[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5996-H6002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  HOUSE LEADERSHIP QUESTIONED IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION INVESTIGATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, there is an unprecedented attack 
currently under way in this Congress. Right now Republicans are 
engaging in a war on women, on Hispanics and on the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Last November the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] was 
elected to the House of Representatives for the 46th District of 
California, fair and square. The loser, Bob Dornan and the Republicans, 
have refused to concede defeat. The story about how far they will go to 
defeat this woman, Hispanic Member of Congress, is shameful. After 9 
months and after spending $300,000 of the taxpayers money, they still 
have not given up. They have issued subpoenas at Bob Dornan's request, 
they have forced the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] to prove 
that the people who voted for her had the right to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not only unprecedented, it is wrong. The burden 
of proof is on the loser. The Washington Post agrees. Yesterday they 
said that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, in this case Bob 
Dornan. The Post takes it further. They said that there is no credible 
evidence to change the outcome of this race. The message is clear: 
admit defeat and give up.
  That has not stopped the Republicans from harassing law abiding 
citizens though. They have subpoenaed INS records, and the result is 
that the INS offices has been spending all their time responding to the 
subpoenas and are unable to do their real work.
  But that is not all. The Republicans have used this so-called 
investigation as a way of harassing their political enemies. They have 
harassed Catholic Charities, they have examined the records of 20,000 
community college students, and they have admitted targeting unions 
that employed immigrant workers. This kind of behavior is just 
outrageous. The Republican leadership is using the Committee on House 
Oversight to try to throw out the election of a Member of Congress 
without being able to prove any wrongdoing.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] should be 
allowed to do what she does best, represent the people of the 46th 
district of California. Instead she has been forced to bear the burden 
of proof of her innocence. This is a total abuse of power by the 
Republicans.
  This is not just a personal attack on the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Sanchez]. This is an attack on women, and it is a clear attack on 
Latinos. By using this opportunity to crosscheck voting records with 
records of the INS, the Republicans are trying to intimidate Hispanics 
and trying to keep them from voting.
  Mr. Speaker, I have news for the Republicans. Hispanics are here to 
stay. They are a growing economic force, and, as the Republicans are 
finding out, they are a growing political force.
  I will give the Republicans a bit of free advice: If they want to win 
elections, the best way to do it is to respond to the needs of the 
voters. Instead of trying to show that every Latino is an illegal and 
trying to deny them the right to vote, they should listen to what 
Latinos have to say. Instead of trying to intimidate women, they should 
listen to what they have to say.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of learning their lesson when they lose an 
election, as most people do, the Republicans are using their power to 
distort the democratic process. Is that what the American people want? 
Is that what the democratic process is all about? I do not think so.
  Now I will yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am known here in the House as someone who 
is not a ranter and a raver, if I can use that phrase. I like to work 
whenever possible in a bipartisan manner to find common ground and to 
achieve

[[Page H5997]]

real progress for the American people. I think all of us were sent here 
to do this and to make a difference in that way.
  But I find myself unable to remain silent any longer about the 
Sanchez race. You know, I am mindful that the investigation that has 
been going on has now consumed more time than the entire campaign and 
election did from filing to election date, and I think there is 
something wrong when an investigation that produces nothing continues 
throughout what looks to be a plan to consume the entire term of the 
person's office.
  Now if there was any evidence of behavior that would affect the 
outcome, perhaps we could be more patient with this, but as the 
Washington Post has pointed out and as a matter of longstanding law as 
well as precedents of this House, the burden of proof is on the 
plaintiff in this case, and there is no credible evidence that has been 
brought forward that would lead any objective observer to the 
conclusion that the outcome of this election will be changed in any way 
through additional investigations.
  As the gentlewoman from New York knows, I am a member of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in that capacity I serve on the House 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization. I regret to report that 
the state of the records of the Immigration Service is so poor that the 
information being asked for frankly is not going to be able to be 
delivered in any kind of timely fashion. And by way of example, when 
the first request was made to the Immigration Service to match up names 
with INS records was delivered, 500,000 names came back, nearly, well, 
almost the entire population of a congressional district from all over 
the United States. Obviously this proves nothing. The numbers are now 
down to such a short percentage that there is no way the outcome 
could possibly be affected.

