[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26131-26136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  WHO WILL BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues have had 
to rush back to their office. One or two of them will hopefully join me 
here if they are of like mind and join in this discussion of what is 
the issue that is gripping America today; and that is the issue of who 
will become the next President, but more important, whether we can 
continue to have confidence in the democratic institutions of this 
country.
  Now, let me deal with some of the basics first. The election last 
Tuesday produced a very clear winner of the popular vote. These were 
the results that were reported. My colleagues can read the numbers 
here. But Gore received almost a quarter of a million votes more than 
Mr. Bush. Now, I say a quarter million, because I know that the vast 
majority of ballots that have yet to be counted even today are absentee 
ballots from the State of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I am from California. It is my business to know how 
absentee ballots and particularly late absentee ballots are likely to 
come in. I am confident that when those California votes are tabulated, 
not only will Mr. Gore have a lead of over 200,000, but a lead of 
250,000.
  But that is the popular vote, and we are a Nation dedicated to the 
rule of law. Our law calls for the electoral college to operate. But 
for that college to operate, there has to be a fair count and a fair 
vote in each State. That is why we must turn our eyes to the State of 
Florida where we will see a genuine contest.
  One side in that contest is trying to seize power through political 
power, chiefly through the power of the governorship of Florida and the 
Secretary of State of the State of Florida, two elected officials, and 
is trying to malign the rule of law or rather just malign the court 
system, which is pretty much the same thing.
  See, one can be a football coach who says I believe that football 
should be played by the rules, but first we have got to kick all the 
referees off the field. We all have been angry at a call by a referee. 
I have been in stadiums where people yell ``kill the ref.'' I have 
never quite joined in such a statement. But imagine what football would 
be like if there were no referees or if there was an attempt to go to 
someone paid by one of the teams and have them arbitrate the disputes.
  Now, our courts are not perfect. But they are far less political, let 
me tell my colleagues, than those of us who are elected officials.
  So I would hope that the courts of Florida would ultimately and 
quickly resolve the issues that are before us. Now, the main issue 
before us is how the votes in the counties of Florida are going to be 
counted. But before we get there, I would like to focus a little bit on 
the ballot in Palm Beach County, the famous butterfly ballot.
  Here is a picture of it. We have all seen it. It is confusing; 19,000 
people double punched on this ballot. Some of them had voted for 
Buchanan by mistake and thought they could correct it by punching a 
hole for Gore. Some of them saw two holes to the right of the 
Democratic candidate and thought that, if they wanted to vote for Gore 
and Lieberman, they needed to punch both holes to the right. Some were 
simply confused by an array of arrows pointing in different directions, 
left and right to a row of holes.
  Now, it is said that the voters could have known about this ballot by 
looking at their sample ballot. Well, without the holes, this ballot 
tells one nothing. A sample ballot comes in, the names all seem to be 
there, the people glance at it, and decide who to vote for and then 
show up on election day. To say that looking at the ballot without the 
holes is the same as looking at it with the holes is simply absurd.
  But it is not enough that the ballot is confusing. In fact, I believe 
that there is a Florida court decision that says that, if a ballot is 
merely confusing, the courts will not provide redress to those who were 
confused.
  We are a Nation of the rule of law. But the Florida courts were very 
clear when the Supreme Court of the State of Florida ruled 2 years ago, 
in Beckstrom versus Volusia County Canvassing Board, that is Volusia 
County Canvassing Board, that where there is not only confusion, as 
there clearly was in this case, but also noncompliance with statutory 
procedures.
  Then the court must provide redress, must adjust the election or 
allow for a new election if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the 
certified election expressed the will of voters and when that doubt 
extends to who won the election.
  Well, there are more people in the cloakroom some of the times than 
the number of ballots that separates Mr. Bush from Mr. Gore in the vote 
in Florida. There is no doubt that any confusion in Palm Beach County 
could well have affected the result of the Presidency of the United 
States. There is no doubt that the ballot was confusing.
  Many on the day of the election before they realized how important it 
would turn out to be started complaining about that confusion. There is 
no doubt that this ballot was in violation of Florida law, not just 
that it was confusing, not just a vague law of Florida that the ballot 
should be clear and unconfusing, but two very specific statutes.
  The first Florida statute that is violated by this ballot is the one 
that requires that the names be on the left and the holes be on the 
right for every candidate for public office. Here, as we see, some of 
the names are on the left and the holes are on the right and

