Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. If I can have just a couple of seconds, I would like to point out that per capita California uses less electricity than any State except Rhode Island. And in a couple of months, we will be number one in minimizing our use of electricity among all 50 States. This rape of California is not justified.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon, who has a distinguished record on trying to move our policies toward livable communities and sustainable approaches to energy and to the quality of life. I am from California, and that is ground zero for a crisis. But rather than focus on the long term, because the gentleman has, I think, illuminated that rather well, I want to focus on the short term. We are told that what California is suffering now is somehow our own fault; that energy companies wanted to build power plants in our State, were desperate, knew how profitable it would be, and we just would not let them because we are so concerned about the environment. Nothing could be a bigger lie. First, private industry did not particularly want to build power plants in California because they did not think they would make big money. When they bought the plants, they bought them for rather modest prices. And if they were desperate to build new ones, they certainly would have paid a premium for old ones. They were not trying to build new ones, and they did not pay very much for the old ones. They did not realize, until they lucked into it, that energy would be tight enough in California so that they could gouge the California consumer; that what looked like a modest investment in a State that could produce enough electricity to meet its needs would turn into a gold mine of gouging not because of actual shortages but because of a new concept in electric power called ``closed for maintenance.'' We have seen in each of the last 8 months double or triple the amount of capacity ``closed for maintenance'' than in that same month 12 years ago. Closed for maintenance means closed to maintain an ungodly price for each kilowatt. And so just to prove that there was not some intense desire to build power plants in California somehow stopped by these environmental extremists we are tagged with, reflect on the fact that California is not by itself an energy market. Each of the adjoining States, particularly Nevada and Arizona, are part of that energy market. And so if there is a plant built in Arizona or Nevada, those plants can sell into California. The electrons really do not know when they are coming to a State boundary. So if industry was desperate to build power plants to supply California, they could have built them in California, Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon. They chose not to, until quite recently. What they chose to do instead was to operate the old power plants, close a few for maintenance, and make a fortune on each kilowatt. In 1999, we paid $7 billion for our electricity in California. The next year, the year 2000, we actually used less electricity at peak times, and they charged us $32.5 billion. This year we will not use more electricity; but we will be paying 50, 60, or perhaps even $70 billion for the same electrons that we were paying $7 billion for just a couple years ago. The answer to this crisis is here in Washington. Now, we are told that California should not expect a bailout. I do not want one penny from any of the States represented here. There are some programs to help out a few people in California, and those are wonderful programs; but we do not need a single penny. All we need is to regulate on a fair basis, with generous profits for the power plants in California. Now, we are told that California should solve the problem ourselves. Why are we not self-reliant? We are bound and gagged with Federal rope spun out of the White House. Federal law prevents us from regulating the price of electricity from these plants. And so we can almost hear the muffled laughter from the White House as Federal law ties us up, the White House prevents this Congress from untying us, and they can laugh at California and say It's all your fault. A White House that cared about fairness would reinstitute the same policies that we have had in the electric industry for over 100 years and that built this country, and for at least a couple of years more have rates based on costs, with fair profit to those generating electricity in the West. Until that happens, we will have an artificial crisis, transferring billions and tens of billions in wealth from all the people of California to a few megacorporations, which just happen to be based in Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Betty R. Horner, Conejo Valley Civic Leader and pioneer in the communities of Westlake Village and Thousand Oaks, California. Her volunteer service spans more than 32 years. Betty Horner's community service began in 1968, in the Westlake Village Foxmoor neighborhood homeowners association. At the same time, she was a baseball and cheerleader team mother with the Westlake Athletic Association. She also worked with the PTA and PFA in her neighborhood schools. While raising her family of three children, Cynthia, Larry Jr., and Kymberly, and helping support her husband Larry Sr.'s professional and political career, Betty began to fashion a civic and philanthropic career for herself. Betty's distinguished community involvement includes service as the First Lady of Thousands Oaks and Charge d'Affaires (official hostess for the City of Thousand Oaks). This role required her attendance at public ceremonies, meeting with public officials and dignitaries, representing the City of Thousand Oaks, performing ribbon cuttings, and presenting commendations. She was tenacious and carried out her duties with much style and grace. She attended all City Council meetings for 15\1/2\ years, a record unequaled by anyone in the city. Due to her engaging personality and knowledge of the community, Betty has been asked to serve on many prestigious public and private boards and committees. She is an original member of the City of Thousand Oaks' Volunteers in Policing Team and at 65 years of age she can be seen patrolling neighborhoods to help keep our community safe. In 1976, she joined the Westlake Women's club, serving as its president during 1987- 88. This philanthropic organization raises thousands of dollars annually for various local organizations and charities. Betty was also instrumental in helping to build the Thousand Oaks Library, and has served on the Library Foundation Board. She was also selected by the Automobile Club of Southern California to serve on their Advisory Board for seven years. Betty has received numerous honors and recognitions, including Woman of the Year from the Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce and was also chosen as one of the ten Outstanding Women in Southern California by Coca Cola Bottling Co. and the Los Angeles Sentinel. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Betty R. Horner for her many contributions and years of dedication to the Conejo Valley.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to academic excellence, and in particular, the achievements of the El Camino Real High School Academic Decathlon Team which won the national championship this past weekend. Too often, learning and knowledge are expected, but achievements in the academic field often are not rewarded or recognized in the same way as success on the athletic field. Nine seniors from El Camino High traveled to Anchorage, Alaska, and competed with nearly 500 high school students from 39 states in a broad array of categories and types of tests. The scholars were quizzed on art, economics, language and literature, mathematics, music and science, with speech, essay, interview and quiz formats. Decathletes Alan Wittenberg, Aria Haghighi, Samantha Henry, Elan Bar, Walter Ching, Grace Giles, Dennis Kuo, Scott Lulovics and Ryan Ruby represented their school and state with honor and pride. Though this was the second national championship for El Camino in the decathlon in just four years, this also was the closest competition in the two decades of the event. James E. Taylor High School of Texas, the 2000 U.S. Academic Decathlon champions, finished just 21 points behind El Camino in a competition that included 60,000 possible points per team. All the more admirable is that this competition is not just for the A-students. The nine person teams are made up of A, B and C students equally. Such inclusion encourages academic achievement across the spectrum of grades and abilities. The 2001 El Camino team joins previous San Fernando Valley teams in the national spotlight. In 1998 El Camino had won the championship and Taft High School also won the national championship in 1993 and 1988. I would like to recognize not only the achievements of the nine champions from El Camino, but all of the competitors from around the country. Those students should be commended for their time, dedication and determination in their pursuit of academic success. For example, the El Camino team from Woodland Hills spent more than 1,000 hours preparing for the city, state and national decathlons. Though they scored third highest nationwide coming As is necessary for academic success, the El Camino team was supported by caring, involved individuals, including Principal Ron Bauer, Assistant Principal for Student Counseling Connie Semf, Head Coaches Melinda Owen and Christian Cerone, and Coaches Mark Johnson, Dave Roberson, Jerry Hickman, Lilian Ruben and Becky Gessert, as well as many other teachers and the students' parents. Without the support of parents and faculty, the struggle for academic success is far greater, and for some impossible. The support of the students was apparent on Saturday, with 30 fans in the audience, including Principal Bauer, administrators from the Los Angeles Unified School District, two former Academic Decathlon coaches and parents in matching T-shirts in the school's blue and gold. Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the need to foster academic achievement, we must recognize and reward those who strive academically, just as we honor those who compete on the field. If we want our children to value education, then we must show our appreciation for knowledge. It is for this reason I recognize the stellar accomplishments of the El Camino Real High team.