  Now I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle stand here in 
this well and become highly enraged and distressed and upset at the 
concept that this investigation would be perceived as racist and would 
be perceived as sexist and would be perceived as partisan, and I 
believe that those individuals who spoke in that manner did so in good 
faith and honorably. But I am here to say that if you continue after 
today, you are warned that in fact it will be taken in that manner by 
people of good-faith, not only in California and Ms. Sanchez' district 
but throughout this country, because Sanchez is as American a name as 
Lofgren or Smith or Wong, and yet the only individuals being looked at 
are Americans with names like Velazquez and Sanchez.
  And that is being taken very poorly in those sectors and, I think, 
rightfully so. We are not asking to see the naturalization papers of 
any Flahertys or Clintons, and I think that the voters and Americans in 
California have got it about right as to the impact of this 
investigation.
  I have come to know Congresswoman Sanchez as a very strong, forceful 
voice for ordinary working people in her district. I think it is 
important for the Republican Party to put this matter to one side to 
allow Congresswoman Sanchez to do her job, and we will have another 
election just next year. Candidates can run and voters can choose. That 
is the way to settle this at this point.
  And I would just urge that Members in good faith, Members of this 
House who take their oath of office seriously, will step back, ditch 
the partisanship, let the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] do 
her job.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Does the gentlewoman know the demographics of Loretta 
Sanchez' district?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, I do.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And what type of message are we sending to the 
Hispanic community when the names that have been checked with the INS 
only are those of Hispanic Americans?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Well, you know it reminds me, Congresswoman, of an 
incident that happened, and I have only been in this Congress now for 
32 months, but I served in local government in California for a number 
of years, and several years ago the Republican Party in southern 
California hired guards and posted them around the polls but only in 
sections of town that were primarily Latino. And, in fact, the 
Republican Party was sued over that and the court found that it was 
discriminatory and the Republicans were fined.
  Many people in California are likening this investigation to that 
more egregious, and, I would say, intentional, effort to try and 
discourage Americans who are of Hispanic descent from exercising their 
franchise, as every other American should do. It is certainly, I think, 
the wrong message for America, the wrong message for our children to 
see.
  We are living in a country, fortunately, where what defines your 
Americanism is not where your parents or grandparents came from, it is 
not whether your name is Smith, Wong, or Sanchez, it is not the color 
of your skin. It is your belief in freedom, it is your belief in the 
ideals of this country that make you. It is your willingness to stand 
up for your country that make you an American in belief, and the 
separating out of Hispanic Americans I think is terribly wrong.
  And I will make this prediction as well, that in the end Latino 
Americans in California have taken great offense at this, and I think 
are certainly registering to vote in much greater numbers than 
historically has been true, and I think what I am hearing from my 
constituents or Latinos is that they now understand in quite a 
different way which party is on their side, and I have recently heard 
that from other Americans whose parents immigrated from places other 
than Europe, including friends in the Korean-American business 
community and others.
  So I think in the end this will all be resolved, but for now I think 
it is important for us to step back. I have heard people say, well, in 
1984 something happened that the Democrats did that was wrong. I was 
not here then. If the Democrats did something wrong, they should not 
have done it, but we should not do a bad thing. We should do what our 
oath of office requires us to do, what is right for America, what is 
right for this House and hold up our heads proudly.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Now I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to comment for a 
minute and then yield here for a colloquy with my friends because I 
think why we are here tonight is to stand on the floor of the House of 
Representatives in defense of this institution and criticizing 
essentially the attack that has been made upon this institution.

                              {time}  1830

  It has been an attack on this institution, because it is an attack on 
a particular Member, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez, who got elected to this House. She was declared the vote 
winner by the Secretary of State of the State of California, entered 
this House, took the oath of office. And now there is a witch hunt to 
say that because she had a close election, she won by 984 votes, that 
therefore, and because her name is Sanchez, and because she lives in 
southern California, and because many people in southern California 
have Latino names, that people voted in that election who should not 
have voted.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are probably people in most elections in 
America who voted who should not have voted. There are illegal votes 
cast in this country. But to say that they were all cast in one 
congressional district is ridiculous.
  The reason that I am so upset about it, if indeed Members want to go 
after close elections, the election of the gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Loretta Sanchez, ranked fifth. Listen to the names ahead of her: 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Adam Smith, the gentlewoman from Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith. All of 
those people, Members of this House, won by lesser votes than she did.
  So, essentially, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox, won by 
84 votes. Did anybody challenge that election and say there were 
illegal voters in his election, or in the election of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney? Did the Canadians come in and 
illegally vote in the election of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
John Tierney, or the gentleman

