Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to thank and commend Chairman Lugar for all of his hard work and leadership in bringing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to the point of this final, agreed upon bill, which will be a part of the appropriations measure passed later today. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Chairman Lugar on this important legislation and to cosponsor it. This bill will bring much-needed modernization, legal certainty, clarification and reform to the regulation of futures, options and over-the-counter financial derivatives. At the same time, it maintains regulatory oversight of the agricultural futures and options markets and continues and improves protections for investors and the public interest with regard to futures, options and derivatives. The legislation carries out the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. Members and staff of the Working Group, especially the Department of the Treasury, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, were instrumental in helping to craft the bill. And it is significant that this final version of the bill is strongly supported by all members of President's Working Group on Financial Markets. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Working Group be printed in the Record at the conclusion of this statement.

Mr. HARKIN. After many years of effort, this legislation resolves a number of very difficult issues regarding the trading of futures on securities--issues that have caused a great many headaches as well as disparities in the markets over the years. I am pleased that we have been able to arrive at solutions that clear away regulatory impediments to market development, while maintaining and strengthening investor protections and addressing margin and tax issues in order to avoid giving any market an inappropriate competitive advantage over others involved in related transactions. Clearly, modernizing the regulatory scheme for futures and derivatives must be balanced with maintaining and strengthening protection for individual investors and the public interest. The principal anti-fraud provision of the Commodity Exchange Act is section 4b, which the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has consistently relied upon to combat fraudulent conduct, such as by bucket shops and boiler rooms that enter into transactions directly with their customers, even though such conduct does not involve a traditional broker-client relationship. Reliance on section 4b in such circumstances has been supported in federal courts that have examined the issue, and is fully consistent with the understanding of Congress and with past amendments to Section 4b, which confirmed the applicability of Section 4b to fraudulent actions by parties that enter transactions directly with customers. It is the intent of Congress in retaining Section 4b in this bill that the provision not be limited to fiduciary, broker-client or other agency-like relationships. Section 4b provides the Commission with broad authority to police fraudulent conduct within its jurisdiction, whether occurring in boiler rooms and bucket shops, or in the e-commerce and other markets that will develop under this new statutory framework. I would also like to discuss my views regarding the substantial regulatory changes for electronic markets in derivatives relating to non-agricultural commodities. Essentially, those commodities are energy and metals. With particular regard to energy, given the recent high volatility in energy markets--with dramatic price increases for gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and electricity--we must take great care in whatever Congress does affecting the way in which markets in energy function. In the Agriculture Committee, I worked to remove an outright exclusion from the bill and basically to continue with the substantial exemption the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had already granted for energy and metal derivatives. Later, there were further negotiations to arrive at the provisions on this subject that are in this bill. While I still have certain reservations about the energy and metals markets, I recognize the need for compromise, particularly in considering the overall importance and positive features of this legislation. This bill's language and Congressional intent is clear that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission retains a substantial role in ensuring the honesty, integrity and transparency of these markets. For exempt commodities that are traded on a trading facility, this bill clearly specifies that if the Commission determines that the facility performs a significant cash market price discovery function, the Commission will be able to ensure that price, trading volume and any other appropriate trading data will be disseminated as determined by the Commission. This bill also clearly continues in full effect the Commission's anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority with regard to exempt transactions in energy and metals derivatives markets. I also want to mention and express appreciation for the cooperation of Chairman Gramm and Ranking Member Sarbanes of the Banking Committee in completing this bill. With respect to banking products, the language of the bill clarifies what is already the current state of the law. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not regulate traditional banking products: deposit accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, banker's acceptances, letters of credit, loans, credit card accounts and loan participations. The language of Title IV of this bill is very clear and very tightly worded. It requires that to qualify for the exclusion, a bank must first obtain a certification from its regulator that the identified bank product was commonly offered by that bank prior to December 5, 2000. The product must have been actively bought, sold, purchased or offered--and not be just a customized deal that the bank may have done for a handful of clients. The product cannot be one that was either prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act or regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In other words--a bank cannot pull a futures product out of regulation by using this provision. For new products, Title IV is also abundantly clear: the Commodity Exchange Act does not apply to new bank products that are not indexed to the value of a commodity. Again, the plain language is clear and the intent of Congress is clear that no bank may use this exclusion to remove products from proper regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act. Lastly, Title IV allows hybrid products to be excluded from the Commodity Exchange Act if, and only if, they pass a ``predominance test'' that indicates that they are primarily an identified banking product and not a contract, agreement or transaction appropriately regulated by the CFTC. While the statute provides a mechanism for resolving disputes about the application of this test, there is no intent that a product which flunks this test be regulated by anyone other than the CFTC. Once again, I commend Chairman Lugar and Congressman Tom Ewing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty Crops, as well as all staff involved for their outstanding work in making this important legislation a reality. Exhibit 1 December 15, 2000. Hon. Tom Harkin, Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Harkin: The Members of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets strongly support the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This important legislation will allow the United States to maintain its competitive position in the over-the-counter derivative markets by providing legal certainty and promoting innovation, transparency and efficiency in our financial markets while maintaining appropriate protections for transactions in non-financial commodities and for small investors. Sincerely, Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury. Arthur Levitt, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. William J. Rainer, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are finally at the finish line at the end of a legislative triathalon. It's been a long, difficult road, but we've finally come up with a health and education appropriations bill for this fiscal year. It truly was a test of endurance. Not only can we take pride in having survived the experience, but, even more importantly, we've produced a bipartisan agreement that is a victory for the health and education of our nation. This agreement is not only a model for giving our nation the building blocks we need for a strong and secure future. It is a model of how Democrats and Republicans can work together across party lines to do what is the best interest of the American people. Believe me, it hasn't been easy. Before the election, Senator Stevens, Senate Byrd, Senator Specter, and I, along with Congressmen Bill Young, Dave Obey, and John Porter worked for months to craft a solid bipartisan agreement. At times the negotiations got heated, but both sides hung in there, and in the end we came up with a good compromise. That bipartisan agreement would have passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate--which is why we were all just baffled when, less than 12 hours after we