[[Page 26132]]

sometimes the name is on the right and the hole is on the left.
  Now when one looks at that Florida statute, just reading through a 
statute book, its wisdom is not all that apparent. The reason for 
complying with the law may not be all that clear. But it is by 
violating that law that the officials in Palm Beach County created the 
ballot that now has the whole world watching Florida.
  The second statute in Florida also requires that the first ranking on 
the ballot, the first listing and the first hole goes to the party that 
won the last gubernatorial election in Florida. That is the Republican 
Party. My colleagues will notice the Republican Party on this butterfly 
ballot has the first listing and the first hole.
  The second listing and the second hole is supposed to go to the party 
that came in second in the last gubernatorial election. That is the 
Democratic Party. As my colleagues can see, well, the Democratic Party 
does not have the second hole; the Democratic Party has the third hole. 
Whether one views it as the second listing or the third listing depends 
upon whether one has a tendency to go from left then right or left 
column and then right column. But one thing is very clear, this ballot 
does not award the second hole to the Democratic Party.
  Every voter in Florida had the right to a ballot with the names on 
the left and the holes on the right. Every voter in Florida had a right 
if they wanted to vote for the Republican Party to punch the first 
hole; and if one wanted to vote for the Democratic Party for any 
office, punch the second hole.
  Yet on this ballot, the second hole is for Pat Buchanan. That is why 
Pat Buchanan himself says that there are quite a number of votes, 
hundreds or perhaps thousands in Palm Beach County alone, that were 
registered as being for him but were not people who intended to vote 
for him.
  So we are told that maybe there were not that many people confused. 
Well, the number of people voting for Pat Buchanan in this county and 
in this particular precinct exceeded any imaginable count for Pat 
Buchanan, even imaginable by him. But there were not only the Pat 
Buchanan ballots, but also those that were double-punched.
  Now, in every election, there are people who just skip an office, 
even the Presidency. They go in, they say I do not like Nader, I do not 
like Bush, I do not know Gore, and I do not know who the Workers World 
Party is; and I am not going to vote for any of them, and they skip it. 
I am not talking about people who completely skip the Presidency. I am 
talking about those who voted twice due to a confusing ballot.
  Now, in the 1996 election, far fewer people voted twice. James Baker, 
spokesman for the Bush campaign has tried to argue that there were 
14,000 people who voted twice in Palm Beach County 4 years ago. That is 
not just fuzzy math, that is false math. See, that 14,000 figure is the 
sum of everybody in 1996 who just skipped the Presidential race, did 
not like Dole, did not like Clinton, just skipped it, and those who 
double-punched.

                              {time}  1800

  In fact, the number who double-punched last election was well less 
than half the number who double-punched in this election. This ballot 
was not only confusing, it led to confusion.
  So what do we do about it? That needs to be determined, and it needs 
to be determined in the courts of Florida. But when faced with a 
similar circumstance, the courts have either ordered a new election or, 
and I do not recommend this approach at all, but Florida courts have 
done it, they have just statistically, quote, ``corrected the ballot 
count.'' I do not think that is the way for the courts of Florida to go 
in something as important as the Presidency.
  So I do not know whether the people of Palm Beach County will have 
their right to vote trampled upon by an illegal, as well as confusing, 
ballot and a refusal of the Florida courts to grant a revote. I know 
that that issue will not be reached for a while. But before we allow 
our impatience with this process to govern its outcome, let us remember 
how many Americans have died for the right to vote, not just in the 
suffragette movement, not just in the Civil Rights movement; but in 
every war America fought, people fought and died for our democracy. We 
can wait another week, even another 2 weeks, even 3 weeks.
  In fact, there is no particular rush at all. Mr. Speaker, on January 
6 at 1 p.m. in this very room the electoral vote tallies from each of 
the 50 States and the District of Columbia will be presented at that 
desk, and they will be added up and tallied by the Senate and the House 
of Representatives assembled in this room. On January 6. And if it 
takes Florida till about then to be absolutely certain how its 
electoral college votes should be cast, in a way that reflects the 
majority of voters, what is more important, our own impatience or our 
dedication to honor those who died to give us and to preserve for us a 
democracy?
  Now, in talking about a revote, which might be necessary in Palm 
Beach, I am jumping the gun a little bit. None of the candidates for 
President has called for such a revote because the focus now is just to 
accurately count the votes in the 67 counties of Florida. And here 
there has been an attempt by one politically elected partisan 
officeholder to thwart an accurate count. That worries me. I am talking 
about Katherine Harris, Secretary of State of Florida, who is also co-
chair of the Bush campaign in Florida. Unfortunately, she seems to be 
wearing her hat as co-chair of a campaign rather than as chief election 
officer, because I will review all of the obstacles that have been 
placed by the office of the Florida Secretary of State in the way of an 
accurate vote of Florida's counties.
  I want to quote Ms. Harris on one point. Ms. Harris is quoted as 
saying just a few days ago, and I am reading from the Palm Beach Post, 
November 14, that she would be passionately interested in a Federal 
post in foreign affairs or the arts if the Governor of Texas wins. To 
that end, according to this newspaper, she not only campaigned for Bush 
in Florida but had gone to New Hampshire, where the associated press 
reports that she had been part of the ``Freezin' For a Reason 
Campaign'' of Floridians flying to New Hampshire to campaign for Mr. 
Bush.
  Now, I think it is just fine to campaign for someone to be President. 
I did. But my fear is that her self-confessed and announced passion for 
a position in the Bush administration is clouding her ability to carry 
out the prime responsibility of a State's chief election officer, and 
that is the accurate and fair conduct of elections. Passion for winning 
a post in the Federal Government should not control the decision-making 
process, but I fear it has.
  It is pretty well acknowledged that a manual vote is the right way to 
do a recount. Let me put to rest some of the mistaken beliefs. First, 
it is said, oh, this is the second recount, the third recount, the 
tenth recount. Not true. Under Florida law, and not at the request of 
the Gore campaign or anybody associated with it, the counties of 
Florida did do a manual recount. That is up to them. The Gore campaign 
requested only one recount in four of the 67 counties. In the other 
counties, they said, fine, go ahead, we will not even request a 
recount. So the Gore campaign was in a position to request a recount in 
every county, but it requested only four.
  The Bush campaign did not request a recount in any of those counties. 
But that is not because, as they claim, they are so dedicated to the 
machinery being more accurate, because many of us in this hall have 
been involved in elections and recounts and close elections involving 
punched cards and we all know, as the Governor of Texas knows, that the 
most accurate way to do a recount of a punched card election system is 
by hand, with people from both parties examining the ballots.
  Now, why is that true? We live in an age where machines are praised 
and people are chided. But in this case, the invention of man, the 
machine, is not nearly as great as the creation of God. First of all, 
we are dealing with 1950s