[[Page H5998]]

from Washington, Mr. Adam Smith, and the gentlewoman from Washington, 
Mrs. Linda Smith? How many Canadians are they challenging?
  No, they are picking out one race, one congressional district in all 
of the United States, one that came in fifth from the bottom, and going 
after that. Why? Because of a very controversial former Member of this 
Congress who has decided ad hocly not to give up his title, but to use 
his color of title to go after the person who won. So I engage my 
colleagues in a colloquy about this, and certainly would ask the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for a comment on it as 
well.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, I think my colleague is 
right. My colleagues who have spoken are right. I think there is an 
important point. First of all, the point the gentleman brought out was 
that there are several people who had more narrowly determined races on 
whom nothing is being challenged. No list of ethnic names are being 
addressed and none are being requested.
  I think what is important to note, and the gentleman talked about it, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), was certified 
the winner of this election. It was by a Republican registrar of 
voters, and a Republican secretary of State.
  That was after, which is even a second piece of this, which is 
because we had some other races that in fact were more narrowly 
defined, but there was a recount of every single ballot, and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), was determined and 
certified the winner by 979 votes. So I think that is what the point 
is.
  When we look at this issue, what we need to wonder about is is this a 
politically motivated attempt to steal an election? Is it, by virtue of 
the requests that have been made from the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service about the thousands and thousands of Hispanic 
names to be reviewed, is it anti-Hispanic? And third, given what we 
know, again, about the certification and other races that were not 
looked into, that the nature of the hearings, are they not in fact a 
waste of taxpayers' dollars?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, does the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut happen to know the amount of money that 
has been spent on this investigation by the House so far?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I will be happy to tell my colleagues. First, we have 
spent 9 months at this effort and over $300,000 in taxpayers' funds 
investigating this election.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Does that include the cost incurred by the Immigration 
Service to comply with all these many requests that have yielded 
nothing?
  Ms. DeLAURO. It does not. As a matter of fact, in our Committee on 
Appropriations process, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), asked 
that the INS be reimbursed the money that they have had to put out to 
do this, and the answer came back from the committee as a no, that we 
would not reimburse them for doing that. So out of the INS budget there 
is that money, in addition to the $300,000 that has already been spent.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield 
further, I just wanted to make one more point. Although the contested 
election is about the result of the 46th Congressional District, in 
which 93,000 people voted, Mr. Dornan and his Republican allies 
sanctioned the INS to pry into the records of all of 1.3 million Orange 
County voters. This means that the Republican-led Committee on House 
Oversight ordered the INS to go through the records of hundreds of 
thousands of people not associated with the results of this contested 
election. Most of these people could not have cast a vote either for or 
against the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, or Bob 
Dornan because they were not even living in that district.
  So it is definitely unfair, it is unethical, and an invasion of 
privacy for these registered voters to be subjected to the antics and 
the subpoenas of this private citizen, Dornan.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to set the record 
straight here. Bob Dornan, a former Member of the House of 
Representatives, no longer a Member of this body, a private citizen, if 
you will, he has been given the power to subpoena. That is unheard of. 
It is unprecedented. He has used this authority to truly harass his 
political enemies, forcing them to spend thousands and thousands of 
dollars. That is a terrific point. I think it is important for people 
to know he has no standing and no jurisdiction as a Member of this 
body.
  Mr. FARR of California. In the election next door, the gentleman from 
California, Mr. George Brown, he won with 17 more votes than the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, 17 more votes; the 
same type of mix of ethnic populations. Is anyone going after the 
voters in his district and suggesting that that election was a fraud? 
No. This is absolutely the first time in the history of this country, 
in this House, when they have used the powers of the INS, the 
Immigration Service, to go back and question people how they became 
legal citizens.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

  Mr. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a very 
valid point. Let me just add my voice to my colleagues who are here 
tonight. I will be brief.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, we have certainly been 
watching from a distance, because subpoenas are extremely sacred or a 
very special procedural tool for which one must document and provide 
safeguards. You cannot just randomly go out. It is amazing to us that 
we would have a subpoena process by a private citizen whom this House 
is allowing to proceed against a sitting Member of Congress, who is 
duly representing 550,000 citizens.
  If we do nothing more than to ask this Republican Congress to cease 
and desist in allowing that sort of infraction of rights because we 
cannot find any basis, and as the gentlewoman from California said, 
utilizing the INS, I do not want to say in its innocence, but in its 
responsibility, misusing its responsibility.
  I think it is appalling, I think it is outrageous, and I do think 
today as we stand here, on July 29, it is time now to say, end it 
forever and forever, to allow the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez, who has been ably serving, to serve her constituents 
and not to be operating under a false cloud of taintedness that has 
been represented by someone who has simply lost their election.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I represent an area in Minnesota that is 
quickly seeing the ethnic composition of the population change. It has 
been dramatic. I know that quite often there is a suspicion that if we 
have a new family in town, maybe it is not documented, maybe it has 
come into our country illegally, or an individual. There is also a 
suspicion as people move in and out of apartments, large numbers of 
people may be living under one roof or at the same address, and do we 
have illegal residents.
  One thing that really struck me about this case in California was the 
fact that it went beyond just worrying about this, but apparently there 
are accusations that have been made that if people live at the same 
address, they must be registering fraudulently to vote.
  I have learned that many of these people are, say, residents at a 
senior housing project; or in one case, it was nuns that were part of 
an order, a Catholic order, and it was suspected that the nuns were 
illegal residents; or that military personnel, somebody at the same 
address, because they were at an Air Force base or a naval base, were 
registered illegally.
  I think it borders on paranoia, and I think it is unfortunate that a 
colleague of ours, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, were to 
have to spend vast sums of money to answer allegations which really 
appear to be baseless and participate in a fishing expedition.
  I really think it would behoove our body if there would be some way 
that this investigation could be promptly brought to an end, honorably, 
so really