had signed our names to the bill, a tiny faction of the House Republican leadership decided to kill it. As a result, some reductions had to be made, some of which were very disappointing. I hope that in the next Congress, a spirit of cooperation and civility will prevail and prevent these sort of last- minute, partisan maneuvers. That being said, I believe that the version of our bill that we have here today is a very, very good one. It maintains most of our hard fought gains and provides critical investments to improve health care, education, and labor conditions for all Americans. I want to extend my sincere thanks and commendation to my long-time partner, Senator Arlen Specter and his staff. We have had a great bipartisan partnership on this bill for a decade. Year after year, Senator Specter has done yeoman's work, and it is a pleasure to work with him. This is always a difficult bill to maneuver and this year may have been our toughest. I also want thank and commend our chairman, Senator Stevens, and ranking member Senator Byrd for their great work. This bill would not be possible without their outstanding and steadfast efforts. Finally, I want to thank our colleagues on the House side, Congressman Obey, Congressman Porter, and Chairman Bill Young. I especially want to commend Congressman Porter who is retiring this year. Here are some of the reasons why I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan agreement. Education funding: $1.6 billion to lower class sizes, up from $1.3 billion last year; $900 million to repair and modernize crumbling schools: should result in over $5 billion in school repairs, based on successful Iowa model; and increase to $3,750 for the maximum Pell grant--that's a record increase in the grants to make college more affordable; and $6.2 billion for Head Start: that's a $933 million increase from last year which will allow thousands of additional children to be served. Afterschool care: $850 million for after school care: nearly 50 percent increase. Home heating: $1.4 billion for LIHEAP to help low-income Americans heat their homes this winter: a $300 million increase. Health care: $20.3 billion for NIH funding: $2.5 billion increase, the largest increase ever; thousands of new research projects on Alzheimer's, cancer, childhood diabetes, HIV, Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy, and others; $125 million for new program to assist family caregivers struggling to keep elderly loved ones in their homes--provide respite and other needed services. I am also especially excited about the funding in this bill for the Medical Errors Reduction Act of 2000 which Senator Specter and I introduced. Medical errors are estimated to be the 5th leading cause of death in this country. In fact, more people die from medical errors each year than from motor vehicles accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), or AIDS (16,516). Our bill gives grants to states to establish reporting systems designed to reduce medical errors. It also calls for better research, training and public information on the issue of medical errors. I'm also very proud of the funding in this bill for numerous programs that will give people with disabilities a real choice to live in their own communities near their families and friends. Most notably, this bill includes $50 million for systems change grants to help states reform their long-term care systems and make it easier for people with disabilities and the elderly to live at home. This is just the beginning of our work to help states meet their so- called Olmstead obligation to provide services and supports to people with disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate and feasible. This year is the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and these provisions are a great way to implement the ADA's ideals of independence and justice for all. Finally, I would like to mention how pleased I am with the FAIR Act-- the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act--that is attached to the LHHS Appropriations Bill, I, Senator Thomas, and several other Members of Congress introduced this bipartisan bill to provide Medicare providers relief from the excessive payment reductions resulting from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This bill will allow approximately 30 states, including Iowa, to benefit from fairer Medicare payments to states below the national average. This bill allots approximately $35 billion over 5 years for reimbursement improvements to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing facilities, rural health providers and Medicare managed care. It will help our struggling rural hospitals, nursing facilities and home health agencies continue to provide quality care to seniors in Iowa and across the nation. The bill will also help to improve enrollment rates for families and children in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. While I'm disappointed that our original LHHS Appropriations compromise was derailed, this bill is still a major step forward. It provides important investments in the health, education and productivity of all Americans. This bill would not have been possible without the tireless, often heroic work of my staff. They's worked late nights and long weekends, and I am incredibly grateful for their expertise and excellent advice. I would especially like to thank Ellen Murray, Lisa Bernhardt, Peter Reinecke, Katie Corrigan, Sabrina Corlette, and Bev Schroeder for their outstanding work. In passing this bill, I am hopeful that we will move beyond the partisan bickering that stalled our negotiations for so long. With this year's elections, the American people sent us a strong message. They gave us one of the closest Presidential elections in history along with an evenly divided Senate and a closely divided House. Clearly, they are tired of the bickering and bitterness that have characterized our politics, and they want us to bridge our differences and work together for their best interests. It is now time for us to come together and heed their call.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this subject. It is also my understanding that relevant federal, state, industry, labor, citizen, and environmental parties should participate in this study so as to gain a broader range of views and recommendations on the current problem and future solutions in order to prevent such problems as he has described from occurring again. Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, many members on both sides of the aisle have concerns about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the lack of an advance appropriation for that program in fiscal year 2002. As you know, home heating costs have skyrocketed over the past year in many areas of the country. The LIHEAP program helps over four million low-income households with their heating bills. Usually this appropriations bill includes advance funding for LIHEAP so that states have time to plan their program, but due to a provision in the budget resolution capping advance appropriations we were not able to do so this year. I hope, as I know you do, that we finish our work on this bill before October 1 next year. But if we do not, I think we should do everything we can to see that any continuing resolution for fiscal year 2002 would include sufficient funds for States to properly run their LIHEAP programs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the first anniversary of U.S. ratification of the ILO's newest core human rights convention: ILO Convention #182--the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Last Friday was not just the first anniversary of ILO Convention #182. It was also the date on which Convention #182 came into effect in the United States. That means the first report on U.S. compliance with the terms of this treaty is due in Geneva by next September. I have long been deeply involved in the struggle to end abusive child labor. Ten years ago, the scourge of abusive child labor was spreading in the U.S. and throughout the world with little notice or concern from our government. That is why I supported the first-ever, day-long Capitol Hill forum on the Commercial Exploitation of Children. I had two primary goals in mind back then. First, I wanted to sound an alarm about the increase in abusive child labor in the U.S. and overseas. Second, I wanted to elevate this human rights and worker rights challenge to a global priority. I am heartened to report that significant progress has been made in the past decade, even though much remains to be done. In June of 1999, ILO Convention #182 was adopted unanimously--the first time ever that an ILO convention was approved without one dissenting vote. Just one year ago, the Senate, in record time, ratified ILO Convention #182 with a bipartisan, 96-0 vote. And today, 41 countries have ratified ILO Convention #182--countries from every region of the world. 