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues tonight in somber remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. Early in the 20th century, during World War I and its aftermath, the Ottoman Empire attempted the complete liquidation of the Armenian population of Eastern Anatolia. We must come down to the House floor tonight not only to remember this tragic event, but we must also proclaim that the Armenian Genocide is an historical fact. There are many who deny that this first genocide of the 20th century actually took place. The American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1919 was an eyewitness. In his memoirs, he said, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the order for these deportations they were merely giving the death warrant to an entire race. They understood this well and in their conversations with me made no particular attempt to conceal this fact.'' He went on to describe what he saw at the Euphrates River. He said, as our eyes and ears in the Ottoman Empire, ``I have by no means told the most terrible details, for a complete narration of the sadistic orgies of which they, the Armenian men and women, are victims can never be printed in an American publication. Whatever crimes the most perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, whatever refinements of persecution and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive, became the daily misfortune of the Armenian people.'' We can never forget that 8 days before he invaded Poland, Adolf Hitler turned to his inner circle and said, ``Who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?'' The impunity with which the Turkish Government acted in annihilating the Armenian people emboldened Adolf Hitler and his inner circle to carry out the Holocaust of the Jewish people. It is time for Turkey to acknowledge this genocide, because only in that way can the Turkish Government and its people rise above it. The German Government has been quite forthcoming in acknowledging the Holocaust, and in doing so it has at least been respected by the peoples of the world for its honesty. Turkey should follow that example rather than trying to deny history. It is also time--indeed it is far overdue--for our Congress to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Speaker, I again call on my colleagues to recognize the Armenian Genocide and to urge my fellow Americans to remember this tragic event.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to shift to a discussion of foreign policy, starting with the Americans being held on the Chinese island of Hainan; America held hostage, day four. Let us go through a few of the facts that have been uncontroverted. Our plane was in international air space. The Chinese have admitted that. Our plane was flying slow, clumsy, large, Turboprop, not looking for any trouble; not trying to approach any Chinese planes. Chinese fighter planes that are fast and maneuverable deliberately came as close as possible to the American plane, and then there was a collision. I ask us to think about this in our own lives. If one car is just proceeding about its business and another one, a hot rod, tries to squirm as close as possible, some teenager trying to get just as close as possible to an old driver and then there is a collision, who do we blame? This was not the first time, Mr. Speaker. Again and again and again, through formal and informal channels, the United States has, for a period of many months, told the Chinese side that their repeated unsafe and reckless flying, their interception of our planes and coming not just as close as safe but closer than safe, buzzing those planes, reckless disregard for the safety of both aircraft, gross negligence, would some day lead to an accident; and then it did. I do not know why the Chinese instructed their pilots to engage in this game, or whether they were so instructed at all. Was it teenage hormones? Was it an attempt to intimidate an American plane over international waters? Or was it some effort to try to cause a collision but one that would kill Americans instead of Chinese airmen? I do not know, but there is no moral reason for this intentionally dangerous flying, even after repeat warnings. Yet, the Chinese are asking us for an apology. Mr. Speaker, my people have a word for that. It is called chutzpah. Chutzpah is when a young man convicted of brutally killing both of his parents goes before the judge and asks for mercy on the basis that he is an orphan, and the request for this apology fits in that same category of chutzpah. International law is clear. That plane cannot be touched. News reports are clear. The Chinese side is all over that plane looking for every secret, dismantling equipment, in violation of international law. International law is clear. Our people are to be back here. They retain their sovereign immunity when they land in desperation and emergency, which I might add in this case was caused by the incredible gross negligence, repeated gross negligence, of Chinese fliers. Yet, we are being asked for an apology. Reckless flying, ignoring international law as to our plane when it is on the ground, holding our Naval airmen hostage, and they are asking us for an apology. Perhaps the only thing that is more outrageous than all that is that, as I speak here, imports from China are being unloaded at American harbors in part of the most lopsided pro-Chinese trade relationship that any economist could ever imagine. They are allowed access to our markets where they sell over $80 billion of goods and we are lucky if we can sell $12 billion of goods into China. What ought to happen is that we ought to make it clear, we ought to today stop the importation of Chinese goods until our Naval airmen are back on their ships or in American hands. Oh, but that would mean perhaps a few hours or a day of delay in bringing in tennis shoes or plastic toys, and the commercial interests that flex their muscle so strongly when we dealt with providing China with permanent Most Favored Nation status will be back here, or are already back here flexing their muscles, and their message is clear. Do not interrupt a single package, a single container of tennis shoes, no matter how lopsided the trade arrangement is, no matter how absolutely dependent China is, and they are utterly dependent on the American market, roughly half, very roughly half their exports go to the United States. We are the only country that lets them run a huge trade surplus with us and we are the only country willing to run a huge trade deficit with them. Yet in spite of the fact that we are strong and they are weak, they are unified and we are looking only at the commercial interests of a few companies. So, Mr. Speaker, what I fear is that corporate interests, and just a few corporate interests, engaged in this importation frenzy will demand that we apologize, demand that we pay the Chinese money. They will demand that we be weak because sniveling preserves profits. I hope that this administration and this Congress reject that kind of thinking. Mr. Speaker, I would like to go into my fourth topic but I see it is getting late. So I will come back to this floor to deliver a speech dealing with the fourth topic I wanted to cover, and that was our use of economic sanctions, economic carrots and sticks, in order to achieve our international objectives.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for giving me the last hour before our adjournment for the Easter and Passover recess. I want to cover four issues, and hopefully I can do so in less than the 1 hour allotted: first, taxation and the energy crisis in California; and then two foreign policy issues, our airmen being held in China, and our sanctions policy and our use of economic tools in order to achieve our national security purposes. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago the President of the United States stood where you sit now and asked us to pass his tax program for a particular waitress. He described this waitress as having an income of $25,000, two kids, no spouse, and said that is the reason that we need his program. And he was compassionate in that description; unfortunately, not compassionate to that waitress or the other waitresses that work with her. You see, under the President's tax program, that waitress with two kids does get a little bit of tax relief, perhaps 2 percent of her income, perhaps a cheap 25-cent tip left under the table or under the plate. But he carefully selected the one waitress in the entire restaurant that gets anything at all. You see, under the President's plan as passed by this House, if that waitress had had an income of $23,000, she gets not 1 penny, not even a 1-cent insult tip. If the waitress, the exact waitress he described with two kids and $25,000, spends anything for child care, then she gets no additional benefit at all, not 1 penny from the President's program. And if that waitress has an income of $23,000 or $25,000 or $26,000 and has 3 kids instead of 2 kids, not 1 penny. So we were told to pass a tax program to help hard-working waitresses supporting kids, and virtually every waitress in the restaurant goes home without even a 1-cent tip. This House has added, this President's rhetoric has added an insult on top of that injury. There is injury to those waitresses from a tax program that this House adopted that the President asked us to adopt, because we are going to see higher interest rates, and every waitress in that restaurant is going to be having a harder time buying an automobile, or if she is very fortunate and can almost afford a house, perhaps will not be able to do so. A worse economy and fewer patrons of that restaurant, all of this will injure those waitresses that get not one penny of tax relief from the plan. Added to the injury is the insult. The President has again and again before audiences across the country said that his plan provides tax relief to every taxpayer, and his overwhelming implication is if you do not get anything from his plan, it is because you are not a taxpayer. If he does not give you anything, it is because you do not deserve anything. I ask the waitresses of this country to look at their paycheck stubs and see if there is a deduction for FICA. Then at that point, realize either your employer is lying to you when they take the money out of our paycheck for FICA, or the President is lying when he says that the waitresses of this country do not pay taxes because they do pay taxes to the Federal Government, and they get in almost every case not one penny of tax relief, but just a slap across the face with the insult that they are not taxpayers and do not deserve any relief from the Republican plan. Mr. Speaker, never was this illustrated quite so clearly as today when we took up another piece of the President's tax plan, and that was a complete abolition of the estate tax. Mr. Speaker, most people of this country pay income tax, but the working poor generally pay only FICA tax. And there are some who are very wealthy who, because of the way that they have structured their investments, pay no income tax, but they pay estate tax. Three major taxes for the Federal Government: one, a burden on the poor; another a burden on most of us; and the third affects only those at the top 2 percent. The President has decided if you do not pay income tax, but you pay estate tax, you deserve tax relief because you are in the richest 2 percent, and he wants to help you. But if you pay no income tax, and you pay only FICA tax, you get not one penny, as I have said several times. So what is this estate tax package? It is a package passed today, which, if we made it immediately effective, would cost $663 billion over a 10-year period. With all of the rhetoric on this floor, you would think that we would have made it effective immediately. Speaker after speaker talked about how this tax is terrible, and yet the bill we adopted does almost nothing to reduce the tax on those with assets of 2- or 3- or $5 million, almost nothing for the next several years. Why is that? Because, Mr. Speaker, in order to sneak this tax cut in, it is passed today, but does not become effective really for over 10 years. So a tax cut which is bad economic policy for today, which is such bad economic policy that no one would stand here in the well and say it ought to be effective today for today's economy, becomes effective in the year 2011 economy at a time when it is going to do the economy even more harm. You see, Mr. Speaker, right now we have a surplus. It is not as big as some would say. It is certainly not permanent, but we have a surplus. Eleven years from now we do not know whether we have a surplus or not. But we do know that 11 years from now is about the beginning of the baby-boomer retirement that will put