[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 146 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11544-S11545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SENATE BUSINESS AND ELECTIONS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, although the Senate will not resume work 
in earnest today on the issues remaining before the 106th Congress, we 
certainly hope that when we do return on the 5th of December we will be 
able to complete action on the appropriations bills, the minimum wage 
increase, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, and deal with the 
immigration issue, as well as a fair and balanced tax relief package.
  In the 3 weeks until then, I certainly hope that both parties and the 
administration will redouble their efforts to reach agreement on these 
important issues. We do not have to wait until we get back. It is so 
troubling that we are so close to the end of the calendar year and we 
do not have as much to show for our efforts over the last 2 years as I 
would have liked.
  The lameduck session will give us an opportunity to make progress on 
each of those issues. I hope we will seize that opportunity.
  I have spoken with the majority leader about this issue, and about 
our desire to complete our work in a positive way. I think we agree: We 
need to work closely together in the final days of this Congress. He 
certainly reiterated his desire to do that.
  When we left before the election, everyone assumed we would return to 
a relative certainty. We assumed we would have a President-elect. We 
assumed we would know the balance of power in the next Congress. Of 
course, to everyone's surprise, we still do not know either of these 
things.

  The situation in which we now find ourselves is virtually 
unprecedented. It certainly is unusual. But with the elections this 
close, a period of uncertainty is certainly unavoidable.
  While none of us has ever seen such a close Presidential election, 
some of us have seen this on a smaller scale. I am one of those people.
  In 1978, in my first race for election to the House of 
Representatives, I was behind by 28 votes at the end of election night 
and was declared the loser. The next day, amid much confusion, I was 
actually declared the winner by 14 votes. Talk about a roller coaster 
ride. And that was just the first day.
  Over the next few months, after more recounts, and the discovery of 
computational errors, and more confusion, the election went all the way 
to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
  In August of 1979, the court heard oral arguments and examined every 
ballot.
  Finally, on November 27, 1979--more than a year after the election--
the South Dakota Supreme Court issued its decision. It added 5 more 
votes to the earlier total and declared me the winner by a margin of 
110 votes, which I like to say in South Dakota is about 60 percent.
  In recounting this story, I am not suggesting that we can afford to 
take that much time in getting a fair and accurate count in this 
Presidential election. Clearly, because of the surpassing importance of 
the Presidency, this election must be decided on an expedited basis. I 
am confident that it will be.
  Instead, I tell this story to illustrate the point that our system 
has dealt successfully with close elections in the past.
  My first race for Congress is just one example. There are many 
others. Even as we speak, votes are still being counted in another too-
close-to-call race: the Senate race in Washington State.
  Since last Tuesday, many colleagues have told me of similar 
experiences in their own elections. To a person, they all agree that 
the important thing is to take whatever time is needed to get a

[[Page S11545]]

fair and accurate vote count. That is the only way to maintain public 
confidence in the outcome of the election. So yes, this is an unusual 
situation. But it is not a constitutional crisis.
  In a Newsweek poll taken over the weekend, Americans were asked which 
was more important: Resolving the uncertainty over the election now so 
we know who the next President will be Or making certain to remove all 
reasonable doubt that the vote count in Florida is fair and accurate.
  By a margin of 3 to 1, Americans say it is more important to get the 
results right than to get them right now.
  Their response is proof of their faith in our system of government.
  It is a system of unequaled strength and stability. And it should be 
allowed to work.
  What we all need right now is patience.
  What we do not need is ``spin'' from people with vested interests in 
the outcome.
  It was particularly disturbing earlier today to see a representative 
of the Bush campaign on national television announce what he called a 
``compromise offer.''
  In fact, his proposal merely restated his campaign's previous 
position that ballots counted by hand after 5 o'clock this evening 
should be ignored.
  He then went on to cite fluctuations in the stock market as proof 
that a winner must be declared in the presidential election now--even 
if it means sacrificing a full and fair count.
  I hope that everyone involved in this critically important matter 
would refrain from such overheated rhetoric. It is not helpful to this 
process. We are all anxious to know who our next President is. We all 
want finality. But not at the expense of fairness.
  That is what the Vice President wants.
  That is what the American people want. That is what I believe 
Democrats and Republicans want.
  That is what is needed to reassure voters in Florida and all across 
America that their votes in this election counted.
  That is what is needed for Americans to reassure Americans that their 
faith in our election system is well-founded.
  Regardless of who they voted for as long as Americans have this 
reassurance I believe they will accept the outcome of this election and 
give our next President their support.
  It is worth exercising a little patience to get that result.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________