[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 4 (Saturday, January 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H47-H53]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RECEIVING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL BALLOTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I follow my colleague, because 
I believe it is important to speak to the real authority of this 
Nation, and that is the people of the United States of America, as I as 
well speak to my colleagues. I believe that this day should be further 
enlightened with an explanation of the reason of the objection in 
opposition of some reasons of the House of Representatives.
  First, let me acknowledge something that is very dear to me: my 
choice to be a member of the United States Congress and the people's 
House is a purposeful choice. That choice is because it is, in fact, 
the people's House, the body closest to the American people, to touch 
and feel them and to understand them. For that reason, as a Texan, I 
went to Florida and spent almost the entire month of November 
interacting with Floridians, young people, minorities, working people, 
and the elderly. And to a one, they expressed to me their 
consternation, their concern, their fear, that they had not voted 
correctly, or that they were thwarted and prohibited from voting.
  So as I reflected on this very important day; in fact, January 6, 
2001, a day in years past that most Americans never realized in 
presidential elections that on this day, as ordered by statute, we are 
to come here and to affirm the electoral college.
  But as I rummaged, if you will, or ran my fingers through the 
Constitution of the United States, I found the words of Alexander 
Hamilton, and they say, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be 
rummaged, for among old parchments or musty records, they are written 
as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of 
the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal 
power.''
  So I felt obligated passionately, without regard for political 
reprimand, to come forward and to voice my opposition to the inaccurate 
and the unjust count in the State of Florida. There are voiceless 
people throughout this Nation in States all across this country who 
believe that their votes were not accurately counted. Today, in order 
to do that, I presented to this body a letter signed by Members of the 
House without a Senator to suggest that I would object to the 
inaccurate count in Florida, as well as the violations of the Voter 
Rights Act of 1965.
  Additionally, I submitted a motion to delay, because what is 
required, or what we should have, is a quorum. That means that all of 
my colleagues should have been able to secure the appropriate time to 
be able to be here. I respect them. I know that they have 
responsibilities in their districts. So my motion would have delayed 
this vote, until a quorum could have been achieved, for both the House 
and the Senate. Because I would remind my colleagues that in this 
place, it is the people's House and every single American should have 
had the right of having their representative here. I wanted to give my 
colleagues the chance to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the diplomacy and the decorum of the 
President in this instance, the Vice President of the United States, Al 
Gore. I cannot thank him enough for the way he presided over these 
proceedings, and I understand his overruling my objections. But in so 
doing, I must say to my colleagues that even as he overruled it because 
of the Rules of the House, I stand here today to put on record the fact 
that it is important that we acknowledge the existence of the Voter 
Rights Act of 1965, which affirms the right of every U.S. citizen to 
cast their ballot and have that ballot counted and be protected without 
compromise and without regard to the voter's race.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a task for the Federal Government, because 
Federal guarantees and Federal elections are at stake. That is why on 
the very first day of this new body, I put into the record H.R. 60 and 
H.R. 62. I am serious

[[Page H48]]

about my criticism, and that is a major piece of legislation to reform 
the electoral system, to ensure that in Federal elections that new 
technology be used across this Nation.
  Let me say to those of us who are Americans, I appreciate the 
challenges that we have. Therefore, I say to my colleagues, do we not 
think a country that prides itself in democracy, prides itself in the 
recognition of the 3 bodies of government, that we should have a 
national Federal holiday so that we can vote, so that the doors of the 
work places are closed, so that everyone, no matter what one's party 
affiliation or what one's view is, be able to go. That is what H.R. 62 
is, to declare every 4 years a national holiday so that all Americans 
might vote.
  Many of my colleagues may not be aware that the numbers of 
allegations of voter irregularities that occurred in the State of 
Florida are revealed to have been that a total 180,000 ballots were not 
counted in Florida's presidential election. In four counties it is 
found, where the hand count was sought, all heavily democratic areas, 
over 73,000 ballots were not counted in the presidential tally. Might I 
share with my colleagues a personal view. I actually believe that after 
November 7, we should have recounted the entire State. I have no 
problem in finding out the truth. The Declaration of Independence has 
indicated that there is a self-evident truth, and why not find out 
whether or not all of these votes were accurately counted. We did not 
do that. But the Florida Supreme Court on November 21st attempted to 
allow us to count the votes.