whole new strains on the Federal budget as a huge number of people sign up for Social Security. So a policy that is so fiscally irresponsible that no one will speak in favor of its immediate adoption will become locked in 11 years from now when we are more vulnerable to fiscal irresponsibility. Why this tax cut in the estate tax? Well, the estate tax affects only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. If you care about the other 98 percent, then we should have voted that down so that we could pay off the national debt, resume economic growth at a reasonable rate, and reduce interest rates without causing inflation. Now, one thing I want to clarify in how I discuss an estate of 4- or $5 million is that we are talking about the net estate. So if you have a $10 million farm, assets of land and equipment worth $10 million, you in most cases do not have a $4 million estate because most farmers in that situation owe at least $6 million to the bank. You look only at the estate net of, of course, funeral and health costs of the deceased, but also net of all the liabilities. So a lot of people out there think, ``Oh, I have got assets of $10 million, I am going to be subject of the estate tax,'' have got to first subtract the liabilities. So only the wealthiest 2 percent of families in this country will pay any estate tax at all. But we on the Democratic side put forward an alternative, an alternative that would turn to 1.8 out of that 2 percent and say, no tax at all; immediate tax relief. And you continue to enjoy the income tax reductions caused by a ``step-up in basis'' so that the heirs to assets are able to value those assets on the date that they acquired them or the date of the decedent's death, so higher depreciation deductions are available to someone who inherits an apartment building or inherits farm equipment. Lower capital gains tax is paid by those who inherit stocks and bonds, or those who sell off part of the land that they inherit. So a Democratic proposal that provided immediate relief for every family with $4 million in net assets and provided all taxpayers permanently with that reduction in their income tax from a step-up in basis, that was all voted down. Why? Because instead the Republican side demanded that we embrace something that would exempt the as of yet unborn Bill Gates, Jr. from any tax at all on what we would hope would be billions of dollars of inheritance. In order to provide that those with assets of $100 million, $200 million, $300 million will pay not a penny in tax, the interests of those with $2 million and $3 million and $4 million and $5 million were sacrificed by a Republican Party that talks the talk of small business but walks the walk of huge fortunes. The Democratic alternative provided immediate tax relief, immediate complete insulation on taxes for the first $4 million that a family owns, racheting that up to $5 million over the next 10 years. The Republican plan provided virtually no tax relief to a family with 2 or 3 or $4 million in assets if a death occurs next year or the year after that or the year after that. They have decided to ignore those who die soon or die in the next few years and their heirs. They have decided to ignore those who need the reduced income taxes of that step-up in basis because their running business is worth 2 or $3 million and need the higher tax deductions, income tax deductions, all to embrace the needs of those with assets of over $10 million, over $20 million. What is amazing is that they were able to sell some of the small business groups on it. They have talked the talk of tax relief for those with a few million dollars. They have walked the walk of the huge fortunes. We are well on our way to a series of tax bills that we cannot afford, that will probably add up to $3 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, and much of the cost of those bills is going to be hidden by the fact that many of their provisions do not even become effective until more than 10 years from now. What we ought to do if we are fiscally responsible is simply pass those tax provisions that become effective this year or next year. If the Republican side were to come down to this floor and say, here is what we want the tax law to look like for 2001, here is what we want it to look like for 2002, pass that, and then wait a year and see where the economy is, they could probably get almost total support in the House. It is their insistence on locking this country in to an economic plan that it cannot afford, an economic plan that guarantees slow growth or recession, that virtually guarantees higher interest rates. It is that insistence that is causing dissension both here in the House and fortunately greater dissension in the Senate. Keep in mind that under the tax plan the Republicans have put before us, 79 percent of the package does not even become effective until more than 5 years from now. Instead of providing the tax relief we can afford and the stimulus that some say we need, it simply locks in the greatest cuts for the wealthiest people many, many years from now. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to focus on what some regard as a regional problem, perhaps just the problem of one State, but it is actually the problem of the entire country, and, that is, the electrical energy crisis and related natural gas crisis in my home State of California. First, let me dispel the idea that it was all the fault of the extreme environmentalists, tree huggers in California, who would not allow any plants to be built and now we are reaping what we have sown. Nothing could be more clearly disproven in so many different ways. First, no Federal agency was issuing a loud warning 2 or 3 years ago. No experts from the private sector, no experts from the utility sector were saying that we were headed for a particular problem. There are geniuses on Wall Street that could have quintupled and requintupled and made tenfold and twentyfold on their money by selling short the stock of California utilities. Yet none of them saw this coming. Now, we are told that no plants were sited in California. Keep in mind, many have been approved in the last 2 years. But during the 8 years in which Republican Pete Wilson was governor of our State, not a single plant was sited. But let us say that you come here with an extreme prejudice against California and you think both Republicans and Democrats in California have somehow brought this upon our State. Electricity can be transported for a few hundred miles. If you want to serve the California market, you cannot do so from a plant in Pennsylvania. But you can do so from a plant in Nevada or Arizona. If anybody foresaw an extreme shortage of electricity and even a modest increase in the price of electricity in California and the other western States, they did not have to build a plant in California. They could have built one in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon or Washington. So you would have to believe that the environmental extremists are in control not only of California but of Nevada and Arizona, Oregon and Washington, Nevada and Arizona being two of the most pro-business States, two of the most Republican-voting States in this country. The fact is no one wanted to build a plant in California, and no one wanted to build a plant in those other western States I mentioned. No one foresaw this problem until quite recently, with the exception of perhaps a few academics whose voice was not loud enough for anyone to hear. So it is obvious that this is not a problem we brought upon ourselves. We embraced the free market. The free market operated not only in California but in adjoining States as well, and the free market let us down. It did not cause those plants to be sited in California or the other adjoining States. So California did not cause this problem. But we are told it is California's problem and it is up to California to solve it. Let us analyze the problem and let us see whether California should be called upon to, quote, ``solve its own problem,'' or whether instead the Federal Government has handcuffed California so that it cannot solve this problem without a change of Federal policy. Let us look first at natural gas. Now, the price of natural gas in North America has more than doubled in the last couple of years. That is supply and demand, and that is a relatively competitive market with lots of producers and lots of consumers. Still, the doubling of that commodity and more in the last couple of years has put a strain on consumers and utilities around this country. But imagine, if you will, that on top of that doubling, there was a tenfold increase in the cost of moving natural gas from Texas and New Mexico where it is produced into California. The cost went from less than 50 cents to over $5. The cost of natural gas in California is double what it is in the rest of the country. Why did that happen? Why that doubling? Because FERC partially deregulated, actually deregulated enough for smart lawyers to find a way to totally deregulate the price of moving natural gas from Texas to California. And now natural gas costs more to move from Texas to California than it costs to buy it in Texas. The transportation cost exceeds the commodity cost. Why? FERC. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that California has been shafted. Mr. Speaker, California has been FERCed. That is F-E-R-C-e-d, hopefully not to be confused with any term of similar sound. The next focus has got to be on the cost of generating electricity. In the spot market, the wholesale price has gone up ten and twentyfold. We are told that this is somehow California's fault. I have disproved that. But the question is, can California solve this problem? As it happens, Federal law prohibits California from imposing even temporary cost-based controls on the cost of electricity at the wholesale level. So here we are with plants in our own State capable of generating most or all of the electricity we need in most or all of the months of the year and California has been told, ``It's your problem. Solve the problem. Oh, by the way here is a Federal law that says you can't solve the problem by regulating the wholesale price of electricity,'' which by the way is about the only way to solve it in the short term. Take off the Federal handcuffs or stop laughing at California and saying it is our problem and up to us to solve it. California could save 1 or 2 percent of its electricity needs simply by adjusting the way we use Daylight Savings Time. But the Federal Government will not even let us adjust our own clocks. The handcuffs are on. The Federal Government puts the handcuffs on California and then says, ``It's your problem. Go solve it. Just don't try to do anything that might be effective because it will be prohibited by Federal law.'' Federal law must reregulate the price of moving natural gas from New Mexico to California. And if the Federal Government does not want to do it, then perhaps that right could be granted to the State of California. I realize the pipelines that I am talking about do not run through the State, but a Federal grant of that power to California would probably be constitutional. The Federal Government does not want to regulate the wholesale price of electricity generated by plants in California. Fine. Let California do it. Let Oregon do it for its plants. Let Washington do it for plants in the State of Washington. Take off the handcuffs. Better yet, lend a hand. FERC should regulate the price of pipeline usage and the cost at the wholesale level of electricity. I do want to comment a little bit about the shortage of electricity in California in one respect and, that is, the term ``closed for maintenance.'' I thought closed for maintenance meant, ``We got to fix the plant. We got guys working on it.'' I have come to learn closed for maintenance means closed to maintain an incredibly high price for each kilowatt. Last summer, without any shortages that came to anyone's notice, or with the notice of very many, California demanded and needed and got from its existing plants 45,000 megawatts of electricity. This last winter and spring when we needed 33,000 megawatts, the plants are closed for maintenance. The electricity cannot be generated. What changed was not the plants. The plants were adequate to give us 45,000 megawatts of electricity last summer. What changed was the law, the incentives. The incentives went to closed for maintenance, the lights went out, the prices went up. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to phrase it this way, but this administration is waging war on California. Maybe it is because we did not vote for them. Maybe it is because they see our governor as a challenger in 2004. I think it is a war being waged for the same reason the ancients waged war and that was to get war booty. In this case incredibly high profits for certain companies based in Texas, both the pipeline companies that own the natural gas pipelines and the companies that own the generation facilities that sell that electricity to the utilities in California. The question, though, is not why is the Bush administration waging war on California but why does this Congress allow for that war to be waged? All Americans are going to suffer from this war. If we do not regulate natural gas pipelines, the wholesale value of electricity, and allow California to adjust its clocks, then it will not just be my district or my State that suffers. This entire economy is wired together. The markets drop in Tokyo and all of a sudden the markets drop on Wall Street and people's 401(k)s are down. If you think you live outside of California and you are not tied to our State, imagine how much more tied you are to California than you are to Tokyo. If California is going down, it is not going to be good for any part of this country. I want to add a footnote or two here. The first footnote is that many of the bad decisions the Federal Government made were made in the waning days of the last administration, but I am confident that an administration that cared about California would have reversed those decisions and this administration should reverse those decisions right now. Back in October, it was not obvious to many that California was going to be suffering just a few months later, but when that suffering began it is time to adopt revised Federal policies. The second myth I want to dispel is the idea put forward by those who worship, do not just understand and usually practice but worship, the free market system. The free market system works rather well for most things, but if one had to pick something it was not going to work for, well think of a good that cannot be stored, cannot be transported but a few hundred miles, has no substitutes, is a necessity, to put it in economic terms, has a price elasticity of roughly point one, which is to say it is a necessity where you need the amount you need and if they sell it for less you are not going to use more, and if they charge you more it is incredibly difficult to use less. It is a necessity. It cannot be stored. It is not subject to the regular market forces. If there was ever a good that did not fit the absolute worshipping of a free market, this is it. We are told that the free market must be allowed to run unfettered and that California's problem is that we deregulated the wholesale price of electricity but we maintained regulation on the retail price. So the amount SoCal Edison has to pay the generator companies, most of them based in Texas coincidentally, the plants may be in California but they are owned by some particular business interests, that the amount that SoCal Edison has to pay for the electricity has been deregulated but the amount that they sell it to the consumer for has been regulated and that that is the problem; that if only we deregulated both sides of the equation everything would be fine. I ask people to look at San Diego. In San Diego County, we did exactly what the worshippers of the free market, and I include myself among those who usually want to go with free enterprise and free markets, but those who are so blinded by the benefits of free markets that they cannot see the exceptions, we are told that if you only deregulated the wholesale and the retail that everything would be fine. What has happened in San Diego when we did just what they suggest, the retail consumer price of electricity went up by four-fold. So you are used to paying a $100 electric bill and you get one for $400, the price goes four-fold in a couple of months. I ask my colleagues, what would happen in their districts if everyone who is used to getting a $100 electric bill got a $400 electric bill like that? How many people would be sitting in their office and how many of them would say, well, thank God, we did what those who are so extreme that they worship the free markets have suggested, thank God we went for the most pristine possible deregulation? How many of them would be thrilled to get that $400 electric bill? Americans Held Hostage, Day Four

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 93 of the 107th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California criticizes the numbers saying we do not provide $4 million of immediate tax relief. We do, to every couple. $2 million to every individual. If Members are concerned about the 98 percent of Americans that do not pay the estate tax at all, they need to vote for the Democratic substitute because it is far more fiscally responsible. It will assure that we are able to pay down the national debt, provide for low interest costs and allow for people who are barely able to make their car payments to make them at a lower interest rate. But say you happen to represent Malibu, as I do, and you are concerned with those who are the richest 2 percent as is my obligation. Well, the vast majority of the folks in Malibu will actually do better under the Democratic alternative. First, we provide immediate tax relief. Their plan provides that if you cannot manage to live to 2011 and you have an estate of several million dollars, you are going to pay a big tax. Ours says $4 million a couple: no tax. And if you are able to make it to 2011: $5 million a couple, no tax. In the long term, their plan provides no estate tax but a higher capital gains tax on the upper-upper middle class. Estates of $3, $4, $5, and $6 million will be virtually tax exempt under the Democratic plan and the heirs will get relief from capital gains tax. Under their plan, those estates do not get relief from capital gains tax. The result is this: Unless you are focused on the wealthiest two- tenths of 1 percent, unless you are focused not just on the ordinary people of Malibu but on those with $10 million to $100 million estates, the Democratic plan means lower taxes. If you believe in lower taxes for those with under $10 million in assets, vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I am flabbergasted I am getting 4 minutes on this. There should be a line of people stretching all the way down the steps asking the gentleman from Texas for 30 seconds or less so that every one of us can stand up here and say, please, let us not take another step in the direction of plunging off the cliff, in the direction of huge deficits, in the direction of invading Social Security and the Medicare Trust Funds in order to pass a series of tax cuts that we cannot afford. I support ending the marriage penalty. Someday I might support even greater efforts than those encompassed in the Democratic alternative. But there are three important points I need to make about this bill. The first is that over half of married couples do not pay a marriage penalty, they get a marriage bonus. Those who are insulting or degrading marriage by telling people that they will pay more taxes if they say ``I do'' should realize that, in fact, most who say ``I do'' are paying less. The second point I would make is that we do not have a budget resolution. We have one passed by the House, but not by the Senate. We ought to be making major tax decisions only after we see what Congress as a whole has adopted and what kind of tax relief we can afford. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this tax bill that comes before us today is part of an overall plan of excessive tax cuts, tax cuts aimed at those with the greatest means. Forty-three percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent with an average income of $900,000. This wave of tax- cutting has been the most significant event leading to the economic downturn or anemia that we have suffered since even before the President came into office and began talking down the economy in order to justify things. Second, this program provides no economic stimulus in an effort to get us out of this malaise. Seventy-nine percent of the benefits do not arrive until more than 5 years from now. That means that the bond market and the stock market are depressed because we have locked into law economic policies that are going to hurt this country, that are going to drive deficits and inflation; but at the same time, consumers will not have any more money in their pocket. Finally, I have to oppose this package of tax bills because of the millions of people it leaves out. The President of the United States stood up there and gave us an example of a waitress without a spouse, with two kids, and said that that was the reason to adopt his tax plan, to help that waitress supporting two kids and making $25,000. It appears as if the President's staff went through all of the restaurants and found one waitress that would benefit, because if that waitress was making $23,000 with two kids, she gets nothing under the President's plan. If that waitress had three kids, she gets nothing under the President's plan. And if that waitress is currently exactly as the President describes her, but she has some costs for child care, she gets nothing. Not even a one-cent insult tip is left on the table by the Republican series of tax bills for the very waitresses that the President of the United States asked us to think about. It is one thing to injure America's working poor and those who are struggling to get by by having a huge tax plan that will ruin the economy and not give them a penny, but it is another thing to insult them and say that they do not pay taxes when, in fact, every waitress is paying FICA taxes and not getting any tax relief. Taxpayers deserve tax relief, and under this plan they get nothing.