[[Page 26133]]

technology here. This is no Internet double-checked modem. This is a 
punch card. This is 1950s technology. And these machines we are talking 
about, even if one votes properly, doing everything according to the 
instructions, punch the hole hard and straight through the card, a chad 
can be left on that card, sometimes partially attached, sometimes 
hanging off the back, sometimes hanging off the back and then, in 
handling it, it swings back, so that the machine cannot determine.
  As a matter of fact, the machine is erratic. Take a ballot that has 
been just slightly dimpled, run it through the machine, and sometimes 
it counts it, sometimes it does not. Take a ballot where there is a 
swinging door chad on the back. Sometimes the machine counts the 
ballot, sometimes not.
  James Baker has cried out for standards. Of course, the counties of 
Florida have their standards, publish their standards, train their 
employees by the standards, do that training in front of a cable 
television camera, for those who are glued to their sets, and we know 
what those standards are. In fact, we can argue about those standards. 
I believe the Gore campaign argues in favor of counting a dimpled 
ballot and the people in Palm Beach, Florida may not be counting a 
dimpled ballot, that is to say one where there is an impression but no 
perforation. Well, we should know what the standards are, we ought to 
try to agree on those standards, and we ought to make sure that every 
challenged ballot is counted according to standards.
  What standards does the machine have? Sometimes dimpled ballot, yes; 
sometimes not. Sometimes swinging door chad; sometimes not. The machine 
is not talking. The engineers who made that machine are deep into 
retirement, and they are not talking either. Counting these cards by 
machine may be fast, but it is not the most accurate system.
  Now, it is not enough for me to explain this, because the Governor of 
Texas already made his decision. In 1997, he signed into law a Texas 
statute, he signed it with his own pen, a new clearer statute for the 
State of Texas. What does it say? A manual recount shall be conducted 
in preference to an electronic recount. What does that mean? It means 
in Texas, if there are two candidates and both want a recount, the 
candidate who wants a machine recount only has to post a bond from 
which the fee may be taken, he may not get back his bond, his money, of 
$18 a precinct. Another candidate, more interested in accuracy, has to 
pay $30 a precinct as his or her bond.
  And what if two candidates both want a recount? The candidate who 
wants a manual recount is preferred; that is to say, not necessarily to 
win the election, but the request for a manual recount has preference 
under the law of the State of Texas. Why? Because George W. Bush, when 
he signed this law, knew full well that a manual recount, while it may 
be a little more expensive, and by God I think the Presidency is worth 
$30 a precinct, while a manual recount may be a little more expensive 
and time consuming, it has preference because it is more accurate.
  So why does James Baker tell us to use machines? He tells us that 
Texas has standards and Florida does not. Well, first, Florida does 
have standards. They simply vary from county to county. But the Palm 
Beach standards are as good as the Texas standards, the Broward 
standards are as good as the Texas standards. But if James Baker was 
not trying to obstruct an accurate recount, if he was hoping to have 
the votes counted accurately, he would not be blocking a manual 
recount, he would be aiding it.
  And how could he aid it? Let us read, please show us, because no one 
has seen them, those supposedly in existence Texas standards for 
dealing with these punch cards, which they also use in Texas. Do they 
count dimpled ballots in Texas? I do not know, but I would like to 
know. And frankly, if James Baker, if George W. Bush can provide us 
with better standards, let us see them. But they have no interest in 
improving the accuracy of a manual count. They want to block a manual 
count.
  They refer to these machines as precision machines. These are 
machines that jam if the ballot is bent a little bit. The card is bent 
a little bit. They deride human beings as in error, even teams of three 
human beings working carefully with the TV cameras. They deride that as 
being faulty and praise a machine that cannot read a bent ballot, that 
would disqualify and disenfranchise one of our senior citizens who 
fought on Normandy or Iwo Jima for the right of America to have a 
democracy, for his right and our right to vote, and his vote is going 
to be ignored by this supposed precision machine because, well, the 
ballot has a crease in it.
  I cannot believe that the Governor of Texas would want to dishonor 
the oval office by sitting there only because creased ballots are not 
counted. I cannot imagine that someone would want to be President in 
denigration of the votes of a majority of the States with a majority of 
the electoral college votes. I understand he wants to be President, and 
it is his right to be President if he does not have a majority of the 
popular vote nationwide. But if he does not have a majority in States 
representing a majority of the electoral college, then he dishonors the 
Presidency by demanding it; and he places his own desire for power 
above patriotism when he does everything possible to get a woman who is 
passionately dedicated to holding office in his administration to deny 
the most accurate vote count.