  My great disappointment was that the Florida Supreme Court oversaw 
State law, as is rightly so, the separation of States from the Federal 
Government, and what happened? The interjection of 5 partisan Supreme 
Court justices who, in their own right, suggested that this was a 
unanimous decision on December 12 at 10 p.m., way after the time we 
could have gone into the count, after having stopped the counting over 
the weekend, indicated that they would make the decision who would be 
the President of the United States: President-elect George Bush and Mr. 
Cheney.
  I am not here to thwart the transfer of power on January 20, 2001. I 
will abide by the laws of this Nation, and so will the rest of America. 
But might I say, it does not behoove a country that believes in 
freedom, that projects itself as a leader of the free world, where 
other nations look to us to tell how they can vote and be free, the 
Bosnias, the Kosovos, the South Africas, that we too not stand up and 
be counted and remain steadfast on the question that every precious 
vote counts and the will of the people, no matter what it be, that one 
agrees or disagrees, be the deciding factor.
  So I say to my colleagues, the court, as Justice Breyer said, is not 
acting to vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, but such as 
the need to protect a basic human liberty. What Justice Breyer said is 
that the Supreme Court was denying us our liberty, denying us our 
right, and that the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly on December 12, 
2001.
  I leave my colleagues simply with the understanding that freedom is 
not free, and that all of us might fight within the laws of this Nation 
and the right to protest, the First Amendment right to speak, to be 
able to protect, and yes, to be able to speak on behalf of voiceless 
Americans who voted their conscience.
  Mr. President-elect, I look forward to working with you. I hope that 
you will draw us into your chambers, into the White House, and I ask 
that we sit down and talk about the issues. I hope you will hear our 
voices on John Ashcroft and Linda Chavez, because if we are to heal 
this Nation, we must heal it together.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the receiving of this years 
presidential electoral ballots, specifically, those electoral votes 
from the state of Florida, in what was the closest and most contested 
presidential election in the history of our great nation.
  I have been raised to tell the truth. I also have been raised to 
respect our flag, the freedom of our democracy and the right to express 
our fundamental beliefs.
  While I realize that the transfer of power will occur on January 20, 
2001, barring a different decision today, I believe it is imperative 
that I attempt to register an objection on the grounds of the 
inaccurate count and undercount in Florida resulting in the election 
being won for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and not Mr. Gore and Mr. 
Lieberman.
  I believe if the results remain the same today, then at least this 
Congress should promptly engage in a serious review and reform of the 
election process in this nation as a recognition of the 
disenfranchisement of voters, not only in Florida but around the 
country.


                                 FACTS

  On November 7th 2000, I was in Nashville, Tennessee, watching the 
election results when about 3 a.m. in the morning, the votes that were 
originally called for Governor Bush deteriorated to just a difference 
of 569 votes or less than 1 percent between Vice President Gore and 
Governor Bush, thus, triggering an automatic recount.
  On Tuesday, November 14, 2000, Florida's Republican Secretary of 
State Katherine Harris gave a 5 p.m. for countries to report their 
election returns. Also, on that day, Broward County granted Vice 
President Gore's request for a full hand recount, however, Circuit 
Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Harris could enforce the deadline but 
required her to use flexibility in her decision.
  On Wednesday, November 15, 2000 Secretary Harris announced that the 
official Bush lead over Gore was 300 votes and gave a 2 p.m. deadline 
for countries to justify late returns. Florida's Supreme Court rejected 
Bush's bid to block the recount and a federal appeals court in Atlanta 
agreed to hear Bush's request to block all Florida hand recounts. Palm 
Beach County also got the green light for its recount with a ruling 
that the canvassing board could decide how to review the votes.
  On Thursday, November 16, 2000, Secretary Harris refused counties' 
justifications for submitting late returns, however, the Florida 
Supreme Court gave the green light to Florida counties to go ahead with 
ballot hand recounts.
  On Friday, November 17, 2000, Circuit Judge Lewis ruled that Harris 
could reject returns filed after the November 14th deadline. Vice 
President Gore appealed Lewis's decision to the Florida Supreme Court 
and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Harris could not 
certify the results on Saturday; the Court set hearings on the issue 
for Monday, November 20. Also on that day, thousands of Florida 
absentee ballots from overseas are due by midnight which would be 
included in the state total. In addition, a hearing is held on the 
constitutionality of a revote in Palm Beach.
  On Saturday, November 18th, 2000, States had a noon deadline to 
submit overseas ballot counts. Hand recounts proceed in Broward and 
Palm Beach counties and Miami-Dade County officials meet again to 
consider a full recount of more than 600,000 votes.
  On Monday, November 20 the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on 
whether Harris had final authority to certify ballots as to the Nov. 14 
deadline and the Florida Attorney General said that overseas ballots, 
mostly from military bases, that were rejected because they lacked 
postmarks should be counted.
  On Tuesday, November 21st, 2000, them Florida Supreme Court ruled 
that hand-recounted votes could be accepted for six more days.
  On Wednesday, November 22nd, 2000, Miami-Dade County halted its 
unfinished recount amid dispute over standards for counting ballots due 
to heated protests by a hysterical pro-Bush crowd. On that same day 
Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the recount.
  On Thursday, November 23rd, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court rejected 
Gore's appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount. On 
Friday, November, 24, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Bush's 
appeal and on Saturday, November 25, Bush dropped his lawsuit on 
counting military absentee ballots, but filed suits in five individual 
counties.
  On Sunday, November 26, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court set 5 p.m. 
deadline for the Secretary of State's office to accept all recounts. 
Florida certified the election results, declaring Bush the winner by 
537 of the nearly 6 million votes cast. The Palm Beach hand recounts 
are not included in the total.
  On Monday, November 27, 2000, Gore went on national television to 
defend his call for recounts and filed suit in local count contesting 
Florida the results.
  On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Gore called for a seven-day plan to 
recount Florida votes to begin immediately. The Leon County Circuit 
Court Judge agreed to consider the recount but held off on hearings 
until December 2nd. Also, Gore and Bush lawyers delivered briefs to the 
U.S. Supreme Court for their December 1st hearing.
  On Thursday, November 30, 2000 Palm Beach shipped ballots to 
Tallahassee for a December 2nd hearing and Gore appealed Leon County's 
refusal to begin immediate recount to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  On Friday, December 1st, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard 
the Gore-Bush