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, on March 25th, 1821, 180 years ago this week, the Greek people declared their independence, throwing off the yoke of four centuries of Ottoman oppression. Greek freedom fighters looked to the American revolution and American democracy for inspiration, and adopted their own declaration of independence. Our Founding Fathers in turn were guided by the democratic principles that first arose in Greece. They took to heart the ideals of ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy. This is a day for us to reflect on the vital alliance between Greece and the United States and to pay our debt to Hellenic ideals and to Hellenic culture. It is a day for Greek Americans to take pride in the independence of Greece and in the ancient culture of all Hellenes. Since its liberation, Greece has stood by America. It is my hope and belief that the United Sates will continue to stand by its ally. Greece is one of three nations in the world beyond the former British Empire that has been allied with the United States in every major international conflict of this century. One out of every 9 Greeks lost their lives fighting the Nazis during World War II. And through U.S. generosity, through the Marshall plan, Greece was able to rebuild its war-ravaged economy. We must also remember that there remain problems in the eastern Mediterranean, problems between Greece and the successor to its former colonial master, Turkey. We must work to bring peace to the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. I hope that our new Administration will use its considerable influence with Ankara to convince the leadership there to support a peaceful and just resolution to the outstanding problems between our two allies. Most importantly, I hope that our government can convince the Turkish side to negotiate in good faith on the continued occupation and division of Cyprus. Madam Speaker, again, I want to urge all my colleagues to pay tribute to Greek Independence and to all of the contributions made by Hellenes throughout history.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, before we pass a series of tax cuts totaling over $2 trillion, we need to know what we can afford. The Republican plan is based on unreliable projections, no budget resolution, no administration budget. Mr. Speaker, this is what a budget for the Federal Government looks like; yet what we have been given by the administration is this. Scarcely more than a long political pamphlet. In fact, it is skimpy compared to the budget of the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the fuzziest of fuzzy math is to provide no numbers at all. My colleagues, the President stood where the Speaker stands now and asked us to think of a struggling unmarried waitress with two kids. Yet most waitresses, raising two children, get nothing under the President's plan. Not even a one cent insult tip is left on the table. The Democratic substitute provides such waitresses with $539 and leaves $1.5 trillion more to pay off the national debt by 2008. Let us stand up for Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility, and vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the fiscal issues raised by the President when he spoke in this Hall scarcely 12 or 13 hours ago. First, we are told that a 4 percent increase in the budget for domestic programs is sufficient and represents a genuine increase in those programs. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, our population is growing faster than 1 percent a year. Inflation is greater than 3 percent. Accordingly, a 4 percent nominal increase in expenditure is actually a real cut in the benefits that can be provided by a government program. For example, Mr. Speaker, if our goal was to provide one pencil for every schoolchild in America, we would need to provide more than a 4 percent increase in that budget, because the price of pencils is likely to go up over 3 percent, and the number of students is likely to increase by more than 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, we were told, I think correctly, that we cannot continue year after year to increase expenditure by 8 percent, even nominally by 8 percent, but a 4 percent increase when not adjusted for population or inflation represents an actual cut. Mr. Speaker, we were given a tax cut proposal in which almost half of the benefits go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, those with the highest income, a group of individuals who have, on average, $900,000 of income every year. Certainly we can do better in targeting the tax cut. We have been told that repealing the estate tax will not have an adverse impact on charity because, when people make charitable contributions, they are not influenced by the tax law but instead are influenced only by their desire to help the charity. Our President yesterday exploded that argument that has been made on this floor by many Republican Members when he stated that ``By allowing an income tax deduction for those who do not itemize, we will encourage as much as $14 billion of charitable giving.'' So our President asks us to imagine a person of modest means putting $5 in the collection plate; that a person who does not even itemize their deductions somehow will be motivated to put more money in the collection plate if we change our tax law, but that an individual leaving $5 million to a university to have a building named after them will not be influenced by the repeal of the estate tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trust me, I was a tax professional for nearly 15 years. I never got asked, ``Should I put $5 in the collection plate or $6? But I venture to say there are very few $5 million gifts that are not influenced by the estate and income tax law. Then we were asked by the President to imagine a waitress with two kids earning just $25,000, and we were told this was the reason we should adopt the President's tax cut. Keep in mind, his tax cut would increase her income by only 2 percent. That is as stingy as a 25-cent tip. But just to the point, that $25,000 waitress example was a carefully selected anomaly designed to disguise what the Bush tax proposal really does. Keep in mind, there are many waitresses who make only $20,000 a year, and under the President's proposal they get nothing, not even a 1 cent insult tip left on the table. If we want to design a tax cut to benefit that image that was painted for us so cleverly yesterday of someone who is busing tables or waiting on tables making $25 $20,000, $25,000 and trying to support a couple of kids, we need to adopt a completely different approach to the tax cut. Mr. Speaker, we need estate tax relief, but we need estate tax relief that is designed not to gut the estate tax as a source of revenue, but rather, something that will make sure that the estate tax falls only on 1 percent of the estates, meaning 99 percent of Americans would not have to worry about that tax. That would still allow us to generate the vast majority of revenue that is generated by that tax, and then we could afford to provide real tax relief to waitresses making $25,000 or even $20,000.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Armenian General Benevolent Union Manoogian-Demirdjian School in Canoga Park, CA. On February 2, 1976, a concerned group of leaders from the Armenian General Benevolent Union, an international philanthropic organization headquartered in New York, established the Manoogian-Demirdjian private school in Van Nuys, CA with 19 students and 3 faculty members. I am pleased to inform you today that it now stands in Canoga Park, CA, with a student body of 958 and 104 faculty members. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian General Benevolent Union Manoogian- Demirdjian School is now the largest Armenian School by population in North America. The high standards and academic achievements of the students have made it one of the most well-known private schools in southern California. I would like to mention that among this year's 60 Seniors, one received a perfect SAT score of 1600, one has been nominated to the Presidential Scholars Pool, and two others are National Merit Scholars. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in extending our congratulations to the AGBU Manoogian-Demirdjian School on it's Silver anniversary and wish them continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) on strengthening the ties between the United States and Israel. I want to join with him in praising the Indian American Friendship Council and discussing how important U.S.-India relations are for the people of the United States and the important work of the Indian- American Friendship Council in strengthening those ties. Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, half a billion Indians went to the polls to choose a new parliament, five times as many people who participated last month in the U.S. Presidential election. Frankly, a higher level of participation in democracy than we enjoy here in the United States. India has demonstrated to the world that democracy is not just a system of government for the developed world, but, in fact, is a system of government that can work anywhere. Where else would democracy face such incredible challenges? A Nation of a billion people, perhaps the most ethnically and religiously diverse nation on the face of the earth, with one democratically elected parliament. India has surprised the world, not only with its ability to maintain and strength its democratic institutions but also with its economic growth. It serves as a model to the entire world. The Indian-American community has also served as a model. It is now the most highly educated of all of America's ethnic groups. Forty years ago, there were 35,000 Indo-Americans. Today, there are 35,000 Indo- American physicians, not to mention the tens of thousands of Indo- Americans who are in the various other professions who have succeeded in business, particularly information technology and who have participated in the cultural and political life of America. Clearly strengthening ties between India and the United States is an important mission, and no organization performs that mission to a greater degree and with more finesse and capacity than the Indian- American Friendship Council. The Indian-American Friendship Council has prominent chapters in networking groups, in many cities and States across this country. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) pointed out, every year the council hosts a major annual event here in Washington, which attracts scores of Members of the House and of the Senate and serves as a platform for discussion between the Indo-American community and other supporters of the U.S.-India relationship and elected Members of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, not only does the Indian-American Friendship Council serve as a bridge to those who serve in Congress, but it also serves as a bridge to the State Department and the other departments involved in international economic and diplomatic policy of this country. I am particularly proud of Dr. Krishna Reddy, the founder of the Indian-American Friendship Council, who I am proud to say is a Southern Californian. So while the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has accomplished much for the Indo-American relationship, he cannot claim that his region is the home of Dr. Reddy, whereas we, in Southern California, can. With that in mind and knowing of all the gentleman has done for the U.S.-India relationship and to support the Indian-American Friendship Council, I would at this point, yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for any parting words about the importance of the Indian-American Friendship Council.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the speech I had planned to give tonight. Mr. Speaker, you have been here on many occasions when I have addressed the House late at night, and this is the last speech of the 106th Congress, as I understand it, the last three quarters of an hour which you will be presiding over this House. I wish the gentleman tremendous luck and tremendous good fortune as the gentleman leaves this House. I want to thank the gentleman for his service to this House and to this Nation, and particularly his service as a presiding officer over this House, which he has done so many times. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank you in advance for your indulgence during the next three quarters of an hour. I also want to thank the House for this opportunity to address the House in the closing minutes of the 106th Congress and take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues happy holidays and a happy and productive new year. Mr. Speaker, we come to the end of the 106th Congress; and we come to the conclusion of the selection of the 43rd President of the United States, perhaps more in exhaustion than in glee, having severely tested our constitutional structure. When we come back next year, we need to do so in the spirit of bipartisanship; and I think in that spirit, we need to address some of the issues as to which there is no Democrat policy, no Republican policy, but issues that go to the structure of our democracy, issues that we need to confront now to avoid the constitutional crisis of coming decades, issues that go to the structure of our government and go to protecting the Presidency from challenges that it could face in the decades to come. I have been asked who could have imagined the problems that we have faced over the last month. The fact of the matter is anyone with a good imagination could have imagined these problems and hundreds of others. We simply need to look at the technical mechanisms for our government, for our Constitution. And for our democracy in order to identify those issues that could present crisis in the future. Now, there are a variety of different kinds of problems this country faces as to which Members of Congress are not to be expected to have in-depth expertise. In my own State, there are tremendous problems dealing with the generation and distribution of electric power. And few Members of the State legislature of this Congress have in-depth expertise or experience in matters of electric power; but when it comes to government and politics and voting, that is the one area where we are experts. It is time that we turn that expertise to making sure that all of the foreseeable problems that could go to the structure of our government are given attention and hopefully are solved. These are problems, and I will address nine different problems in the remainder of any speech, that have not gotten much attention. They are problems that we are not lobbied by the insurance industry or the physicians. The NIFB has no position, nor does the AFL-CIO; neither the sugar producers, nor the candy makers have a stake in the outcome directly. None of the hundreds of lobbyists and constituent groups that have come to our office in the last 2 years have even addressed these issues. Given what has happened in Florida, we will begin to hear of one or two of them, but we should address them all and others besides, because I am not confident that I have the right answers, I am not confident that I have identified all of the relevant questions. But I am sure that it is time for this House to imagine those mechanical threats, those threats to the mechanics to our democracy that could occur, not just in the next few years, but in the coming many decades. Mr. Speaker, if I had come to this floor 6 months ago and said that chad posed a risk to our democracy, a member of the Committee on National Security would have responded that the West African nation of Chad posed no threat to us, that it was not the site of terrorism nor military threat. Yet, we must defend our democracy, not only from the most obscure sources of international attack, but from those things that could undermine faith in our institutions. We have learned that the word chad does not only apply to a nation in West Africa, but refers to just one of many mechanical problems that could undermine our faith in those institutions. Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for us to address just what happened in Florida, because tomorrow's constitutional crisis will not be the same as yesterday's. The crisis that we have just faced will inspire us to close the barn door now that the horse is departed. But it is not enough to close the door through which one horse escaped, we must, instead, examine the barn and close every window and every door and make sure that the walls are structurally sound. We must identify as many possible constitutionally undefined areas and address those areas long before they become sources of major partisan controversy. We must imagine all the problems that we can and not scoff at those who would solve ``imaginary problems.'' The first of these issues that I would like to address is one that has not been discussed, I believe, on this floor for at least a decade; and that is the issue of Presidential succession. We all know that, if the President is impaired or becomes deceased, the Vice President succeeds to that office. We all know that a Vice President who then becomes President can appoint a successor to the Vice Presidential office. We all know if things go smoothly, there will always be a President and a Vice President and a Vice President ready to take over if the President, God forbid, is deceased. But, Mr. Speaker, there could come times when we go for months or years without a Vice President. We did when Gerald Ford became President after the resignation of Richard Nixon. One could have imagined the crisis we might have faced had President Ford faced some untoward calamity. See, Mr. Speaker, we have laws that provide for succession to the Presidency. Such laws ought to provide two things, certainty and continuity. The present statute does provide certainty. For if there is a vacancy in both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the next person in line is the Speaker of the House and then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate followed by the various cabinet officials in order of the seniority of their departments. That will provide for certainty as to who holds the office of President. But it is not enough for us to have certainty. We also need continuity; and by this, I mean continuity of policy. If, for example, the Vice President has become President and there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the stock markets should know that, if that Vice President who has become President were to die, that our national policies would remain pretty much the same, that our economic policies would remain the same. Our adversaries and our friends around the world should know that, even if there is no one currently serving as Vice President, that the next person in line will carry on pretty much the same policies. No one should have any belief that a change in who is President except at a national election could radically change our policy. Most important, it is key that any potential assassin not believe that they can radically change America's foreign or domestic policies with a bullet. They can change the person but hopefully not radically change the policies. Unfortunately, our present statute does not meet that standard of providing for continuity, continuity of policy. Because the person in line after the Vice President may or may not be of the same party. Our old system was, I think, superior. The statute, until a couple of decades ago, provided that, if there was a vacancy in both the President and the Vice President, the next person in line was the Secretary of State, and I believe after that the Secretary of the Treasury, individuals who had been confirmed by the Senate, individuals of high integrity and very substantial governmental responsibility, individuals, though, most importantly who would share a general philosophy with the President of the United States. Today, we have a very different system, a system where we could have a change in the party in the White House, not as a result of an election, but just as a result of succession. One could have imagined in the 1970s with Gerald Ford serving as President that the country would wonder what if something happened to President Ford? Would that mean that we would pull out of Vietnam? Who knows? No one should have doubted during that time, but anyone looking at the Constitution and our statutes would have doubted that a change in the person of the President would change the policies of the Presidency. Now I should point out that we changed our statute several decades ago because it was believed that the first four persons in line to succeed to the Presidency should be elected officials. I do not find that incredibly compelling, but I can understand why others do. So let us maintain that policy should others think it important, but let us provide that every President may file with the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Senate an official document indicating who shall be third and fourth in line in succession; that they would designate that the person third in line would either be the Speaker of the House or the Minority Leader of the House, and the person fourth in line would either be the Majority Leader in the Senate or the Minority Leader in the Senate. Under those circumstances, we would know that a Member of Congress would be third and a Member of Congress would be fourth in line. Then no matter what is likely to happen, an elected official held in high esteem by their colleagues in the Congress would serve as third and fourth in line. At the same time, we would know that the party in the White House is not subject to change except through election. If we fail to do so, then some time in the next century, we will face months, if not years, when our allies and enemies around the world wonder whether there could be a radical change in our policies due only to a sad death or incapacity. Assassins or potential assassins may be inspired to their evil deed by the belief that they are, not only committing a heinous act against this country, but in the misbegotten belief that that is an appropriate way to change radically America's foreign or domestic policy. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed this issue, I believe, for decades. We ought to. Let us move on, though, to another issue that is also important; and that is one that has been discussed at great length, and that is the need for voting machines around this country or vote tabulation systems that are worthy of the 21st Century and worthy of the world's most powerful democracy. There have been several bills introduced that provide for at least a study of what can be done to improve our vote tabulation system. But let me describe how important that is. Thirty-one percent of this country uses the punch card system which we became all too aware of in Southern Florida. That system is used, for example, in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, major counties which I partially represent. One out of every 66 persons voting for President in Florida in a punch card county had their vote unregistered for President, an undervote. Now, you may say perhaps 1 out of every 66 Floridians did not care to register a vote for President. But in the adjoining counties where optical scanners are used, only 1 out of every 250 voters chose to skip that office. We know from our own experience that the vast majority of people who go to the polls at a Presidential election cast a vote for President, especially when they are given, not only the two major choices, but several other choices besides. In fact, experience in Florida shows that it is not the case that there are just certain counties in Florida where people want to skip the office of President, because several counties have moved from one vote casting system to the other from 1996 to the year 2000. When they did so, they went from roughly 1 out of every 66 ballots missing a vote for President to 1 out of every 250. So we see that the tendency to vote for President, when accurately tabulated using the best machines available, that 249 out of 250 people cast a vote, that squares with our experience, and that, in fact, the vote tabulating machines used in punch card counties are ignoring almost 1 percent of the votes cast for President. This needs to be changed, and we need to do more than just have a Band-Aid. Yes, we could provide Federal funds on a pilot basis to a dozen counties around the country. We could provide $50 million or $70 million. We could stand in front of a few fancy machines in a few counties. But 31 percent of all Americans are using this punch card system. Other Americans are using equally bad systems. And 1 percent of that 31 percent are being disenfranchised. That is wrong. We should provide $1 billion a year for several years, real money for a real problem, because there are 180,000 precincts in this country, and each one has half a dozen or more voting booths with tabulation devices. Every county has to be able to count the ballots. This is a big deal and cannot be dealt with by a few pilot programs that solve the problem in just a few counties. What we ought to do is provide grants to counties and other local jurisdictions responsible for elections, grants of between 50 percent and 80 percent of the cost of new vote tabulation and vote casting machinery and the cost of implementing the systems and training the employees involved. What we ought to do is commission the Federal Election Commission with the responsibility of identifying one, two or three of the best vote tabulation systems for large counties, perhaps a different list of one, two or three systems for medium-sized counties, and perhaps a different list of the best systems to be used in small counties. Then we should turn to every county in America that does not have one of these good systems and offer between 50 and 80 percent of the cost of buying the new equipment. To do otherwise is to say that democracy is worth a quarter trillion dollars a year to defend from foreign threats, but not even a tiny, tiny portion of that to defend from constitutional crisis from unintentional disenfranchisement. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, whether one agrees with it or not, has just enumerated or identified an equal protection right for votes to be counted accurately. Now, it is possible that this court will never find another circumstance in which to apply that new constitutional right. It is possible that this court found that new right to apply it only to this election and now will want to seal it and never use it again, but that is just this court. One can imagine a court inspired by more liberal values that would rely on this case to question or invalidate elections from coast to coast if there was a denial of equal protection of the right to cast one's vote in a way in which it would be accurately counted. The fact is these old vote tabulation systems are found often, and to a greater extent and a greater proportion, in urban counties, with previously disenfranchised minorities, disadvantaged minorities, using systems that throw out 1 percent of their vote, while adjoining more economically upscale counties use new upscale vote tabulation systems. I am not sure this court would use the Equal Protection Clause to deal with that issue, but I do know that in other courts in other decades this issue may rise to the level of constitutional scrutiny, and at that point, at that point we may face another constitutional crisis as some other court examines whether it is fair to use accurate systems in upscale counties and decrepit systems for those who are poor and those in traditionally discriminated against racial minorities. I also, though, want to point out another issue, and that is if we do have a Federal right, an equal protection right to accurate voting, that we establish some rules that require that those rights be raised on a timely basis. I cite the butterfly ballot, now famous from Palm Beach County. Certainly we ought to have a rule that says that that ballot needs to be challenged 30 days before the election or 3 days after it is known or should be known to the candidates involved in the election so that we do not have a Federal Court invalidating an election weeks or months afterwards because it finds that the butterfly ballot denies equal protection to those who use it. We must have a system that puts the onus on candidates to bring to the attention their objections first to county election officials and then, if they feel they have a constitutional claim, to the Federal courts. The butterfly ballot should have been objected to long ago, long before the election. Mr. Speaker, let me turn to a third issue, and one that has also gotten some attention, and that is the electoral college system. When the electoral college was first instituted, democracy was a newfangled dangerous idea that our Founding Fathers did not want to fully embrace, but which other modern countries have more fully embraced than we have because it is now a proven idea, and American values require that the President of the United States be elected by the people. Now, the values of the 1700s may have been different; but until recently, virtually no American could have conceived of the idea, was even aware of the existence of the electoral college. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that at the time our Constitution was signed, the States really were independent countries. When they were independent countries, we used the following terminology. We would say the United States are going to do something. Today we say the United States is going to do something, because we are now one Nation, with one President that presides over one people. We are both a Republic and a democracy. The distinction between a democracy and a Republic is now, I believe, outmoded because we are a Republic that should be guided by democratic values, particularly in the selection of a President. Now, in this election, the person who will be in the White House did not get a plurality of the votes, but that was by a mere 300,000 to 400,000 votes. Imagine if by 1 million votes or 2 million votes or perhaps 3, 4, or 5 million votes one person is installed in the White House while the other won the popular vote. Would that President have all of the legitimacy that we would like the President to have? What is worse, what happens if there is a tie? I know we just lived through one crisis. But what if Ralph Nader had won Florida? Not this election, maybe next election. If that would have occurred, then none of the Presidential candidates would have had 270 electoral college votes, and the Presidency would have been decided here in the House of Representatives. So far that sounds reasonably fair. But we in this House would vote by States. North Dakota and South Dakota would have as much influence as New York and California combined. Would the country really accept a President who had been chosen by a majority of the States, representing only a fraction of the Nation's population? I think such a President might have been accepted in the 1700s. In fact, that is how Thomas Jefferson was selected. But I am not at all sure that a President selected through such a manner would have legitimacy today. Finally, the maintenance of the electoral college means that there could just be a few dozen votes in one State that could decide an election and could be the subject of a recount, or more than one recount. The solution is clear. We ought to elect a President by national vote. But one issue then arises. What if no Presidential candidate receives 50 percent of the vote? I suggest that we draw the line at 40 percent, since throughout the last hundred years every President we have installed, I believe, has received 40 percent of the popular vote; yet in contrast, no President in the last 12 years has received over 50 percent of the vote. But if we had a situation with three, four or five viable candidates for President and none of them got over 40 percent of the vote, then I would suggest a national runoff. For those who disagree with the cost of such an enterprise, even in those incredibly rare occasions when a leading candidate failed to receive even 40 percent, then perhaps the House of Representatives could select the President, with each Member of the House having an equal vote. Mr. Speaker, we may not abolish the electoral college; but if we do not, it is time for us to stop playing with the excitement of wondering if we will have faithless electors. Now, I am confident on December 18 we will not have faithless electors; that every elector will cast their vote for the slate to which they are pledged. But just because it does not happen next week, does not mean we can sleep and wait for when it does happen. There have been faithless electors in the past. If we cannot agree to abolish the electoral college, let us at least abolish electoral college members and use a point system that is automatic. If we like the pageantry, then we could have electoral college members, but their votes should be tabulated for the candidate to which they are pledged, unless that candidate releases them by a formal notarized document. If we do otherwise, then we will take a breath, we will relax on December 18, when faithless electors do not control the outcome of the Presidency, and we will leave it to our children and grandchildren to experience the constitutional crisis that we could prevent today by eliminating the risk of faithless electors. Now, there is another issue I would like to discuss, and that is the statutory interpretation. It is by no means clear whether this is the law of the land, but it is the belief of some that a candidate for President cannot tell the people of the country who would serve in his or her cabinet. There is discussion that our various anti-bribery statutes, et cetera, indicate that no candidate for office can indicate who will get an appointment should he or she be successful. Now, I agree we should not be selling appointments, and that would never be legal; but we should certainly clarify the law so that if a Presidential candidate chose to announce who would serve in this or that position, and announced it publicly, that the country would take that into consideration. No candidate should risk the violation of Federal law. One could even postulate the idea of a criminal conviction just for telling us what some of us want to know. Now, as a politically involved individual, I would advise most Presidential candidates not to tell us who they would appoint to the cabinets. But any Presidential candidate who chose to do so should not face any retribution. Now, Mr. Speaker, the next time bomb which we have not bothered to listen to is the method of amending our Constitution by holding a Constitutional Convention. We have never amended our Constitution that way, and so we have tremendous questions as to how such a Constitutional Convention would work. The last time Congress dealt with this, I believe, was in the 102nd Congress, when there was a Constitutional Convention Implementation Act introduced but basically ignored by the House and the Senate. Here are a few of the issues. Let me cite article 5 of our Constitution, first of all, which says that with the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, there shall be a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution, which would then