                              {time}  1815

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to deal with some of the other more 
extraneous issues that have come up, but first I want to deal with one 
more aspect of the argument as to what is the best type of count, the 
most accurate count. You see, Mr. Speaker, we serve here in the United 
States Congress, and four Republican candidates, let me repeat that, 
four Republican candidates for Congress have demanded and obtained 
manual recounts. They were Republicans, they wanted to sit in these 
chairs, and they got manual recounts.
  By God, if filling one of these chairs is worthy of a manual recount, 
then certainly filling the chair in the Oval Office is worthy of a 
manual recount. You see, when John Ensign wanted to sit in the United 
States Senate in 1998, we gave him a manual recount, or the State of 
Nevada gave him a manual recount. Bob Dornan got more than one manual 
recount. Peter Torkildsen, in 1996, demanded and got a manual recount. 
And, finally, Rick McIntyre in 1994, Republican candidate, got a manual 
recount, and throughout that process his cause was passionately 
advocated by then Congressman Dick Cheney. So Dick Cheney thinks that a 
manual recount is appropriate in filling a seat in this hall. George 
Bush signs a law in his own State saying that a manual recount has 
preference whether you are filling the governorship of Texas or the 
lowest county clerk in the smallest county, lowest or smallest county 
clerk in the smallest county. But somehow obstacles are placed. But I 
think ultimately these obstacles will be ineffective because ultimately 
the side of democracy will prevail, and the same divine providence that 
has given us a democracy for these 200 years and many more will make 
sure that we have democracy in this election.
  Now, first they went to Federal court. They attacked and vilified 
courts. They have particularly attacked and vilified the Federal 
courts, those on the Republican side, often from this Chamber. They ran 
to Federal court, not for the purpose of seeking a more accurate count 
but for the purpose of demanding a less accurate count. And the Federal 
court turned them down, and they turned around and they appealed to the 
11th Circuit, a very Republican, very conservative Federal court, and I 
am confident that they will be turned down there as well. Because not 
only should a court not interfere to provide for a less accurate voting 
system but certainly the Federal courts should not interfere in what 
under our Constitution is very clearly a State matter.
  Then they went to the Secretary of State and demanded a 5 p.m. 
deadline.