[[Page H49]]

case. Also on that day, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Gore's 
appeal for expedited recount also ruling the ``butterfly ballot'' 
constitutional.
  On Saturday, December 2nd, 2000, the Leon County Circuit Court 
considered recounts of 1 million ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm Beach 
counties.
  On Monday, December 4, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court sets aside the 
Florida Supreme Court decision extending deadline for recounts, and 
sent it back to the state court for further clarification of its 
ruling.
  On Tuesday, December 5, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court scheduled oral 
arguments for Thursday for Gore's appeal of Monday's ruling rejecting 
his challenge to the certification of Bush as Florida's winner and the 
11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also heard arguments on Bush's 
effort to have the manual recounts declared unconstitutional.
  On Wednesday, December 6, 2000, the Federal appeals court in Atlanta 
refused to throw out recounted votes in three Florida counties. On 
Thursday, December 7th, Gore lawyers argued for recounts before Florida 
Supreme Court. Also, trials on absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin 
counties ended.
  On Friday, December 8th, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered 
immediate manual recounts of ballots from Miami-Dade and other 
counties. The 4-3 vote gave Gore another 383 votes from earlier partial 
recounts. Also on that day, the Circuit courts in Seminole and Martin 
counties rule that absentee ballots did not violate the law though 
Republican workers filled in missing ID numbers.
  On Saturday, December 9th, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to 
Bush's appeal for a halt to recount and scheduled oral arguments from 
both sides for Monday, December 11th.
  On Monday, December 11, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral 
arguments on Bush's appeal to halt the Florida vote recount.
  On Tuesday, December 12th, 2000 Florida designated 25 electors 
pledged to Bush for the Electoral College vote. The Florida Supreme 
Court rejected Democrats' bid to throw out absentee ballots they 
charged that Republicans tampered with.
  On Wednesday, December 13, 2000, Bush declared victory, and Gore 
conceded.


                                analysis

  Mr. Speaker, upon my recital of this past elections events, I rise 
today to express concern for the health of our democracy. I am an 
American. These words are the montra of our nation. These words express 
our unity of purpose to create a different form of government that will 
allow for all to be heard equally without prejudice or favor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am an American. I say this with pride for my country 
and its heritage and prejudice toward other forms of governance and 
community that do not embrace liberty and freedom for all.
  I am an American and therefore it goes without saying that I truly 
believe that all men, the species human both male and female, are 
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of 
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted 
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
which is expressed by our nation's founders in the Constitution of the 
United States.
  While I have accepted and will abide by the decision of our nation's 
highest court which resulted in President-Elect Bush's winning Florida 
States electoral votes which were in heavy contest, I have risen today 
to speak on the need for election reform; and to lift my voice on 
behalf of the thousands of disfranchised voters in Florida and states 
throughout the nation who were silenced.
  Mr. Speaker, on November 7th, 2000, only some of the citizens of the 
United States were able to exercise their right to vote and have it 
counted. It is inescapable that critical mistakes were made and there 
were serious allegations of violations of Voter Rights Act of 1965 that 
have been made during and after the November 7, elections and 
throughout the nation.
  Victims and witnesses to Election Day irregularities and 
discriminatory practices at voting precincts came forward in 
significant numbers to tell their stories of how their votes were 
discarded and their votes silenced which resulted in their 
disenfranchisement. In fact, many disenfranchised voters did ask, 
``could I get another ballot,'' but were told they could not.
  On November 11, the NAACP conducted a hearing in Florida regarding 
the election. After reviewing allegations made at the NAACP hearing and 
hearing numerous other allegations from constituents and citizens 
throughout the country, I and members of the CBC met and also held 
press conferences to announce that there was substantial evidence 
indicating that many African-Americans and other minorities were denied 
their fundamental rights as citizens of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, we must do all that we can today, to stop these 
political partisan games from being played in the future to usurp the 
right given to all American citizens, the right to vote. We should look 
to being a government of the people that is governed by the people. We 
must listen to the voices of the people spoken through their votes, 
which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