12 African nations, 12 European nations, 10 American Caribbean nations, 5 from the Middle East, and 2 from Asia. Since the ILO was established in 1919, never has one of its treaties been ratified so quickly by so many national governments. In May of 2000, we enacted the Trade and Development Act of 2000. This Act included a provision I authored that requires more than 100 nations that enjoy duty-free access to the American marketplace to implement their legal commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in order to keep these trade privileges. Since May, the State Department has demanded thorough review of the efforts of over 130 nations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. The U.S. Labor Department is planning to file its first comprehensive report to Congress on whether countries that enjoy preferential access to our markets are fulfilling their obligations de facto until ILO Convention #182. And they've dispatched fact-finding teams around the world to investigate. Their findings will be submitted to an inter-agency review process chaired by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Later this year, this process will decide which beneficiary countries should retain their trade privileges and which should not. Last year, this Congress approved a $30 million U.S. contribution to the ILO's International Program to Eliminate Child Labor (IPEC) for Fiscal Year 2000. This made our country the single largest contributor to IPEC. And--if and when we finally approve our LHHS Appropriations Bill--our contribution will increase to $45 million in Fiscal Year 2001. This is yet another reason for us to wrap up that legislation before we adjourn. That's the good news, Mr. President. But we've got a long way to go in our battle to eliminate abusive child labor and open up a bright future for more than 250 million child laborers around the world. Our first, and perhaps most important step, is to heed ILO Convention #182 in our own country. We have to develop a national action plan to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in our midst--labor which ``by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.'' Mr. President, who among us can deny that there are children working under such circumstances in our own country? In order to be a credible leader in the world struggle against abusive child labor, we've got to do more to eliminate the worst forms of child labor right here in America. Fortunately, the Child Labor Coalition has recently convened meetings of non-governmental organizations to begin fashioning recommendations for the U.S. national action plan required by ILO Convention #182. Hopefully, President Clinton will be moved to act on some of these recommendations when they are presented to White House officials today. He has already distinguished himself as a President who has done more than all of his predecessors combined to fight abusive child labor. I conclude my remarks by describing one glaring example of abusive child labor in our own backyard that cries out for immediate legislative redress. Right now, as many as 800,000 migrant child laborers toil in the fields of large-scale commercial agriculture picking the produce we eat every day. They are working at younger ages, for longer hours, exposed to more hazardous conditions than minors working in non-agricultural jobs. Their plight has prompted me to introduce the Children's Act for Responsible Employment (S. 3100--The CARE Act) which I will push hard to enact next year. This legislation will end our current double standard in employment. It will extend to minors working in large-scale commercial agriculture--corporate farms, if you will--the same rights and legal protections as those working in non-agricultural jobs. It will also: Toughen civil and criminal penalties for willful child labor violators; protect children under 16 from working in peddling or door-to-door sales; strengthen the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Labor to deal with ``hot goods'' made by children and shipped in interstate commerce; improve coordination and reporting among federal, state, and local governments on injuries and deaths of minors on the job; improve collaboration between the U.S. Labor and Agriculture Departments to enforce federal child labor laws; and preserve exemptions for minors working on family farms as well as those selling door-to-door as volunteers for non-profit organizations like the Girl Scouts of America. So today, we should all celebrate that day one year ago when we took the high road and ratified ILO Convention #182. But we cannot rest on our laurels. In the next Congress, we've got to re-dedicate ourselves to restoring the childhoods of millions of child laborers and lifting them up from the cruel hand that they and their impoverished families have been dealt.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Dick Bryan is one of few people who has served in this Chamber who has literally devoted nearly his entire life to serving the people of his state and nation. Senator Bryan's distinguished career started the day he took the oath of office as president of his 8th grade class at John S. Park Elementary School. It continued when he took office as president of his sophomore and senior classes at Las Vegas High School and student body president at the University of Nevada-Reno. After graduating from law school, he served as deputy district attorney in Clark County and was then appointed as Clark County's first public defender at age 28. He did two terms in the Nevada State Assembly. Two terms in the Nevada State Senate. A term as Attorney General. Two terms as Nevada Governor. And he's now done two terms in the United States Senate. He is the only Nevadan ever to have served as his state's Attorney General, Governor, and United States Senator. He's also one of few, if any, Senators who've managed to pull an extraordinary triple play and serve on the three major fiscal committees--Finance, Commerce, and Banking. And he's used these positions to fight harder than just about anyone else here to protect American consumers. As former member of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, he passed an amendment requiring the installation of passenger side air bags in all cars sold in America. Over the years, this piece of legislation has saved hundreds of lives. Senator Bryan was also one of the early leaders on privacy issues in this Congress. He led the charge to enact the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act--the first ever federal Internet privacy protection legislation. He has also been leading the fight to add new privacy regulations into the banking industry. In addition, Senator Bryan authored laws to reduce telemarketing fraud and to give consumers new rights in combating errors on personal credit reports. He passed the PMI legislation which protects people from having to pay hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars to private mortgage insurance lenders once they have enough equity in their homes. And he was one of the lead sponsors of Airline Passenger Bill of Rights. Along with Senator McCain, he passed important boxing reform bills to protect the health and safety of boxers and to maintain the integrity of the sport. And finally, he has worked tirelessly to protect his constituents from nuclear waste dumping in Nevada. The one consolation I take when I think about him retiring from the Senate is that he'll finally get to spend more time with his terrific wife, Bonnie. I'm hopeful that the two of them will set aside some time to come out and visit me in Iowa, especially since Senator Bryan actually has roots in my home state. His father, Oscar Bryan, was born in Des Moines. And Senator Bryan's uncle by marriage, Keith More, practiced law in Harlan, Iowa for years. Keith's brother, Jack More, was chair of the Democratic State Party in Iowa and headed up Truman's efforts in 1948. But, no matter what his current plans are, I have a sneaking suspicion that Senator Bryan isn't going to stop serving his State and his country for a long time to come. He has done it honorably since he was a boy, and he still has a tremendous amount to offer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I should like to take a few moments today to honor the life of a great Iowan and a great American--a man who dedicated many years of his life in service to the people of Iowa and our nation--our friend Park Rinard. It's been said that on the day John F. Kennedy died, a tailor in New York put a sign on the door of his shop that read, ``Closed Due to a Death in the Family.'' Well, that's how I felt when I heard that Park had passed away, like we had had a death in our family. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Park's funeral. It was held during the week before election day, and I had committed to campaign for Al Gore and other Democratic candidates in Iowa. I felt awful that I would be missing the service, and I thought about taking the day off to attend it. But then it occurred to me--by hitting the road and working to get good Iowa Democrats elected, I was paying my respects just the way Park would have wanted. Park Rinard was a legend in Iowa Democratic politics. He began his political career back in 1957 as an aide to Governor Herschel Loveless. He then befriended a rough-hewn, young, Iowa truck driver who had a beef with the state's trucking policies. Park persuaded this disgruntled fellow--a man by the name of Harold Hughes--to join the Democratic party and run for office. The rest, as they say, is history, and Hughes later referred to Park as his tutor in government. Park went on to advise Senator John Culver, Congressman Neal Smith, and many others who have made their mark on our Nation. Mr. President, when I think back on Park's career, I'm reminded of something that Adlai Stevenson once said: ``Every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of things that are to be.'' That's a perfect description of Park Rinard. Like my hero, Hubert Humphrey, Park believed that ``. . . the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy . . .'' And Park had a vision of government big enough and bold enough to encompass all of them. He envisioned a government that trusted citizens--that believed in their strength and capacity to learn, work and serve a government that would invest in people and leave the potential of no citizen untapped. Through his work with Governor Hughes, Park transformed that vision into the wave of progressive legislation that characterized the ``Golden Age'' of Iowa politics. During these years, Park helped establish Iowa's community college system, create the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and appoint the first black state judge in Iowa. He worked to grant home rule for cities, increase spending for schools, and abolish the death penalty. And he successfully convinced Governor Hughes to oppose the Vietnam war. These achievements were Park's proudest legacies, and some of his most enduring. But Park also had a vision for America--a vision which he spent the remainder of his career fighting for in Congress. He believed deeply in expanding women's rights, and he was a strong supporter of the equal rights amendment long before it penetrated the popular consciousness. He also spoke passionately about ending discrimination against gay Americans, long before many others. But make no mistake about it, Park wasn't a knee-jerk liberal, not by a long shot. He just believed in a fundamental, basic, golden rule kind of fairness. That was his moral compass, and he steadfastly followed where it led. It is therefore unsurprising that Park had such disdain for polls and focus groups. For Park, politics wasn't about pandering and spin, it was about leadership and telling the truth. And tell the truth he did. No matter whom he was speaking with, Park Rinard did not mince words. He was once asked by a hostile audience how his boss could even consider supporting food stamps for union strikers. Park simply replied, ``hungry people are hungry people.'' A gifted speechwriter, Park wielded the written word as forcefully as the spoken. He spent hours pecking away at his old manual typewriter, massaging policy into poetry often finishing a speech at the last possible moment, sometimes just minutes before his boss was scheduled to deliver it. Park never hesitated to use his gift for strong language to stand up to his bosses--some of whom were nearly twice his size--when he thought they were wrong. Park once told a fellow staffer, ``Remember, you might work for one particular Senator, but your paycheck is from the Senate of the United States, and every employee of the Senate works for the people of America.'' That was Park's ultimate loyalty--to the people his bosses served. When Park stood up to his bosses, he was standing up for the American people. And perhaps most extraordinary in this city that's seen its share of egos and ambition is that Park worked his magic entirely behind the scenes, happy to slip through back doors and pound out details in back rooms. Park felt that, as Ralph Waldo Emerson once noted, ``There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.'' He never cared who got the applause and the pat on the back for his own hard work. He just cared about doing right. Park was fundamentally humble. He spent a lot of time among giants-- Governors, Presidential candidates, great political leaders--but his ego never swelled to match. Park believed, as the saying goes, that ``you don't have to be who's who to know what's what.'' He was as comfortable lending a hand to a lost tourist, saying a kind word to a new intern, or shooting the breeze with a cafeteria employee as he was chewing out a Senator whom he felt had gone awry. There were no small people with Park Rinard. All people mattered to Park--and his family mattered most of all. He was a devoted husband to his wife Phyllis, a proud father to his children Judy, David and Grant, and a doting grandfather to his grandson David Bayard. Their generosity in sharing him is appreciated by all of us enriched by his life. The poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once wrote that ``Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, and, departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time.'' Park was a great man. And he left lasting footprints on the political landscape of Iowa and America. Today, in part because of the foundation he laid, Iowa leads the nation in education and literacy, and it's ranked as one of the top ten states to raise a child. And today, because of the dialogues he helped begin, the idea of banning discrimination against women and minorities or passing hate crimes laws no longer seems novel, but natural. These are Park Rinard's footprints--echoes from a golden time in our history when this slight, softspoken man made it his mission to create a more humane world for the most vulnerable among us. With his words and ideas, both written and spoken, Park Rinard appealed to the best in those he worked for and stood for nothing less. We are lucky that so many great men and women heeded his call and made good on his dreams. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the eulogy read by Senator John Culver at Park Rinard's funeral.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to continue to address the key pending piece of legislation that has not been enacted this year. It has been passed by both the House and Senate. In the conference committee, we finished our work. But it is sort of hanging in limbo. That is the funding bill for Education, Health and Human Services, other important programs such as the National Institutes of Health, and, of course, the low-income heating energy assistance program which is so vital to many of our low-income and elderly citizens who live in the northeastern part of the United States and in a lot of the other northern parts of America. That bill right now is in limbo. We passed the appropriations bill in the Senate; the House passed the bill. Then ensued about 4 months of very tough negotiations between the House and the Senate, culminating in a marathon session that took place one weekend before we left, a couple weeks before the election, in which we agreed. When I say ``we,'' I mean Chairman Stevens of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Byrd, our ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee; Senator Specter, who is the chairman of the education appropriations subcommittee; and me. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee. On the House side, we had Chairman Young of Florida, the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee; we had Congressman Porter, who is chairman of the subcommittee on that side; Congressman Obey, ranking member on the subcommittee, and also ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. We all agreed. It was a Sunday, and we were there until 2 a.m. on Monday morning. We finally agreed. The negotiations were heated. Many times we were hung up on certain things, but in the end we came up with a good compromise. That was Monday morning. That was right before we left for the election. Less than 12 hours later, a faction within the House Republican leadership, led by Congressman DeLay and Congressman Armey, decided to renege on that bipartisan compromise. We were all baffled by this sudden decision. We spent many late hours compromising, negotiating, giving and taking. I think we came to an honorable, mutually satisfactory agreement. Again, no one was 100-percent happy with it. For example, I was extremely displeased that an important regulation protecting workers from workplace injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome was delayed yet again, for the third year in a row, despite the fact that last year's conference report contained explicit language stating it would not be delayed any further. Well, Republicans insisted we try to delay this yet again. Each year, over 600,000 American workers suffer disabling, work- related, musculoskeletal disorders. This costs employers $15 billion to $20 billion a year in compensation. It may cost our economy upwards of $60 billion annually. I was especially disappointed because this so- called ergonomics provision was a nonpartisan proposal initiated under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, in the Bush administration 9 years ago. Yet while I was displeased with this particular aspect of the bill, I was satisfied that the bill contained important provisions to improve education for our kids, improve health care for women and the elderly, fund needed research at the NIH, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare--provisions that are far too important to be destroyed by last-minute partisan politics. In this bill, we had the highest increase ever in funding for education, with 35 percent more funding for class size reduction. It meant 12,000 new teachers would be hired across America. That is what was in the bill. There was school modernization funding that would generate about $9 billion in needed school repairs to some of our older schools; $250 million to increase accountability to turn around failing schools; a 