[[Page 26134]]

Why? To make sure that in Volusia County they had to stay up all night 
to do the manual recount and make the deadline so then James Baker 
could go on TV and say, ``These human beings, you can't trust them, 
they were tired.'' Why were they tired? Because your person is imposing 
an unreasonable recount deadline, particularly unreasonable given the 
fact that Florida will not finish counting the absentee ballots from 
overseas until 5 p.m. Friday. So there is no speed-up here of when 
Florida will finish its vote tally. The sole purpose is not speed. The 
sole purpose is inaccuracy. And they hope to achieve it.
  So then a court in Florida took a look at it and said, okay, all the 
counties can report their results by 5 p.m. today, and then they can go 
back and do a manual recount should they desire, and if they are 
dedicated to democracy they will, and then report that as a 
supplemental report. It will then be up to Ms. Harris to decide whether 
her passion for a Federal office exceeds her dedication to an accurate 
vote count, because then she will be confronted with whether to ignore 
this report or whether to record it. But if she arbitrarily and in 
passion for Federal office decides to ignore an accurate count, I am 
confident that the courts of Florida will order her to do the right 
thing. This election is too important to be decided by Ms. Harris' 
interest in a position in the arts or in foreign affairs in the Federal 
Government.
  There is one other point I want to make, and, that is, we are told 
that we should ignore the problems in Palm Beach County because the 
press said some things they should not have said at around 20 minutes 
before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Keep in mind, a 
decade or two ago, the press would routinely report all through the day 
their exit polls and they would call States in the 1970s and the 1980s, 
they would call them just as soon as they could, whether the polls had 
closed in part of a State or none of the State or all of the State.
  I am not prepared to throw out all the elections in the 1970s and 
1980s just because the press did not have the good ethics which they 
have tried unsuccessfully to adopt for this election. But if we are 
going to start equating illegal ballots on the one hand to false press 
reports on the other, I would ask everyone to just make a mental 
checklist of how many false press reports we have had prior to the 
election, after the election. Are we going to disqualify the election 
just because at least to my way of thinking the press misreported the 
economic effect of Bush's Social Security plan? The press has a 
constitutional right under the first amendment to say what it wants, 
when it wants, where it wants. And the fact that they violated their 
own internal rules, adopted by some of them and not by others 
apparently, is no reason to throw out an election any more than the 
many times when the press violated its own rules of ethics by shifting 
a little bit this way or a little bit that way in a news report that 
should have been straight down the middle.
  I see that I have been joined by the gentlewoman from Texas. Before I 
yield to her, I will ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Vitter). The gentleman has 26 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHERMAN. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding. He has always been so articulate on issues 
dealing with taxation, and I am delighted that he has begun an 
explanation to the American people that is really, I believe, a key to 
understanding where we are on this day. This is Tuesday. It is now 7 
days past the November 7 election that was held. I have several points 
that I would like to make clear. First of all, let us all acknowledge 
that we hold dear the right to elect the single candidate or the single 
person that represents all of the people of the United States. The 
House of Representatives is a people's House. We represent our 
respective congressional districts. The United States Senate has two 
Senators per State. But when it comes to the person that represents all 
Americans, it is in fact the President of the United States. 
Secondarily, we are a country that is guided by laws. We are governed 
by law, and we accept the governance of law as men and women under the 
laws and the flag of the United States of America. So we are not a 
country so much run by people, and when I say that, run by the whims 
that one group may have over another. We have laws that may govern 
decisions that are made. And the people concede to the laws, and the 
people express their voices about the laws or political choices through 
the vote.
  Now, in a newspaper article that was dated on Thursday, November 9, 
we find that 105 million voters set a record turnout. Some 76 percent 
of the registered voters went to the polls. Interestingly enough, Vice 
President Gore is now at this juncture the leader in the popular vote 
and, of course, the electoral count, even though we realize that 
Florida is still in play. Now, I respect all of the local officials 
that we have come to know in Florida, the local canvassing committees, 
the superintendent of elections. Each and every one of them has made 
their best effort. And like my colleague from California, I acknowledge 
that there were counts or calls being made before the eastern time zone 
of Florida, the panhandle area, was able to vote. But we know that they 
voted. Hopefully they voted. And I agree that the kind of calling of 
numbers should be considered when we do not want to disenfranchise 
voters. But might I say that the calling, the original call for Gore 
was based upon exit polling. People went out of the polls thinking, 
particularly in Palm Beach County, that they had voted for the Vice 
President.
  Now, I went to Nashville, obviously after we had concluded our work 
in Texas, and let me congratulate the elected officials in Texas and 
all the workers in Texas because we certainly worked very hard and we 
worked in agreement and disagreement, meaning that there were those who 
went and voted strongly for Governor Bush and those who voted for Vice 
President Gore, and we accept our differences and realize that this is 
democracy.
  I went on to Nashville after they had called Florida for the Vice 
President. Let me make it perfectly clear, the Vice President was in no 
way eager to delay or to not respect the fact that this may have been a 
win for the Governor of the State of Texas. It was those individuals 
who were keeping watch that encouraged the Vice President to hold his 
decision to move forward with a concession speech because all had not 
been counted. This is not an instance where one man is grabbing power 
to create disarray in this country. And it is important to note that 
there is no constitutional crisis. In fact, the transfer of power does 
not occur until January 20, 2001. In fact, December 18 is more than 3 
to 4 weeks away.
  So what do we need to do in this period that we have? We need to 
allow Volusia County, Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade County I understand 
is proceeding with a recount, and I believe Broward County is 
reconsidering. We need to have the kind of manual recount that the 1997 
law that Governor Bush signed into law for the State of Texas brings 
about. And I think the decision that Judge Lewis rendered today should 
be emphasized, and that is that the court held that the Secretary of 
State cannot arbitrarily declare that she will not permit votes to be 
counted that are received after 5 p.m. but that she must receive and be 
prepared to consider vote counts that are reported after that time. 
That was the principal objective of all of those who were arguing that 
the Secretary of State's decision was arbitrary in the first place not 
to allow the recount to occur.
  This is not a decision from the top down. This is a decision or a 
desire from the bottom up. The people of Palm Beach County and other 
counties desire to have a manual recount. Yes, it was asked for 
officially within the time frame by the Gore camp but rightfully so in 
light of those who had argued that they were sorely confused when they 
went in and saw a ballot that had the areas to poke in contradiction to 
the memo that was sent