  Thomas Paine's work titled the ``Rights of Man,'' said this regarding 
constitutions; ``That men mean distinct and separate things when they 
speak of constitutions and of governments. . . . A constitution is not 
the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government 
without a constitution, is power without a right.''
  The people of this nation at its inception said, ``We the People of 
the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish 
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution 
for the United States of America.''
  Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as the elected representative for all 
the people, we need to find a remedy to ensure that every citizen's 
vote counts. The information presented in the Florida State Legislature 
hearings and NAACP hearings in Florida included first-hand accounts 
from victims and eyewitnesses of the following:
  1. That citizens who were properly registered were denied the right 
to vote because election officials could not find their names on the 
precinct rolls and that some of these voters went to their polling 
place with registration identification cards but still were denied the 
right to vote;
  2. That registered voters were denied the right to vote because of 
minor discrepancies between the name appearing on the registration 
lists and the name on their identification;
  3. The first-time voters who sent in voter registration forms prior 
to the state's deadline for registration were denied the right to vote 
because their registration forms were not processed and their names did 
not appear on the precinct rolls;
  4. That African-American voters were singled out for criminal 
background checks at some precincts and that one voter who had never 
been arrested was denied the right to vote after being told that he had 
a prior felony conviction;
  5. That African-American voters were required to show photo ID while 
white voters at the same precincts were not subjected to the same 
requirement;
  6. That voters who requested absentee ballots did not receive them 
but were denied the right to vote when they went to the precinct in 
person on election day;
  7. That hundreds of absentee ballots of registered voters in 
Hillsborough County (a county covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act) were improperly rejected by the Supervisor of Elections and not 
counted;
  8. That African-American voters who requested assistance at the polls 
were denied assistance;
  9. That African-American voters who requested the assistance of a 
volunteer Creole/English speaker who were willing to translate the 
ballot for limited proficient voters were denied such assistance;
  10. That police stopped African-American voters as they entered and 
exited a polling place in Progress Village Center; and
  11. That election officials failed to notify voters in a 
predominantly African American precinct that their polling place, a 
school, was closed and failed to direct them by signs or other means to 
the proper polling location.
  There were also an unprecedented number of complaints of similar 
problems in other parts of the nation. Calls flooded the NAACP offices 
and other agencies seeking to lodge complaints about registered voters 
who were turned away from the polls because their names mysteriously 
did not appear in the precinct books.
  In Virginia, there were numerous complaints of voters who registered 
in social services offices under the provisions of the National Voter 
Rights Act of 1965 who were not allowed to vote because their 
registrations were not recorded. Among other examples, there were 
numerous reports in New York city that minority voters were denied the 
right to vote and in St. Louis, eyewitnesses say that at some precincts 
African-American voters were asked to show ID, while white voters in 
the same line were not asked to produce any identification.
  These allegations raise potential violations of Sections 2 and 5 of 
the Voter Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as well as several 
provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 
1973gg-5(a) which affirms the right of every U.S. citizen to cast a 
ballot and have that ballot be counted and be protected without 
compromise and without regard to the voter's race. This is a task for 
the federal government because federal guarantees in federal elections 
are at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, this was truly a time in which justice delayed was 
justice denied. In addition to the number of allegations of voting 
irregularities that occurred in the state of Florida, it was revealed 
that a total of 180,000 ballots

[[Page H50]]

were not counted in Florida's presidential vote. The Gore Campaign, 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, civil rights attorney's and 
the disenfranchised voters themselves sought for every Floridian's vote 
to be counted by requesting a hand count in the four counties that 
demonstrated voting irregularities. In these four counties in which the 
hand count was sought--all heavily Democratic areas--over 73,000 
ballots were not counted in the presidential tally.
  The Florida State Supreme Court attempted to remedy the 
disenfranchisement of its voters on November 21st, 2000, by holding in 
a unanimous decision to allow for a recount. It was a victory for the 
people and a victory for democracy. However, this decision was 
ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a curium decision 
(unanimous decision), and remanded back to the Florida State Supreme 
Court for clarification of the authority the Florida Supreme Courts 
decision was relied upon.