have to be ratified by the legislatures in three-quarters of the States. In fact, quite a number of States, at times in the past, sometimes 50 or 100 years in the past, have passed the necessary resolution to call for a Constitutional Convention. Usually, they have called for a Constitutional Convention to deal with this or that problem. Some States have called for constitutional conventions to deal with a balanced budget amendment or with term limits. But if a Constitutional Convention were called, or purportedly called, perhaps called in the opinion of some and not called in the opinion of others, the Congressional Research Service outlines quite a number of questions that have not been settled. For example, on question yet to be settled is whether or not the petitions to call that convention must all be the same document or whether some can call for a convention to deal with term limits and others a convention to deal with balancing the budget, and a bunch of others calling for a convention to completely revise the Constitution. What are the scope and limitations of any such Constitutional Convention? Once assembled, for example assembled for the purpose of passing term limitations, is the convention free to propose to the several States the complete revision of our constitution? What is the validity of any rescission of a petition by a State legislature? If a legislature called for a Constitutional Convention to deal with the adverse consequences of prohibition and passed that resolution in the first half of the last century, is that State, one, counted toward the calling of a Constitutional Convention included in the tally of modern States that have called for a Constitutional Convention to deal with such modern concepts as term limits? Do State petitions have to be contemporaneous? Another unsettled issue? There are many others. And yet, our entire Constitution could be revised from the beginning through the most recent amendment by a constitutional convention which may or may not be legitimate because it may or may not conform on one of these issues. It is time for Congress to either abolish the entire concept of a constitutional convention or at least clarify how it would be called and what would be the scope of its powers. I might add that perhaps we should move to a system where Congress can propose or State legislatures can propose amendments to our Constitution either two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or two-thirds of the State legislatures who could then see that amendment approved at a referendum by two-thirds of the people of the country. It may be time to look to the referendum as a way to ratify amendments to our Constitution. Those are at least issues that we should talk about as much as we talk about the issues that pit Republicans against Democrats. We should deal at length with the structure of our democracy. We also, of course, should deal with campaign finance reform. And then we should deal with an issue put before us by the Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Clinton. You will remember that that is the decision in which the Court decided that anyone could sue the President for any reason, that the lawsuit would go forward, the President could be deposed. And fortunately, in the last 4 years only one party, only one individual, has sued the President. It had very significant consequences. I would cite the House to the last paragraph of the Supreme Court's decision where it says, ``If Congress deems it appropriate to afford the President stronger protection, it may respond with appropriate legislation.'' We ought to take the court up on that. And here is why: anyone with sufficient financing could sue the incoming President and we could have dozens and dozens of lawsuits financed by people who simply are angry with President-elect Bush or then-President Bush. Slander lawsuits, sexual harassment lawsuits, job discrimination lawsuits, Federal lawsuits, State lawsuits. Could $10 million be raised from highly partisan Democrats for the purpose of financing dozens of lawsuits resulting in dozens and dozens of depositions of the incoming President? Perhaps. I do not want to find out. And even if that is not the state to which our country has yet sunk in levels of partisanship, do we want to wait a decade or two or three until there is an organized effort to sue whoever is then President as many times as possible and take as many depositions as possible on as many salacious topics as possible? I suggest, instead, that we indicate that any lawsuit against the President is suspended, that the statute of limitations is told, that the rights of the plaintiffs are preserved until that Presidency is completed, and that any depositions necessary to preserve evidence, any documents that are necessary to be preserved are preserved so that trial can go forward after the defendant in that lawsuit leaves the White House. To do otherwise is to invite anti-Presidential retribution by lawsuits. There is another issue that I hesitate to bring before the House but one that we might be able to deal with, and that is the ongoing investigation begun by Kenneth Starr. Most of this country knows that we have failed to reauthorize, that we have squelched the Independent Counsel statute. Much of the country does not know that the Independent Counsel's Office of Ken Starr continues to operate and is allowed to continue to operate as long as it wishes to or until we in this Congress by statute pull the plug, padlock the office, and send the files to the Justice Department. Now we have a particular reason to do so. The Justice Department, on January 21, will be in Republican hands; and if there is anything in those files which even a Republican administration using reasonable discretion determines to prosecute, they are free to do so. But we allowed the Independent Counsel statute to expire because we know that it does not operate with discretion, that an office that exists only to prosecute one individual and it is terminated if it fails to prosecute will find some reason to prosecute, at least find some reason to continue to investigate. And if you think that partisan tensions are now as high in Washington as they could ever be, imagine how this country will react if a Republican Congress allows to continue the Ken Starr investigation. Will we just be viewed as another Pakistan, another troubled democracy or an occasional democracy if we begin the process of indicting our former Presidents? I suggest that the continued failure of this Congress to act, the continued allowance of this Congress to fund Robert Ray's operation has the seeds for raising partisanship to one unnecessary level. We have heard as much as we need to about Monica Lewinsky, and Federal dollars should no longer be spent to finance an office that has nothing to do, that loses its power, that loses its payment as soon as they decide that the Lewinsky matter is no longer worthy of investigation. Mr. Speaker, I have brought up bipartisanship quite a number of times in this presentation. Let me just take a minute to talk about what I think bipartisanship means. Bipartisanship, when it comes to legislation, means working together to obtain bills that have substantial support on both sides of the aisle, working with the leadership and the mainstream Members on both sides of the aisle to put together bills that solve problems for America. Alternatively, it could mean working through the committee process, and should mean working through the committee process, on bills that obtain the support of the ranking member and the chairperson of the subcommittee that is relevant and/or the committee that is relevant or obtain substantial support from Democrats and Republicans on the relevant committee. My fear is that we will deal with bipartisanship by finding a bill that is purely partisan and then reaching out to one or two Members of the other party and saying a bill that is 99 and three-quarters percent Republican and one-tenth of one percent Democrat is a bipartisan bill. That would be a betrayal of the consents of bipartisanship. I commend President-elect Bush for reaching out to Democrats to appoint to his administration, just as President Clinton has appointed a Republican who now serves as Secretary of Defense. But it would be a bitter form of bipartisanship if the appointment process was used cynically to appoint a sitting U.S. Senator that is a Democrat not to bring bipartisanship to the administration but to change the partisan makeup of the United States Senate. There are many retired Democratic U.S. Senators and House Members that would make excellent members of President-elect Bush's cabinet. He should not use bipartisanship as a tool for partisanship as a device cynically used to appoint and thereby alter the effects of the congressional election. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I thank you for the hours that we have spent together in this hall from time to time. I thank you for your indulgence. And I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to be the last to address the 106th Congress. I know that when we return we will reach across the aisle to begin solving the problems of America, and I hope that that process is aided by focusing on those problems as to which there is no Democratic or Republican view.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that Southern California is spreading wisdom to the far shores of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been here long before I was involved in the India Caucus and in strengthening ties between the world's richest democracy and the world's largest democracy. Issues That We Need to Confront to Avoid Constitutional Crisis of Coming Decades

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this country has lost a leader of depth and integrity. We in this House have lost one of our own. Bettye and Cary have lost a husband and a father, and I have lost a role model and a friend. We in the California delegation have lost a leader and a mentor, and we have been thunderstruck with the fourth sudden death in our delegation in 4 years. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, we often use the term ``gentleman.'' But no one better exemplified that term than Julian Dixon. He showed us honor, he was a conciliator, a wise voice even when others were gripped with emotion. Yet under that calm demeanor was a man of passion who fought for education and civil rights and the dispossessed, a man who cosponsored virtually every civil rights bill of significance over the last 20 years and who obtained funding for the same Simon Wiesenthal Center, Museum of Tolerance, Tools for Tolerance program in Los Angeles, a man who was placed on the Intelligence Committee and the Ethics Committee because of what he could bring in intelligence and in honor to those committees, a man who cared very much for the two cities in which he spent his life, Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles where he did so much to provide transportation for our city. Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great man. He will be missed.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 442, 106th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN

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.

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. 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.

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 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

Mr. SHERMAN. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. If I can interject at this point.