[[Page 26135]]

out that all of those holes that should be pointed should have been to 
the right as opposed to some to the left.
  So what we have at hand is an opportunity to have the Presidency 
earned and not handed to one candidate over another. You can be assured 
that the history of this Nation, some 400 years strong, will be a 
history that will warrant and will bring about a unified Nation that 
will rally around the ultimate winner of this Presidential election.
  Why are we fearful? Why are we frightened? Why are we hesitant to 
know the actual winner? Why do we disallow the State of Florida, which 
is in play, and someone has said to the distinguished gentleman from 
California, well, we have got troubles in Iowa and troubles in 
Wisconsin and troubles in Illinois and troubles in New Mexico. If the 
people speak in those respective States, we will listen. But in the 
State of Florida, Florida is the key State that deals with whether or 
not either of the gentlemen will be the next President of the United 
States. That is the 25 electoral votes that are now in question. And it 
is the people of that State who have argued that they were confused and 
that a series of violations thwarted their being able to fully and 
justly vote their conscience.

                              {time}  1830

  If you have people coming out of the polls saying, I thought I had 
voted for Gore, but now I believe I voted for someone else, and this 
State is a State that will put whatever candidate it is over the top to 
make that person the President of all of the Nation, with 105 million 
voters of all walks of life, and the controversy in Florida being 
representative of people from all walks of life, this is not a black or 
white issue, or Hispanic or white issue, or any kind of issue, other 
than an American issue and a voters issue.
  I recall that in some of our early histories, we were not all counted 
as voters. Non-property owners were not counted as voters. African 
Americans in the early census were three-fifths of a person and 
certainly not counted as a voter. Women were not allowed to vote.
  We have a new America today, and I believe that this is a rush to 
judgment, and I hope we present our case where it is not being 
personalized. It may be that I am a Democrat and someone else is a 
Republican, but I can assure those who might listen that if these 
issues were in the forefront of the Bush camp, they would be pursued as 
vigorously by their constituency base as others.
  I also note that I do not think any of us, I would say to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), I do not think any of us have 
rejected any call for recounts by Governor Bush. I have not heard 
anyone say that they did not want it or we would stand in the way of 
it. I think whatever the rules are of the State of Florida, he has 
every right to call for such.
  Mr. SHERMAN. If I can interject here, the Governor of Texas had, for 
most counties, 72 hours. If he was dedicated to an accurate count, he 
could have in all the counties or some of the counties, he could have 
asked for a manual recount. He knew a manual recount was the more 
accurate way to do it. He signed the law for the State of Texas, your 
State, that says that that is the preferred method of a recount.
  But they were so dedicated to using political push to try to shame 
anybody into asking, to try to use this political spin to prevent an 
accurate count, that they themselves allowed the deadline to go by and 
did not ask for a recount by hand in any of the counties of Florida. 
Then they complain that right now there are only four counties of 
Florida planning to do a manual recount. It is as a direct result of 
their decision, which they had plenty of time to consider, not to ask 
for a recount by hand.
  But I would say that neither you nor I nor the Vice President have 
said that we would oppose a manual recount in any county in Florida, 
notwithstanding the point that, on the one hand, Governor Bush wants to 
have his cake by being able to pound the table and try to use political 
spin to prevent an accurate recount; and then he might, we hope, change 
his mind and ask for an accurate recount in some of the counties that 
he is concerned with. I do not think I would oppose it, and I do not 
think you would oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If I might do so in order to close on the 
comment I made, and I thank the gentleman for his kindness, in fact it 
has been brought to my attention that Mr. Baker had indicated that hand 
counts have only occurred in Democratic precincts. It has come to my 
attention that seven counties have done some form of hand counts, and 
Bush has carried six of those counties. They did that on their own.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly. In Seminole County, for example, there was a 
hand recount that provided Bush with an additional 90-some votes. He is 
claiming the Presidency; he wants it awarded to him immediately on the 
basis of a lead of about 300 votes. Over 100 of those come from the 
hand count in just one county where he can say he did not ask for it, 
but he wants the votes from it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It occurred. I think that point is very 
important. Of course, when you get sort of global news reporting, those 
finite points do not get offered because it appears, of course, that 
the voices that speak are only partisan.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I can assure you that, 
obviously, we may be looking at these issues, these sort of issues that 
have been brought to our attention maybe for months and months to come. 