  Mr. Speaker, from day one, all that I have wanted is for the will of 
the people of Florida to be completely and accurately reflected. It is 
evident by the laws of the state of Florida and the judicial history of 
election law in this country that a recount was a matter for the State, 
and not Federal Courts to decide.
  Mr. Speaker I come from a county of about 1 million. 995,000 people 
voted in Harris County. We discarded 6,000 votes in Harris County, 
Texas. However, in one Palm Beach County in Florida, approximately 
19,000 ballots were discarded. In that one county 19,000 citizen's 
voices were silenced. Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, a 
strong Bush supporter who campaigned for him gave a short deadline for 
the electoral votes to be delivered to her which would not allow 
adequate time for a recount, thus, ensuring the disenfranchisement of 
the Florida citizens and delivering that state's electoral votes to 
Bush. This in violation of the state of Florida's own election laws 
which in Florida, as in most states, the will of the people is 
determined by a hand recount.
  The Florida Supreme Court, the highest court of that state, in a 
unanimous ruling agreed that this was indeed the law of Florida and 
overruled the Florida Secretary of States deadline, thus, calling on a 
recount by the four counties with the highest volume of disenfranchised 
votes. In reaching its holding the Florida State Supreme Court cited 
the Illinois Supreme Court who made it clear that the vote intent 
standard ought to be the standard used in determining the will of the 
people. The Illinois Supreme Court had dealt specifically with the 
dimpled chad issue.
  The Bush campaign argued against the Florida State Supreme Court 
ruling stating that this process would cause disruption and instability 
and yet it was their campaign that went to court in the first place and 
it was their campaign that suggested that the rule of law and our 
Constitutional processes be circumvented in favor of a partisan 
political solution.
  I have always believed that more people went to the polls in Florida 
to vote for Al Gore than went to vote for George W. Bush. I believe 
that the hand recount would have shown that to be the case. And the 
fact that the Bush campaign fought this so strenuously shows that they 
knew this to be the case also.
  We are a nation of laws. We have been one for over 200 years. The 
Florida State Supreme Court is the highest court of the state. Their 
job was to resolve legal questions, such as the one they looked at on 
November 21st.
  I had faith in the people of Florida. However, Republicans ignored 
the will of the people by stalling and ultimately defeating the recount 
process. Assertions had been made during the Florida Electoral Vote 
contest that Republicans had made efforts to try and stall the recount 
effort in Florida. In fact, Republicans involved in the recount process 
had even admitted that they used delaying tactics. They continued to 
object to as many ballots as they could to slow down the recount 
process. In one Palm Beach County precinct alone, they objected to over 
200 ballots to force a slowdown of the recount process. However, when 
those ballots went in front of the county canvassing commission, only 3 
were called into question.
  Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2000 the Florida State Supreme Court 
again took up the issue remanded to them by the U.S. Supreme Court on 
whether to allow for a recount, and again the Florida State Supreme 
Court held in favor of an immediate manual recount of the presidential 
election under-votes in Miami-Dade Counties and all Florida counties.
  I believe that this was the right decision. Floridians just wanted to 
have a fair process for the counting of their votes and this was 
granted by the Florida State Supreme Court. As American citizens they 
are entitled to that. The Florida Supreme Court's ruling was delivered 
a critical juncture in the face of the recount process and would have 
resolved much of the legal ambiguity regarding recounts that haunts 
this country today.
  The Florida Supreme Court's decision should have been implemented as 
ordered without hesitation. We would have then been able to come 
together as Americans, thus, ensuring that the 43rd President of the 
United States was elected by the people. However, on December 9, 2000, 
the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an injunction to stop the manual recount 
of the under-votes in Miami-Dade County and all the Florida counties 
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
  On the night of December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 
controversial 5-4 decision delivered the court holding which prohibited 
all the legal votes in Florida from being counted, thus, ensuring then-
Governor Bush receiving Florida's electoral votes to win the 
presidential election. As I stated at the beginning of my statement; 
while I was disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling, as a 
member of the United States Congress sworn to uphold the laws and 
Constitution of the United States, I accepted and will abide by the 
decision of our nation's highest court as the supreme legal and 
constitutional authority of our great country. However, I concur with 
Justice Ginsburg's statement when she said ``the Court's conclusion 
that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy 
the Court's own judgement will not allow to be tested. Such an untested 
prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.''
  Furthermore, Justice Stevens assessment that this nation will never 
know with certainty the true identity of the winner of this years 
presidential election. If we have learned anything from the Justices of 
the Supreme Court, however, is that it is up to this nation, through 
the United States Congress, state legislatures, and local communities 
to correct the problems highlighted in the past year's presidential 
election to correct the problems to ensure that the will of all the 
people in future elections is not thwarted.
  In addition, Justice Breyer, like three other justices, found an 
alternative constitutional analysis that would have permitted a recount 
of counting process in Florida stating ``. . . [T]here is no 
justification for the majority's remedy, which is simply to reverse the 
lower court and halt the recount entirely. An appropriate remedy would 
be, instead, to remand this case with instructions that, even at this 
late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require all 
undercounted votes in Florida, including those from Broward, Volusia, 
Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties, whether or not previously 
recounted prior to the end of the protest period, and to do so with a 
single-uniform substandard.''
  Justice Breyer emphasized that ``by halting the manual recount, and 
thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes would not be counted under 
any standard, the Court crafted a remedy out of proportion to the 
asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the 
Court is attempting to protect. The manual recount would itself redress 
a problem of unequal treatment of ballots.''
  Justice Breyer also added: ``. . . [The] Court is not acting to 
vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, such as the need to 
protect a basic human liberty. No other strong reason to act is 
present. Congressional statutes tend to obviate the need. And, above 
all, in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split 
decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the 
Court itself. That confidence is a public treasure. It has been built 
slowly over many years, some of which were marked by Civil War and the 
tragedy of segregation. It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any 
successful effort to protect basic liberty and indeed, the rule of law 
itself. We run no risk of returning to the days when a President 
(responding to this Court's effort to protect the Cherokee Indians) 
might have said, ``John Marshall has made his decision; now let him 
enforce it! Loth, Chief John Justice Marshall and The Growth of the 
American Republic 365 (1948). But we do risk a self-inflicted wound--
wound that may harm not just the Court, but the Nation.''
  Mr. Speaker, the basic right to have your voted counted is a basic 
right guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution. It is 
understood that the preamble to the Constitution of the United States 
is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 
however, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the 
origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. In Jacobson vs. 
Massachusetts, Justice Harlan wrote in 1905, ``Although that preamble 
indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and 
established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source 
of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United 
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those 
expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be 
implied from those so granted.''
  This constitution like all constitutions is the property of a nation, 
and not of those who exercise the government. It is our belief, as 
Americans, that this democracy--our democracy was and continues under 
the direct authority of the people of this nation.

[[Page H51]]