40-percent increase in grants to States for the education of kids with disabilities and special needs; the largest increase we ever gave for IDEA, from $4.9 billion to $6.9 billion; the largest increase ever for Pell grants, to make college more affordable to working families. That is what was in this bill--the largest increase ever for Pell grants; the biggest increase for grants to States for educating kids with disabilities; school modernization, the first time ever, which would have funded about $9 billion in needed school repairs; 35- percent funding for class size reduction, the most ever. That is just in education. In child care, again, was a record amount of money, an additional $817 million that would have covered 220,000 more children in America to have child care; afterschool care, $546 million in this bill, so that 850,000 children in America could have some form of afterschool care. Health care. We added money so that 1.5 million more patient visits could take place at our community health centers around America. We put in an additional $18 million for breast and cervical cancer treatment and screening, an additional $1.7 million for NIH research--the highest level we have ever given, the biggest increase ever for funding at the NIH. I mentioned earlier a record amount for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, so that the elderly and low income in the northeastern parts of our country can get the heat they need this winter. That is what is in the bill. It addresses the educational needs of our country, child care, health care, medical research, and, as I said, things such as home heating for the elderly and low income. Well, each side won some battles; each side lost some. Isn't that what compromise is about? Isn't that what bipartisanship is about, where I don't get my way all the time and you don't get your way all the time? Maybe I will get some of what I want and maybe you will get some of what you want. That is what bipartisanship is about. We hear all this talk about bipartisanship. It looks as if next year the Senate is going to be right down the middle, 50-50, for the first time ever. If there is ever a time that we need bipartisanship, where we have to mentally understand that we Democrats don't get our way all the time and you Republicans don't get your way all the time but we work these things out, it is now. That is what we did on this appropriations bill. As I said, it took us almost 5 months of tough negotiations, with strong feelings about this. Finally, we shook hands and we all signed our names to it and we walked out of the room. Then, two Republicans on the House side, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Armey, turned thumbs down on it after we had done our work to reach a bipartisan agreement. Well, if we are going to set the stage for working closer together next year, I suggest we start here and now with the appropriations bill for education. We have a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats who worked on it for 5 months know all the line items that are in it. We all agree that some are progressive, some are conservative, and there are moderates--almost the entire spectrum of the political ideology was involved in this bill. Yet we all agree, except Mr. DeLay and Mr. Armey on the House side. Why should two people in a position of power be able to tell the entire Congress and, in fact, the entire country that we are not going to have this bipartisan agreement that we reached, on which we worked so hard? Two people say that we are not going to have it. Congressman Young, with whom I served in the House, has been a distinguished House Member for a long time. He and I don't agree philosophically on a lot of things, but we worked it out. Along with Congressman Obey, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd, we worked these things out. So I hope we can tell the American people on the crucial issues of education, health care, and child care, yes, we got the message from this election. Let's work in a bipartisan way, just as we did on this bill, and let's send this bill down to the President for his signature. Some are now suggesting, I hear, that we adopt a full year's continuing resolution, that we disband all of the work we did on this bill and just go to a full year's continuing resolution. Not only would that be an abdication of our responsibility and send exactly the wrong message, but it would be exactly the wrong start for the next 2 years of an evenly divided Senate and a closely divided House. As I said, it would throw out one of the best examples of bipartisan cooperation that we were able to muster this year. Even worse, a full year's continuing resolution would be a step backward for the education of our kids and the health care available to all Americans. If we had a continuing resolution, it would wipe out all the gains I spoke of, including class size reduction, Head Start, and breast and cervical cancer treatment and screening. I have a chart which shows one of the things that would happen if we do not adopt the appropriations bill on education and health. As I said, we have the largest increase ever for NIH funding. Why did we do that? We did that because this Congress a few years ago voted overwhelmingly that we were going to double the funding in 5 years for the NIH. Republicans voted for it and Democrats voted for it. Both Senator Specter and I took that charge. We have been adding that money to double that. This year we have a $1.7 billion increase for NIH funding to get it up to double. That increase means that under the current bill about which I am speaking we will be able to fund 9,500 new research project grants over and above what we have had in the past. If we have just a continuing resolution, we will be able to fund only 5,000, and 4,500 new research grants will not be funded next year if we don't get this bill to the President and have just a continuing resolution. What does that mean? It means things such as Alzheimer's disease, child cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, childhood diabetes, HIV, Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy--I have a whole list. I will not read the whole list--all of the things that we are very close to making breakthroughs on--spinal cord injury is another one--and are very close to making tremendous breakthroughs with the new tools that we have--the human genome project is being finished; stem cell research is being done. We are close to making tremendous breakthroughs. Who knows? One of these 4,500 grants that wouldn't be funded could be the one key that unlocked the door to which we could find interventions and a cure for Parkinson's disease. It could be one of those 4,500. But it won't be funded if we don't pass this bill. That is what is at stake. These are the things that won't be funded: Research to develop drugs to prevent Alzheimer's disease, clinical trial efforts on childhood cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, childhood diabetes, and HIV. They are just a few of the things that would be cut back. A full year's continuing resolution would cut NIH research by 47 percent. Forty-five hundred new research project grants would not be funded. I wanted to take this time because this is our first day back. We were back once since the election, but this is the first time we have been back to really get some legislative work done. The Christmas season is about upon us. People will be anxious to get out of here and get home to spend time with their families and constituents. But we can't shortchange the American people. Are we going to shortchange our kids? Are we going to say to the teachers across America that we are not going to reduce class size? Are we going to say to our property taxpayers around the country that we are not going to help them rebuild their crumbling schools; that they will have to take it out of their property taxes? Are we going to say to families hard pressed, who need school care for their kids and who may live in a place where they really need some afterschool care, that we are not going to fund that either? What about a working family that has a few kids and one of them is doing well in school and wants to go on to college but they can't afford it? They need a Pell grant. Yet we are not going to give the additional money for the Pell grants. What about our school systems that are hard pressed around this Nation because more and more of the burden of educating kids with special needs is falling upon our local property taxpayers and they are finding it more and more difficult to meet their constitutional requirements of equal education for kids with disabilities but they aren't able to fund it because the property taxpayers are overburdened as it is? We have a 40-percent increase in this bill to help our local schools make sure they can meet their constitutional obligation to educate kids with disabilities. We have a continuing resolution, and there that goes. I think the election is very clear. People in America want us to operate in a bipartisan fashion. This is the opportunity for us to show them that we mean it. We have a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate, passed by the House, worked out in conference committee, and agreed to by Republicans and by Democrats. Are we going to say that two people in the majority party in the House are able