That certainly will not be the time frame that the Presidency will be 
extended or the question of who will be President, but I just do not 
want us to give short shrift to some of the important issues that have 
been raised.
  I do want to note that a large number of Voting Rights Act violations 
have been cited that will have to be addressed. That is why we have the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The lack of bilingual individuals at the 
poll, the fact that minority voters were being stopped in certain 
polling places, 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 had not been processed, not their 
fault. Citizens properly registered were denied to vote because 
election officials could not find their names. These are very large 
issues in a Presidential election.
  I am looking at several pieces of legislation, one to study the 
impact of the electoral college. I know there is existing legislation 
to eliminate it. I do not know if we can make these immediate judgment 
calls right now; but, again, let me emphasize that the Vice President 
is the beneficiary of the votes of large numbers of Americans. 105 
million came out to vote. So his efforts, I would hope, would be more 
focused or be perceived to be focused, as I believe they are, on 
getting an accurate and fair count for a position as important as the 
Presidency of the United States.
  With the Voter Rights Act violations in play, with the whole idea of 
the people themselves wanting to have a recount, Palm Beach County in 
particular, with 19,000 ballots being thrown out in a county smaller 
than my county in Harris County, which only had 6,000. We had 995,000 
voters, 6,000 discarded ballots as I understand it, and in that county 
in Palm Beach, 19,000, with people saying I thought I had voted for Mr. 
Gore, and as well with the ballot irregularity that I think my 
colleague will speak about in the continuation of this discussion, I 
can only say that what we should be doing is applauding what is 
happening in the State of Florida to the extent that there is such 
diligence to ensure that there is a fair and accurate count.
  I would ask the Secretary of State, duly obligated to the people of 
the State of Florida, to lay aside any desires for partisanship that 
may be viewed necessary at this time, and to allow the people that she 
represents to carry forth with the manual recount that is now going on.
  I would also ask her discretion in bearing with these unpaid, I do 
not know how many of them are paid, but I know in my community they are 
volunteers, that if by chance Friday night they are not finished and 
Saturday evening they are not finished, that there be some opportunity 
for this to be followed through.

[[Page 26136]]

  I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me the opportunity to 
join him in what I think should be an explanation that is a sincere 
explanation for the betterment of this country.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate the comments of 
the gentlewoman from Texas and the wisdom she brings us from her 
service on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I want to expand on one thing the gentlewoman pointed out, and that 
is the perception that someone who happens to want an appointment in 
the Bush administration, and says so to the press, and who chairs his 
campaign in Florida, would be making these decisions. The ultimate 
decision should be made by the courts.
  Now, they are not perfect either; but I have spent the last several 
years in partisan politics, and to leave this in the hands of a 
partisan politician is a big mistake. Instead, the courts of the State 
of Florida should carefully review the discretion of the Secretary of 
State and make sure that she does not act in a capricious or arbitrary 
manner.
  Now, I want to refocus our attention on the ballot in Palm Beach 
County and remind the House that in 1998 the Florida Supreme Court 
ruled in Beckstrom versus Volusia County Canvassing Board that if the 
court finds substantial noncompliance with statutory election 
procedures and makes a factual determination that a reasonable doubt 
exists as to whether a certified election expresses the will of the 
voters, then the court is to void the contested election, even in the 
absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing.
  I do not allege any fraud or intentional wrongdoing in Palm Beach, 
Florida, but the court decision of the Supreme Court of Florida is 
clear: substantial noncompliance with the statutory election 
procedures. This ballot violates those two Florida statutes, for 
example, the one that requires the name on the left and the hole to be 
on the right.
  But the real confusion caused by this ballot became apparent on 
election day. The Washington Post reported last Saturday that by mid-
morning of election day, voters were calling county commissioners, 
State legislators and other elected officials to complain about the 
confusing butterfly ballot and request that something be done. By mid-
afternoon, local radio talk shows were bombarded with calls by people 
complaining about the ballot. Then a hastily written memo late in the 
afternoon was distributed from the county supervisor of elections to 
the various polling places, but they arrived after the vast majority of 
voters had already voted.
  Those who want to say that the complaints about this ballot began 
only when the pivotal nature of the vote in Palm Beach County was 
apparent to the world are wrong. The protest began on election morning, 
when the first voters left the polls confused by this ballot, this 
illegal ballot.