  All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. In the 
United States the beginning of power is found in the Constitution, but 
in the history of mankind power has found two sources it may either be 
delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources of power other than 
the consent of the governed. All delegated power is trust, and all 
assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter truth of this 
statement it only makes its truth clearer to those who can see and to 
those who are enlightened history.
  The Constitution of the United States does not provide an explicit 
language to preserve the boundaries nor does it provide checks and 
balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of 
government that it establishes. However, it does grant to these 
branches of federal government separately the power to legislate, to 
execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the 
means to accomplish those ends in a manner that would allow each of the 
branches of government to avoid ``blandishments and incursions of the 
others.'' The beauty of this document is its goals, which was to order 
to system of federal government by conferring sufficient power to 
govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the 
governed. To this reason, I share Henry David Thoreau's view that 
``Government does not keep the country free.''
  The long standing theory of elaborated and implemented constitutional 
power is grounded on several principles chief of which are: the 
conception that each branch performs unique and identifiable functions 
that are appropriate to each; and the limitation of the personnel of 
each branch to that branch, so that no one person or group should be 
able to serve in more than one branch simultaneously.
  Paine offered that Government is not a trade which any man or body of 
men has a right to set and exercise for his own emolument, but is 
altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, 
and by who it is always presumable.
  Unfortunately in the evidence of the resolution of the election that 
very thing has occurred. The United States Supreme Court who is sworn 
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States may in fact 
have issued a ruling that will erode the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has more cases presented than it can possibly 
review and for this reason has over time applied two rules to judge the 
appropriateness of review the Standing Doctrine and the Ripeness 
Doctrine.
  Standing as a doctrine is composed of both constitutional and 
prudential restraints on the power of the federal courts to render 
decisions. In Valley Forge Christian College vs. Americans United, 
decided in 1982, Renquist wrote that the exercise of judicial power 
under Art. III is restricted to litigants who can show ``injury in 
fact'' resulting from the action that they seek to have the court 
adjudicate. Doctrine of ``standing'' has a core constitutional 
component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable 
to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be 
redressed by the requested relief. The concepts of the standing 
doctrine present questions that must be answered by reference to the 
Article III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the 
last resort and as a necessity, and only when adjudication is 
consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one 
traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial 
process.

  Justice O'Connor wrote in the Court's majority opinion in Allen vs. 
Wright, 468 US 73, ``All of the doctrines that cluster about Article 
III--not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and 
the like--relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to 
an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and 
explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the 
powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of 
government.''
  The case brought before the Court titled Bush vs. Gore did not 
establish the fine points of standing because no injury had been 
incurred by Bush. It was only the presumption of impending injury that 
prompted the Court's action. Bush anticipated losing the electors 
apportioned to the State of Florida, which would have decided the 
national election in Vice President Gore's favor.
  Just as the question of standing has weight and breath in the life of 
Judicial Review so does the Ripeness Doctrine, which defines when a 
case may be brought before the Supreme Court for review. In the case of 
United Public Workers vs. Mitchell, the Court ruled that it could not 
rule in the matter because the plaintiffs ``where not threatened with 
actual interference with their interest,'' there was only a potential 
threat of interference of their interest. The Court viewed the threat 
hypothetical and not established in the realm of reality where squarely 
their purview had effect. It had been well established and excepted 
that pre-enforcement challenges to criminal and regulatory legislation 
will often be unripe for judicial consideration because of uncertainty 
of enforcement.
  The Court when it ordered a stop to the counting of ballots ordered 
by the Florida Supreme Court ended any possible light being shown on 
the issue of injury to presidential candidate Bush.
  The dissenting view offered by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice 
Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, Stevens stated that the issue presented to 
the Court had been assigned to the States by the Constitution. Article 
II, Section 1 of the Constitution defines that each state shall 
appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number 
of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives 
to which the state may be entitled for the purpose of choosing the 
President and Vice President of the United States.
  There is inherent in the arcane and disjointed method of local state, 
and national elections disparity of treatment in that all voters do not 
use the same method of voting. The condition of the Florida election 
was the fruit of this disparity in that the variations in the methods 
voting lead to different methods of tallying votes and different 
success or failure rates in the accuracy of those tallies. The more 
modern pencil mark to fill an oval on a paper ballot that is fed into a 
computer to tally votes was found to only hold a three percent error 
rate while the punch card method of tallying votes had a fifteen 
percent error rate.
  It is clear that the injured party in this matter are the voters of 
Florida who had to suffer through the biased actions of a Secretary of 
State who acted as the Co-Florida State Chair for the Bush for 
President effort. The voters struggled to be heard in the face of 
repeated challenges and disruptions designed to end an order process of 
discerning voter intent when the machine failed in that determination. 
A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who 
exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared 
to be established on the authority of the people.
  Aristotle in his work titled ``Politics'' stated that ``democracy is 
the form of government in which the free are rulers.'' With the Supreme 
Court choosing by a one vote majority to rule in favor of the hand 
counting of ballots, as long as the method is uniform and did not 
violate the Safe Harbor Provision of the Constitution seemed in its 
reading to be an affirmation of the free ballot. However, history will 
not blur the directive of this decision, because it was delivered with 
only one hour and forty minutes left for the Florida Supreme Court to 
digest, implement and complete.
  Over the course of the weeks leading to the decision it had been 
established that the process of counting ballots by hand was laborious 
and very time consuming. The force of the decision was an affront to 
the spirit and life of our nation's democracy. It was an act of treason 
to all of those who have fought, lost eye, limb or life in the effort 
to keep themselves and their progeny free to exercise those precious 
values of America's brand of democracy.
  In the words of ``Freedom,'' a poem by Langston Hughes we hear the 
threat to our national existence, ``freedom will not come today, this 
year nor ever, through compromise and fear. I have as much right as the 
other fellow has to stand on my two feet and own the land. I tire so of 
hearing people say, let things take their course. Tomorrow is another 
day. I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on 
tomorrow's bread. Freedom is a strong seed planted in the soil. I live 
here too. I want freedom just as you.''
  I fear that our nation has lapsed into a world of ``Orwellian double 
speak.'' Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision the double-speak of 
the Republican Party was that very open public process of hand counting 
ballots was the casting of votes. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court 
decision to in effect select the 43rd President of the United States 
the Republican leadership engaged in a display of double-speak. ``The 
president-elect was chosen by a constitutional method, and ``President-
elect Bush won the State of Florida,'' are only two of the double-speak 
phrases which have resulted.
  The result of this infamous decision is that thousands of people were 
shunned by the country we have known, slaved and died for on and off 
its blooded battlefields. Exposed naked and raw before the public stage 
as being of no consequence worth mentioning. I do remember the cries 
from Republicans and Democrats after it was learned that military 
service men and women votes cast by absentee ballot were under threat 
of not being counted. The cry that we should not disenfranchise these 
Americans was shared by all who appreciate their dedication and service 
to our nation. My pain was the lack of concern that those who were 
veterans of past conflicts were not given the same level of concern 
that their votes not go uncounted because they resided in Palm Beach 
County, and Miami County, Florida.