to say they don't like it? Is that what bipartisanship is going to be about around here--that we can all work in a bipartisan fashion but when it gets to the higher echelon of leadership in the House, they don't like it and they can operate by themselves? Is that what bipartisanship means? I don't think that is what the American people think bipartisanship means. I believe the American people believe bipartisanship is exactly what we did on the education bill. We worked hard on it and lost. We negotiated. We sat and we sat and we talked and talked. We left and came back. We finally worked it out--not to my satisfaction, not to the satisfaction, I am sure, of Senator Specter, and not to the satisfaction, I am sure, of any one of us. We all had different ideas of what should be in it, but we all gave a little bit. In giving a little bit, we were able to get a bipartisan bill. I say to my friends on the Republican side--I shouldn't say it here; we had agreement in the Senate. I would be preaching to the choir. But I say to my Republican friends on the House side that if you really want to show the American people that we can work in a bipartisan spirit, this is the chance to show it--with the education bill. What a great Christmas gift this would be to the hard-working families of America, to our kids, and to the teachers. What a great Christmas gift this would be to millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, AIDS, and cancer. What a great Christmas gift it would be to them to say we are not going to back down and that we are going to fund the National Institutes of Health; we are going to put the money into this basic research to find the cures that we know are there. I think that is the Christmas present Congress ought to give to the American people. I am hopeful that before this week is out cooler heads will prevail and that we will take this bipartisan bill on education and health and send it down to the President, who has indicated that he would indeed sign it. That would be the best Christmas present we could give to the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at 2:15 to finish my statement.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at 2:15 for 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over a month has passed since the Republican and Democratic negotiators came to agreement on the health and education appropriations bill for this year. As I said back then, the agreement was reached as a product of long and difficult bipartisan negotiations. Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, and I, along with Congressmen Bill Young, Congressman David Obey, and Congressman John Porter, worked for months to craft this agreement. Chairman Stevens and Chairman Young had been charged by their leadership to lead these negotiations to closure so that we could pass this very important bill. That is exactly what they did. At times when negotiations got heated, both sides hung in there, and in the end we came up with a compromise. Neither side liked everything that was in it, but it was a true compromise. Less than 12 hours after we reached agreement, the faction within the House leadership led by Congressman DeLay and Congressman Armey decided to renege on our bipartisan conference. We were baffled by this sudden decision. We spent many late hours giving and taking, compromising, and negotiating. We came to an honorable, mutually satisfactory agreement. As I said, no one was 100-percent happy with it. For example, I was extremely displeased that, at the insistence of Republicans, an important regulation protecting workers from workplace injuries--such as carpal-tunnel syndrome--was delayed yet again; despite the fact that last year's conference report contained explicit language, it would be delayed further. Each year, over 600,000 American workers suffer disabling, work- related, musculoskeletal disorders that cost employers $15 billion to $20 billion a year in compensation. It may cost our economy as much as $60 billion total a year. I was especially disappointed in the delay because this ergonomic provision, as a nonpartisan proposal, initiated under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in the Bush administration 9 years ago. While I was displeased with certain aspects of the bill, I was satisfied that the bill contained important provisions to improve the education of our kids, provide health care for working women, and safeguards for Social Security and Medicare. Those provisions are far too important to be destroyed by last-minute partisan politics. There is a 21-percent overall increase in education funding in this bill and 35-percent more funding for class size reduction. This means 12,000 new teachers across America will be making a difference for 648,000 children. There is school modernization funding that will generate approximately $9 billion for school repairs; $250 million to increase accountability to turn around failing schools; a 40-percent increase in IDEA grants, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants, to States; the largest increase ever in Pell grants, so that college is affordable to working families and their kids; 70,000 more kids will get Head Start under this bill; an additional $817 million for child care to serve 220,000 more children; another almost $.5 billion for afterschool care for 850,000 kids. In the health care area, there will be 1.4 million more patient visits to community health centers under this bill with an additional $150 million; an additional $18 million for breast and cervical cancer screening; an additional $1.7 billion for NIH funding, the largest ever; home heating, an additional $300 million for the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program. In the end, each side won some battles and each side lost, but we ended up with a fair and honorable agreement that was in the best interests of our Nation. That is what bipartisan compromise is all about. Some are suggesting we just adopt a full year's continuing resolution. Not only would that be an abdication of our responsibility, but it would be exactly the wrong start to the next 2 years of a possibly evenly divided Senate and closely divided House. It would toss out one of the best examples of bipartisan cooperation that we have had this year, the bipartisan cooperation to enact the Labor-Health- Education appropriations bill. Even worse, Mr. President, a full year's continuing resolution would be a step backwards for the education of our kids and making health care available to all Americans. It would wipe out all the gains I have just mentioned that are included in the bill. We would be kissing goodbye all these important advances in class size reduction, Head Start, breast and cervical cancer treatment, and many others. Among other things, a full year's continuing resolution would cut NIH research by 47 percent, denying funding to 4,500 new research project grants this year. This chart indicates that. If we pass a 1-year continuing resolution, here is what will happen: Under the current bill on which we had bipartisan agreement, we will be able to fund 9,500 new research projects at NIH. If we have a 1-year continuing resolution at last year's level, we will have only 5,000.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the kind of scholar-public servant our founding fathers envisioned when they designed our great government. Senator Moynihan has a keen intellect and a kind heart, and his distinguished career is a testament to the power of this combination. Senator Moynihan began serving this country just one year after he graduated from high school. He enrolled in the United States Navy from 1944-1947 and served in the Naval Reserve for 20 years. After receiving his BA, MA and PhD, he went on to serve in the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. In fact, he is the only person in American history to have ever served in the Cabinet or subcabinet of four successive presidential administrations. He served as U.S. Ambassador to India from 1973-1975, U.S. Representative to the United Nations from 1975-1976, and he represented the United States as President of the United National Security Council in 1976. He has authored or edited 18 books on topics ranging from the Reagan era to the American family to poverty to ethnicity to the practice of government. And he has received 62 honorary degrees. Senator Moynihan's list of legislative accomplishments is no less impressive. He produced the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century which provided money and incentives for States to build mass transit systems. He has done outstanding work on cleaning up our environment through his legislation to clean up nuclear waste and toxic sites and to control acid rain. He has also been a leader in transforming our social welfare system. His 1988 Family Support Act began the process of changing the AFDC program from an income security program to one which helps individuals secure employment. He has also sponsored a bill to improve the Social Security Administration and to keep Social Security solvent for the future. And if you take a walk around this city--or any number of other American cities for that matter--you won't get far before you see a building that Senator Moynihan helped to build or preserve. From the Old Patent Office which now hosts two Smithsonian museums, to the Old Post Office, to the Old Pension Building, which is now the National Building Museum, and many more. The Senate will sorely miss its resident scholar. Senator Moynihan combined a mind for philosophy, an eye for beauty, and a heart for service. And this city, the State of New York, and our Nation are the better for his sensitive and dedicated work. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand that the Senate will reconvene at 2:15.

