstrate the virtues of democracy to Iraqis and Ukrainians and other people around the world who are struggling to be free.

People must have confidence that our election results are unassailable.

Unfortunately, questions have been raised in the Presidential election of 2000 and in the Presidential election of 2004. At this point, I want to be clear: I am not challenging President Bush’s victory in the State of Ohio. Neither has Senator KERRY. But there have been reports of systematic voter disenfranchisement and other problems in Ohio, such that we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to investigate it.

Yesterday, Congressman JOHN CONYERS, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a report of problems that occurred in Ohio.

Some of the problems he reported include problems with voting machines in predominantly minority, Democratic- leaning wards, which caused people to wait 10 hours or more in the rain. One precinct was forced to close at 9:25 in the morning because its voting machines were not working. The Ohio Republican Party suppressed the turnout of minority, Democratic-leaning voters by engaging in preelection caging tactics, tactics which were declared illegal by a Federal court.

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, deviated from election law by severely restricting voters’ access to provisional ballots. He went so far as to reject voter registration applications based on paperweight and texture. Those actions and his complete unwillingness to cooperate with Congressman CONYERS’ investigation are deeply troubling. His actions are troubling, particularly because he didn’t just serve as the chief election official of his State; he also cochaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

Allowing a State official to oversee a Federal election and simultaneously serve as a partisan campaign official for a candidate in that election is a blatant conflict of interest and we have to put a stop to it. That is why later this month I am going to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act, a bill to prohibit State election officials from overseeing Federal elections in which they play a partisan role on behalf of one of the candidates.

Secretary Blackwell is now running for Governor. He recently sent a fundraising letter to potential Republican donors. I think his letter underscores the need for my bill. The first page of his letter tells the story. In part, it says: I have no doubt that the strong campaign we helped the President run in Ohio . . . can easily be credited with turning out record numbers of conservatives and evangelicals on election day.

It is not surprising that many people have no doubt that Secretary Blackwell also ran a strong campaign against other voters, namely minorities and Democrats.

Americans need to believe their election officials are beyond reproach. Allowing such officials to serve simultaneously in a partisan campaign capacity seriously undermines that confidence.

That is why, regardless of what happens today, I will introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act. It is a step we can and should take to restore confidence that our elections are fair and the results are accurate.

I don’t believe the objection the junior Senator from California has raised will be sustained this afternoon, but that doesn’t mean we should not discuss the problems that precipitated the objection and do something about them in the future to assure that when the votes are counted, we know everybody has had a fair chance to cast their ballots and that there hasn’t been any tinkering with them.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is obviously a difficult debate for many reasons. I commend the Senator from California for joining with members of the House, most particularly Congresswoman STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, in raising the objection, because it does permit us to air some of these issues— something I believe is necessary for the smooth functioning of our democracy and the integrity of the most precious right of any citizen, namely, the right to vote.

As we look at our election system, I think it is fair to say there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy and about its integrity, and they are not confined to the State of Ohio.

They are ones that have arisen throughout our country and certainly because of the election of 2000 have been given high relief in the last 4 years. Then questions were raised additionally with respect to this election which deepened the concern of many people about whether we can assure the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the governed and the acceptance of the results of elections.

Several weeks ago, we stood in great admiration as a nation behind the people of Ukraine as they took to the streets to demand they be given the right to an election where every vote was counted.

In a few weeks, we are going to see an election in Iraq. We know there are people literally dying in Iraq for the right to cast a free vote. I am very proud of our country, that we have stood with Ukrainians, Iraqis, and others around the world, but increasingly, I worry that if this body, this Congress does not stand up on a bipartisan basis for the right to vote here at home, our moral authority will be weakened.

I take that very seriously because freedom is our most precious value, and we have for 225-plus years worked to form a more perfect Union. At first, not everybody was permitted to vote in our own country, but through constitutional changes, a civil war, and a civil rights movement, we expanded the franchise. This year we will celebrate the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and it will be an opportunity for us to take a look at this landmark legislation and determine how we are going to move it into the 21st century so it really stands for what it was intended to do when it was first passed.

I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of the election because I still think the best rule in politics is the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I worry, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration or a local county, State, or Federal election, that we are on a slippery slope as a nation.

My colleague, Senator BOXER, and I, along with former Senator BOB GRAHAM of Florida, introduced legislation last year to try to assure a verifiable paper audit. We did not get anywhere with that. We did not get a hearing before the Rules Committee, and I hope the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee will hold such a hearing this year because if we can buy a lottery ticket or go to a bank and make an ATM deposit, then we know we can use an electronic transfer mechanism that gives us a record. That is just one of the many issues we can deal with technologically.

Last spring, India, the largest democracy —we are the oldest democracy, so in that way we are real partners in this great enterprise of democracy—had an election. Mr. President, 550 million or so people voted, from the dot-com billionaire to the poor illiterate peasant.

They all voted. They voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety, security, and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election, and the result was shocking.

They threw out the existing government.

Nobody had predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity.