                               conclusion

  The principle of equality died a public death the day that the 
Supreme Court acted under the one vote majorities interest in rescuing 
the

[[Page H52]]

failed presidential bid of their fellow Republican by acting in a 
perverse manner cloaked in judicial ease.
  Niccolo Machiavelli would be very proud of the Republican Party's 
success at gainning the Presidency of the United States. It is a 
tragedy that the will of the people was ignored and the right to be 
counted was not adhered to. What occurred during the past election was 
``modern day Jim Crowism,'' which was erected from the burial grounds 
of statutes passed by the legislatures of the Southern states to 
prevent African Americans from voting after the Reconstruction era.
  While statutes were not enacted during this past election to prevent 
minorities from voting, affirmative actions were taken that prevented 
minorities, women, the elderly and thousands of Democrats from invoking 
their constitutional right to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not let these ``Jim Crow'' actions to revive 
itself from the burial ground of this country's segregationist past. To 
do so would wash away the blood stains, and tears of our ancestors, 
parents and even ourselves who fought for the right of every citizen's 
voice to be heard legless of race, ethnicity, gander, age, and yes, 
even political affilation.

                            Election Events

       Tuesday, November 7--Voters across the United States cast 
     their ballots.
       Wednesday, November 8--The races in Florida, New Mexico and 
     Oregon are too close to call.
       Tuesday, November 14--5 PM deadline for counties to report 
     elections returns imposed by Florida's Republican Secretary 
     of State Katherine Harris.
       Broward County reverses course and grants Gore's request 
     for a full hand recount.
       Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rules that Harris could enforce 
     the deadline but requires her to use flexibility in her 
     decision.
       Wednesday, November 15--Harris announces official Bush lead 
     of 300 votes and gives a 2 p.m. deadline for counties to 
     justify late returns.
       Florida's Supreme Court rejects Bush's bid to block the 
     recount.
       A federal appeals court in Atlanta agrees to hear Bush's 
     request to block all Florida hand recounts.
       Palm Beach County gets a green light for its recount with a 
     ruling that the canvassing board could decide how to review 
     the votes.
       Thursday, November 16--Harris refuses counties' 
     justifications for submitting late returns.
       Florida Supreme Court gives the green light to Florida 
     counties to go ahead with ballot hand recounts.
       Bush decides against contesting Iowa results, which give 
     Gore a narrow lead.
       Friday, November 17--Circuit Judge Lewis rules that Harris 
     can reject returns filed after Nov. 14 deadline.
       Gore appeals Lewis decision to Florida Supreme Court, 
     Florida Supreme Court rules Harris may not certify results on 
     Saturday; sets hearings on issue for Monday, Nov. 20.
       Thousands for Florida absentee ballots from overseas are 
     due by midnight Friday and will be added to the state total.
       Hearing is held on the constitutionality of a re-vote in 
     Palm Beach.
       Saturday, November 18--States have noon deadline to submit 
     overseas ballot counts.
       Hand recounts proceed in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
       Miami-Dade County officials meet again to consider a full 
     hand recount of more than 600,000 votes.
       Monday, November 20--Florida Supreme Court hears arguments 
     on whether Harris has final authority to certify ballots as 
     of Nov. 14 deadline.
       Florida Attorney general says overseas ballots, mostly from 
     military bases, that were rejected because they lacked 
     postmarks should be counted.
       Tuesday, November 12--Florida Supreme Court rules that 
     hand-recounted votes can be accepted for six more days.
       Wednesday, November 22--Republican Vice Presidential 
     Candidate Dick Cheney is hospitalized for chest pains.
       Miami-Dade County halts unfinished recount amid dispute 
     over standards for counting ballots.
       Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Thursday, November 23--Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore 
     appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.
       Friday, November, 24--U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear 
     Bush appeal.
       Saturday, November 25--Bush drops lawsuit on counting 
     military absentee ballots, but files suits in five individual 
     counties.
       Sunday, November 26--Florida Supreme Court sets 5pm 
     deadline for the Secretary of State's office to accept all 
     recounts.
       Flordia certifies election results, declaring Bush the 
     winner by 537 of the nearly 6 million votes cast. Palm Beach 
     hand recounts are not included in the total.
       Monday, November 27--Gore goes on national television to 
     defend his call for recounts and files suit in local court 
     contesting Florida results.
       Bush team calls for private donations to finance White 
     House transition after the Clinton administration refuses to 
     release funds traditionally provided for the hand-over.
       Tuesday, November 28--Gore calls for seven-day plan to 
     recount Florida votes to begin immediately. Leon County 
     Circuit Court Judge agrees to consider the recount but holds 
     off on hearing until December 2.
       Gore, Bush lawyers deliver briefs to U.S. Supreme Court for 
     December 1 hearing.
       Wednesday, November 29--Bush opens transition office in 
     McLean, VA. Gore vows to fight on until mid-December.