Mr. HARKIN. I think you might. In fact, in my comments I was going to talk about that. Obviously, we are thinking along the same lines. I really do believe there ought to be more uniformity, especially in national elections, on the type of equipment that is used. I must admit, being from Iowa, we don't use punch cards. That went out years ago. I was quite surprised some States were still using punch cards. Really, they are open to all kinds of problems. Some States still use the old lever, the old hand-cranked machines. I don't know; does the Senator know how many different types of voting machines are used in the United States today?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 I be recognized for up to 15 minutes to finish my statement.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield.

Mr. HARKIN. I did not hear the President.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I am recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. We do not know how many different kinds of voting machines there are in this country. Since we are a mobile people, we move from one State to another, one area of a State to another, they can go and be totally confused by a voting machine that is different than what they had used the election before. So I wonder aloud about maybe standardizing voting machines throughout the country so, no matter where you go, you have the same voting machine that you had before. I also believe we have to look at the latest technology--it exists-- which could reduce to the barest possibility that a person does not vote for whom he or she wants to vote. There are interactive devices; I have seen them demonstrated myself, devices that any person with a disability, whether you are blind or deaf or whatever you might be, could use alongside anybody else. It wouldn't differentiate. It would ensure that when you walked out of that booth, you knew exactly for whom you voted or for what you voted in terms of some of the resolutions and other items that are on the ballots. If nothing else, we ought to be about this in the next session of Congress. I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for introducing this legislation in this session, and I look forward to cosponsoring it with him when we meet again in January. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. As I said earlier, we have hand recounts every election in the United States. Most often they are on more local elections such as elections for county supervisor, maybe a State representative. But it is not unheard of to have hand recounts for the House of Representatives or for the U.S. Senate. It is just that we have never had a Presidential election this close. So if it is fair and logical and in the best interests of ensuring that every voter's vote is counted accurately, if it is in our best interests to do that in a race for sheriff, is it not even more in our interest to have that kind of hand recount in this race for the Presidency of the United States? I believe those who are somehow trying to stop the hand recount in Florida, trying to say let's just take the machine count whatever it is and we will live by that, or I guess with some overseas ballots that are due in, knowing full well the margin of error in the machines is more than the percentage difference in the two votes--if you are making that argument, what you are basically saying is the most important thing is to stop the process right now. That is more important than deciding the fairness and accuracy of each person's vote. There is no crisis in America. Frankly, I disagree with Secretary Baker completely. This morning he was saying the markets are now going to be upset by this. That is nonsense. That is just nonsense. The American people understand this. There is no crisis in America. We are going about our business. People are getting up and going to work every day. Nothing is happening. We can take our time. The President-elect is not sworn in until January 20. We have time to make sure the vote is accurate and fair. There is no need to pull the curtain down and say, no, we have to end it right now, when so much is in doubt, when the race is so close, and when a fair and accurate counting of the ballots may move it one way or the other. I do not know; maybe Mr. Bush will win the election. As I have said, it is not important right now whether Mr. Bush wins or Mr. Gore wins. What is important is that every voter's vote in Florida is counted accurately and counted fairly, and whether that takes us 10 days or 12 days or 2 weeks, I believe the American people deserve to have those votes counted fairly and accurately. Earlier today my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, introduced a bill proposing the formation of a commission to examine methods to reduce the miscounting of votes at the polls. I have cosponsored that legislation with him because I believe we do need to look at this situation. I think we should carefully examine alternatives, given the experience we are now going through. We should examine the electoral college. Maybe it is not perfect, but I happen to think it may be more perfect than a direct election but I am willing to look at it. Perhaps we could allocate the elector's votes by electoral district as Nebraska and Maine have decided to do. Perhaps we should consider automatically giving these electoral votes to whoever wins the State, rather than electing individual electors who could actually vote against the will of the voters in their areas. But I am intrigued by having electoral votes determined by congressional districts as Maine and Nebraska do, as I said. We ought to consider providing counties and States the necessary funds to assist them in modernizing and standardizing their voting methods. Although it may be somewhat more expensive--we don't know-- there is voting technology that exists and is used today, or some of it may be not used, that could reduce voting errors and errors in vote tally. No technology will completely eliminate inaccuracies, but this election clearly demonstrates our current methods must be improved. That is why I joined with Senator Specter to cosponsor this legislation. I really do believe we need a more standardized methodology of voting machines in this country. I asked my staff earlier, How many different kinds of voting machines do we have in this country? We have looked at this question and we do not know the answer.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I said this morning, we can certainly all agree that this Presidential election is one of the closest in our Nation's history. While Al Gore appears to have won the popular vote, leading by 223,000 votes, the electoral college outcome is much less clear, even though Vice President Gore also leads in the electoral college vote at this time. At this point, whichever candidate wins Florida will probably win the Presidency. Right now, according to the latest reports, only 388 votes separate the two candidates. That is 0.0067 percent of the votes in Florida--less than seven-thousandths of 1 percent. Yet when it appeared that the extremely close vote in Florida would decide the election, rather than waiting for a careful counting of the ballots as required by Florida law, the Bush campaign pushed for acceptance of the current count. The American people disagree. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 72 percent of American adults believe that making certain the count is fair and accurate is more important than rushing to judgment to get matters resolved quickly. Democracy is slow, yes; democracy takes time, yes; but democracy is still the fairest system of all, and the American people understand that. It was very discouraging that just days after the Bush campaign sharply criticized our respected former Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, for leaving open the possibility of seeking judicial review of highly questionable portions of the process, the Bush lawyers themselves went to Federal court to block a hand recount of questionable ballots--a process that is generally recognized as much more accurate than machine counting. I also find it highly ironic that the Bush lawyers chose to try to block a hand recount when they themselves, according to news reports, supported a hand recount in New Mexico. In fact, in 1997, Governor Bush himself signed a Texas law that seems to encourage hand recounts of disputed votes. Now, as we all know, just a few hours ago, the latest attempt to block a complete and fair count has been upheld by a court in Florida, although an appeal is expected shortly, if in fact it hasn't happened by now. The court ruled that Florida's Secretary of State, who was an active Bush supporter and traveled around the Nation on his behalf, could cut off the county's recount efforts at 5 p.m. this afternoon. She made the decision to end the count at that time, 5 p.m. today, knowing full well that the hand count of the