Surely, we should be setting the standards. I hope in this body, and thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which started today will continue.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke on a procedural matter earlier. I ask unanimous consent that not be deemed to be my speech in regard to this matter.

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today great men and women of our Armed Forces are working to bring the right of free and fair elections to Iraq. In less than a month, there will be elections in Iraq. The sacrifice of our military demands that we work to ensure our own elections are fair. That is why today’s debate is here, and I applaud my friend from California for allowing us to talk a little bit about elections generally…

I spread on the RECORD today the good work of Senator MCCONNELL, Senator DODD, and Senator BOND. There were others, but those are the three who stand out in my mind.

While the literacy tests and poll taxes of the past are gone, a more insidious form of disenfranchisement continues to taint our electoral system.

In this past election, in the State of Nevada, phone calls were made to heavily African-American parts of Las Vegas to try to trick those voters into not voting. The same happened in the Hispanic areas of our State, especially in Clark County. These calls, which we were unable to trace, told voters election day was November 3, not November 2.

Our registration process in Nevada is also tainted by the proven destruction of Democratic voter registration forms.

This is clear. It happened. There was a company hired by the Republican National Committee to register only Republicans.

We had people come forward and say they destroyed Democratic registration forms. That investigation is still underway.

In some of my earliest elections in Nevada, private individuals dressed in uniforms meant to resemble police officers stood around polling places in minority voting spots to frighten people from coming to vote, and it worked.

These officers were posted, as I indicated, at the polls to intimidate these minority voters.

In this past election in Ohio, we heard a lot about what appeared to be wrong there, and I hope there will be more done to determine what went on in Ohio.

Legal challenges to restrict provisional voting, a provision of HAVA, which is the Help America Vote Act which I talked about earlier, meant to cure the widespread disenfranchisement of minorities in Florida and around the rest of the country.

These problems damage our system, deny our citizens equal protection, and undermine the right to vote. Rooting out this corruption requires not only strong laws but I believe strong hearts.

It relies upon the integrity of our election officials in every State and each one of us to speak up when abuses occur.

It is my hope the debate today will once again lead to action to cure some of the more glaring defects of the 2004 election. One of the most significant problems in Ohio and in many other States was the lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines. While we have made improvements that are historic with HAVA, one important omission is in this area; that is, electronic voting, how to ensure the integrity of it.

In the last election, of all 50 States, Nevada was the only State where we had total electronic voting with a paper trail. When you voted in Nevada, you did your electronic voting and you could look right there to see for whom you voted. No mistakes. You did not take it with you, of course, but it was in the machine, and if there was a recount, it could be determined easily.

This is the way it should happen all over America, an electronic machine with a paper trail.

Last year, my colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Nevada, Mr. ENSIGN, and I introduced a measure to require paper trails for electronic voting machines every place. We will introduce our bipartisan Voting Integrity and Verification Act in this Congress.

I hope that as we consider the 2004 election today—I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute, Mr.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any Senator who has not spoken who wishes to speak on this issue? If not, the question is, Shall the objection submitted by the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. TUBBS JONES, and the Senator from California, Mrs. BOXER, be sustained? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. MCCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. ALLEN), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING), the Senator from Montana (Mr.

BURNS), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAIG), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. ENSIGN), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. FRIST), the Senator from Texas (Ms. HUTCHISON), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. MURKOWSKI), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SHELBY), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. LUGAR), the Senator from Florida (Mr. MARTINEZ), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. THOMAS).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. KYL), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN) would have voted ‘‘nay’’.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. AKAKA), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. BINGAMAN), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CORZINE), the Senator from California (Mrs. FEINSTEIN), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. LANDRIEU), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. MURRAY) are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced—yeas 1, nays 74, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 1, Joint]

YEAS—1 Boxer

NAYS—74 Alexander Allard Baucus Bennett Biden Bond Brownback Burr Byrd Cantwell Carper Chambliss Clinton Coburn Cochran Coleman Collins Conrad Cornyn Crapo Dayton DeMint DeWine Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Durbin Enzi Feingold Graham Grassley Gregg Hagel Harkin Hatch Inouye Isakson Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Lott McConnell Mikulski Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Obama Pryor Reed Reid Roberts Rockefeller Salazar Santorum Sarbanes Schumer Sessions Smith Snowe Specter Stabenow Stevens Sununu Talent Thune Voinovich Warner Wyden

NOT VOTING—25 Akaka Allen Bayh Bingaman Bunning Burns Chafee Corzine Craig Ensign Feinstein Frist Hutchison Inhofe Kerry Kyl Landrieu Lugar Martinez McCain Murkowski Murray Shelby Thomas Vitter The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is not sustained.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will notify the House of the action of the Senate, informing that body that the Senate is now ready to proceed to joint session with further counting of the electoral vote for President and Vice President.

f

This post has been edited by searchingforsanity: Jan 7 2005, 11:12 PM

[MrJim]

Excellent post. Thank you very much. I've copied and pasted into MS Word for posterity.