  Now, for example, you had one individual, Kurt Wise, who is president 
of the United Civic Organization at the Century Village Retirement 
Community, who said elderly voters confusion with the butterfly ballot 
was brought to his attention. People were crying. They were coming to 
us asking questions. The ballot form was lousy. They did not even know 
who they had voted for.

  That is the report of the Washington Post from last Saturday. Tears 
the very morning of the election, not the morning after.

  Then when some elderly voters became aware that the ballot had caused 
them to make a mistake, they were not given a second ballot, as is 
their right under Florida law if they turn in their damaged ballot. 
Bernard Holtzer, a retirement community inhabitant, said that after he 
unintentionally voted for Pat Buchannan, and after looking at this 
ballot you can see how he would make that mistake, a clerk refused his 
request for a second ballot. ``I told the clerk I made a boo-boo and 
that I wanted a new ballot, and she told me there was nothing I could 
do about it.'' That was the New York Times, reporting last Saturday.

  Then there were the poll workers who were told not to help voters 
with the problem, or any problem. They were under strict instructions 
to turn away voters who came to them with questions. Louise Austin, a 
precinct worker in Bolston Beach, said after getting beseeched by 
questions, she and other workers turned the voters away who were 
seeking assistance. ``People were coming up to me, and I had to follow 
the directive, do not help anyone, do not talk to anyone.'' That is the 
report of the New York Times from last Saturday.

  So we see that there were a lot of problems in Palm Beach; a 
confusing ballot, a ballot in violation of Florida statute, and a 
Florida Supreme Court decision from 2 years ago that makes it clear 
that, under these circumstances, a new vote in Palm Beach is called 
for.
  But before we get to whether there is a new vote in Palm Beach, we 
have to get an accurate count of the votes cast on election day, and 
that is why I am so disappointed and saddened that the Governor of 
Texas is trying so hard to prevent an accurate count.

  Again, let me turn to the statute he signed into law in Texas. A 
manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic 
recount. When confronted by this, James Baker had to stop talking about 
precision machines, because the machines in Florida and those in Texas 
are identical, and in Texas Governor Bush signed the law that said the 
human being outranks the machine.
  He instead had to talk about standards. He has not shown us the 
standards in Texas; but what is worse, he has not suggested particular 
standards to any county in Florida. If James Baker has good standards, 
if George W. Bush has good standards, if somewhere in the deep bowels 
of the bureaucracy of Texas there are standards that could be helpful 
in providing the best possible manual recount, we ought to see them.
  Instead, we are told that the machines are better than the human 
being. A machine that would take the ballot of a veteran of World War 
II and disenfranchise that veteran because there was a crease in the 
ballot, that is not a machine that should determine the Presidency of 
the United States.

                              {time}  1845

  So to sum up, Mr. Speaker, we have a misleading ballot in one county 
that was illegal and under Florida law should lead to a new election in 
that county. We have a recount that should ultimately, under the laws 
of the State of Florida, lead to being the tally of manual recounts in 
the 40 counties in which those manual recounts were duly applied for, 
and if Mr. Bush wants to announce to the world that he is suddenly in 
favor of manual recounts, then I do not see anyone who would oppose him 
if he tried to get a manual recount in some of those other counties. I 
would point out, though, that I think James Baker would have a tough 
time being his spokesperson on that issue.

  Speaking of Mr. Baker's acting as spokesperson, there is one small 
aspect of this I really want to focus on, and that is the tendency of 
those on the Bush side to insult the parents of the campaign chairman 
on the Gore side. We have many heated debates here in the House, but I 
have never insulted the father of any Member, and I never thought that 
even if the father of a Member of this House had done something 
erroneous or wrong, that that would be a reason to discard and discount 
what that Member had to say. So why is it that James Baker finds it 
necessary to insult Bill Daley by insulting his father, as if insulting 
a man's father proves the rightness of one's case. If the best debater 
they have, James Baker, has nothing to say but ``so is your old man'', 
then they have run out of things to say on the Republican side.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that democracy will prevail in 
this country.




                          ____________________