ballots allowed by Florida law cannot possibly be completed by that point in time. In America, we are certainly used to getting results of our elections from the news networks almost immediately after the polls close, sometimes 3 or 4 hours later in relatively close elections but almost certainly the next morning. However, we have to realize that what we heard from the networks early on election night were not actual election results but exit poll results based on a very few counted ballots. When the difference between the candidates falls below a couple of points, we have to wait for an actual vote count. When the difference falls below a few tenths of 1 percent, we have to wait for a careful recounting of the votes. There are several important reasons for these procedures. First, precinct and county election officials are dealing with many numbers quickly on election night. Mistakes are unavoidable. But in this case, where the difference is not 1 percent or a half percent but less than seven one-thousandths of 1 percent, or just over 300 votes out of over 5 million cast, we cannot allow any room for error. The very machines that we use to count votes are prone to inaccuracies. The inaccuracies in some Florida counties occurred because not all voters marked their ballots to the preset machine standards. In some cases, they were using punch cards. Well, people don't always push the paper dot out of the hole, and sometimes they don't totally fill in the circle with the No. 2 lead pencil; thus, the machines can't always detect these votes. In a typical election, this isn't a problem. Election officials know that one out of every so many votes won't be counted by machines. I wonder how many American people know it is a given fact that one out of so many votes will not be counted by a machine. They are very inaccurate. In an election where one candidate wins by 5 percent or 8 percent of the vote, these inaccuracies make very little difference in the final outcome. But in an election as close as this, every single one of these votes matters. We have to count every single last one of them. No American should be disenfranchised because of a mechanical error. That is why I believe we have to be patient and allow the process to continue. Again, former Secretary of State James Baker keeps saying that we have already counted the votes twice. But what he doesn't mention is that these counts were both done with machines that have error rates far larger than the percentage of votes separating the two candidates. Machine error rates are far higher than seven-thousandths of 1 percent. Mr. Baker says that machines don't have bias, that they are neither Democratic nor Republican. I keep hearing this statement. It is also true that machines are far too inaccurate for the kind of count we need in this election. These machines just cannot count all those ballots where the hole is not completely punched or the circle is not completely filled in. Only human beings who can see whether someone tried to punch through the paper or make a mark can do that. To those who say that machines are more accurate than human beings counting ballots I would just ask: Have you ever gotten a phone bill that was inaccurate? How about your credit card bill? Machines make mistakes all the time. If you are not careful in catching them, you may be paying a little too much on your phone bill when you pay it. That is why we carefully look over our bills. The only way to really accurately get a count is through the time tested, old-fashioned way of counting these ballots. Why do we use voting machines? We do not use voting machines because they are more accurate. We use voting machines because, No. 1, they are quicker and, No. 2, they are less expensive. They do not cost as much. Still, the most accurate way of determining every person's vote is to have people walk into a voting place; you hand them a paper ballot. They walk into the booth; they take their pencil and they mark the X in the box or circle; they fold the ballot, stick it in the box, and when the polls close those ballots are hand counted by human beings, impartial panels--one from each party, let's say--counting these ballots. If that is the most accurate way, why don't we do that in America? Because in a national election such as this it would take maybe a couple of months to count all the ballots nationwide, and we want to know before then what the results are. Plus the cost of paying humans to sit there and count the ballots would be exorbitant. So we must disabuse ourselves of this false notion that somehow voting machines are more accurate. They are not. The most accurate is still hand counting those ballots. We have to remember also that there is nothing exceptional about conducting a recount. Both hand recounts and machine recounts are common in close elections. This happens all over America in every election. We have recounts even in local sheriffs' races. Imagine. Let's take the Florida race. Let's bring it home to a county. Let's say we are having a sheriff's race in a county and let's say there were 4,000 votes cast in the sheriff's race, 2003 for one candidate, 1,997 for the other. The county says it is too close; we are going to have a recount. They start hand recounting it. They hand recount 200 ballots out of the 4,000 and the outcome changes by 2 votes. Now, instead of being separated by 6 votes, the candidates are separated by only 4 votes. Let's say the top ranking election official in the county comes in and says: Stop counting. You have counted 200 ballots; you cannot count anymore. What do you think the outcry would be like in that county? What, you have counted 200 ballots, the vote has changed by 2, that could be 30 or 40 votes out of 4,000 ballots. That could reverse the original improperly counted outcome. That is exactly what is happening in Florida on a much larger scale than the local sheriff's race to which I just alluded. Secretary Baker protested that the election officials in control of the Florida counties being recounted are Democrats. I find it interesting he is not protesting that the chief election official in Florida is a Republican, the very official who decided today to suspend the ballot counting at 5 p.m. The Secretary also neglected to mention there are Republicans sitting in the counting rooms, monitoring the count to eliminate even the slightest possibility of partisanship. To this day I have not read or heard a single word in the newspaper or on the media anywhere to suggest that any improprieties in hand recounts have occurred. The American people can be satisfied that hand recounts are accurate and fair. Again, what has happened today with the Secretary of State saying at 5 p.m. we have to have all the ballots in and stop counting the hand ballots--that is like in the local sheriff's race, you have counted 200 ballots out of 4,000, the votes have changed a couple, and the election official says: Don't count anymore. I think the American people understand this. They get it. You cannot just count a few and say we are going to stop there. In our democracy, victory is determined by who gets the most votes in each State. I see no harm in waiting to make sure each count is fair and accurate. The electoral college doesn't vote until December 18, and their votes are tentatively set to be counted by a joint session of Congress on June 6, 2001. So we have plenty of time to make sure the true winner is named. So I submit the most fair and most accurate way of determining who won the electoral votes of Florida, because that is what is in contest right now, the electoral votes in Florida--the best way to determine that is to have a hand recount of all the ballots in Florida. I am told by those knowledgeable of this situation this could be done within probably 10 days to 2 weeks at the most. This could be done and then we would know with a finality and a certainty just who is selected to be the next President of the United States. If we do not do this, a cloud is going to hang over whoever is chosen to be the next President. I think that is the proper way to proceed. It is improper, illogical, and not in the best interests of fairness and accuracy to stop the hand counting of ballots when only a few have been hand counted. I understand about 1 percent of the ballots in a couple of counties have been counted at this time. With States such as Florida in question and with candidates separated by a tiny vote margin, it may take a few weeks to make a clear determination. I believe that is in our best interests. Slow down. We are not in any hurry. What is the rush to judgment? Let's take our time. Whoever is the President, is going to be President for the next 4 years. I submit what is important at this point in time is not whether Vice President Gore is the President-elect or Governor Bush is the President-elect. That is not what is important right now. What is important right now is the sanctity of each person's vote; to make sure that each person's vote is counted properly. That is what is important here. If we know--and we do know--that machines make mistakes, and we have seven-thousandths of a percent dividing these two candidates in the State of Florida, then the most fair way to do it is to hand recount these ballots. For the life of me I do not understand why the Bush campaign is so opposed to this. As I said earlier, we have hand recounts.