       Thursday, November 30--Palm Beach ships ballots to 
     Tallahassee for December 2 hearing.
       Gore appeals Leon County refusal to begin immediate recount 
     to the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Friday, December 1--U.S. Supreme Court Justices hears case.
       Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore's appeal for expedited 
     recount Florida Supreme Court rules ``butterfly ballot'' 
     constitutional.
       Saturday, December 2--Leon County Circuit Court considers 
     recounts of one million ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm 
     Beach counties.
       Monday, December 4--U.S. Supreme Court sets aside Florida 
     Supreme Court decision extending deadline for recounts, 
     sending it back to state court for further clarification of 
     its ruling.
       Tuesday, December 5--The Florida Supreme Court schedules 
     oral arguments for Thursday for Gore's appeal of Monday's 
     ruling rejecting his challenge to the certification of Bush 
     as Florida's winner.
       The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments on 
     Bush's effort to have the manual recounts declared 
     unconstitutional.
       Wednesday, December 6--Fed appeals court in Atlanta refuses 
     to throw out recounted votes in three Florida counties.
       Thursday, December 7--Gore lawyers argue for recounts 
     before Florida Supreme Court.
       Trials on absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin counties 
     end.
       Friday, December 8--Florida supreme court orders immediate 
     manual recounts of ballots from Miami-Dade and other 
     counties. The 4-3 vote gives Gore another 383 votes from 
     earlier partial recounts.
       Circuit courts in Seminole and Martin counties rule that 
     absentee ballots did not violate the law though Republican 
     workers filled in missing ID numbers.
       Saturday, December 9--U.S. Supreme Court agrees to Bush's 
     appeal for a halt to recount and schedules oral arguments 
     from both sides for Monday.
       Monday, December 11--U.S. Supreme Court hears oral 
     arguments on Bush's appeal to halt the Florida vote recount.
       Tuesday, December 12--Florida designates 25 electors 
     pledged to Bush for Electoral College vote.
       Florida Supreme Court rejects Democrats' bid to throw out 
     absentee ballots they charge Republicans tampered with.
       Wednesday, December 13--Bush declares victory, Gore 
     concedes.
       Monday, December 18--Members of the Electoral College cast 
     their votes.
       Saturday, January 20, 2001--Inauguration Day.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2001.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     Vice President of the United States and Senate President, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Vice President Gore: We object to the 25 votes from 
     the State of Florida for George W. Bush for President and 
     Richard Cheney for Vice President. Notwithstanding the 
     certification by the Governor of the State of Florida, it is 
     the opinion of the undersigned that these 25 votes were not 
     regularly given in that the plurality of votes in the State 
     of Florida were in fact cast for Albert Gore, Jr. for 
     President and Joseph I. Lieberman for Vice President. 
     Further, certain violations of the Voter Rights Act of 1965 
     disenfranchised many voters prohibiting them from casting 
     their vote which impacted the electoral vote. Therefore, no 
     electoral vote of the State of Florida should be counted for 
     George W. Bush for President or for Richard Cheney for Vice 
     President.
           Respectfully,
     Sheila Jackson-Lee.
     Carrie P. Meek.
     Eddie Bernice Johnson.
     Elijah E. Cummings.
                                  ____


          Motion to Delay Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas moves that the House delay the 
     counting of the electoral votes until a quorum of both 
     chambers is present.
       This is a solemn day. This is a solemn day because it is a 
     day when Congress will affirm the voice of the American 
     people and procedural statutes dictated by 3 USC 15, 16 & 17.
       Therefore, any proceeding should not be done in the absence 
     of a quorum, especially, where more than 1/2 million people 
     have a different opinion of the electoral result that will be 
     affirmed today.
       Therefore, all members of Congress should be allowed to go 
     on the record to be heard on the issue.
     Sheila Jackson-Lee.
                                  ____

                                        Congressional Black Caucus


                                of the United States Congress,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2001.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     Vice President of the United States and Senate President,
     The Capital, Washington, DC.
       Dear Vice President Gore: We object to the 25 votes from 
     the State of Florida for George W. Bush for President and 
     Richard

[[Page H53]]

     Cheney for Vice President. Notwithstanding the certification 
     by the Governor of the State of Florida, it is the opinion of 
     the undersigned that these 25 votes were not regularly given 
     in that the plurality of votes in the State of Florida were 
     in fact cast for Albert Gore, Jr. for President and Joseph I. 
     Lieberman for Vice President. Therefore, no electoral vote of 
     Florida should be counted for George W. Bush for President or 
     for Richard Cheney for Vice President.
           Respectfully,
         Eddie Bernice Johnson; Alcee L. Hastings; Carrie P. Meek; 
           Corrine Brown; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Barbara Lee; Elijah 
           E. Cummings; Maxine Waters; Cynthia McKinney; Eva M. 
           Clayton.

                          ____________________