[[Page H5999]]

the divisive characteristic of this investigation can be put behind us. 
Because we certainly have, as this week indicates, some very large 
issues to struggle through. The budget agreement that was negotiated 
last spring and the legislation which is now being drafted is where we 
ought to be focusing our attention. I think all of us should spend most 
of our time on this. This is just sort of a brief interlude where we 
have taken deep concern in one of our colleagues' situations.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman represents an area 
more in the interior of the country, but the gentleman and I are 
members of a very small group here in the House, the Scandinavian 
Caucus. As I think back in listening to the gentleman speak about his 
district, I am reminded of my own grandfather who was an immigrant, and 
he had his naturalization certificate and he hung it on the wall, he 
was so proud of it.
  As the gentleman is talking about newcomers coming in, I do not 
recall ever a time when people of Scandinavian descent were hunted down 
to see if there was proof of their citizenship. Yet he was an 
immigrant, much more than many of the Latinos in California whose 
families have lived in California for generations, long before my 
family arrived.
  I wonder whether in the gentleman's experience there has ever been 
these issues raised about what are the Scandihoovians doing there, and 
are they legit?
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I think each wave of immigration has brought 
with it a certain resentment on the part of the folks who are already 
there against the newcomers. I think even Scandinavians, unfortunately, 
face some of that.
  But I look back in reading Minnesota history with some interest to 
learn that ballot instructions in my State were once printed in nine 
languages, including three Scandinavian languages, as well as Spanish. 
This was at the turn of the century, about 100 years ago. So I think 
when we did have these large waves of immigration from Europe, we tried 
to somehow fit our voting and our citizenship process to be as 
inclusive as possible.
  I think here we see sometimes what borders on xenophobia, and it is 
very unfortunate. Certainly none of us want to encourage illegal 
immigration, but I think folks who are in our country, who are legal 
residents of our country, they have gone through the steps of 
naturalization and become citizens, they are valued members of our 
community. We ought to treat them with respect and we ought to welcome 
them into the political process and make sure they are full 
participants, because we need, as all of us know, as broad a 
participation as possible in the political process. We are constantly 
trying to encourage people to join with us, whether they be on our side 
of the aisle or not, just to be a part of the debate.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I think the gentleman makes a very valid 
point, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we really ought to be trying to 
find ways to bring people into the process; that is, to encourage 
people to participate.
  We always talk about the greatness of this democracy of ours, and 
that people should be involved. Here we are in a situation that is 
actually doing just the opposite, trying to intimidate people, 
suggesting to them that they ought not participate.

                              {time}  1845

  I think it is horrendous. It is unbelievable. That is why I am so 
pleased that I decided to come over this evening and join with all of 
my colleagues as they all say that enough is enough. When are we going 
to quit it? When are we going to cut it out?
  I have looked at at least 15 or 20 newspaper clippings, all 
indicating that the investigations are turning up absolutely nothing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will 
continue to yield, I know how hard the gentleman has worked in an era 
of civil rights, not because of age but because of commitment. Is it 
not interesting that we are talking about civil rights for now a new 
immigrant group, Hispanics, when in the Deep South and many other 
places there was a chilling effect for African-Americans to vote, 
1950's and 1940's and 1960's. There was the poll tax and intimidation.
  Why are we in 1997 carrying on sort of the same traditions of 
intimidating people from voting by using INS officers coming to your 
door investigating nuns? It looks like this country would recognize 
that with Scandinavians, with new immigrants, with Asians, with 
Hispanics, African-Americans, I come from an immigrant background, that 
everyone deserves a chance to participate. It looks like that is what 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] stands for.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I agree with that, because if it 
is Hispanics today, Latinos, then it is African-Americans, 
Scandinavians, Greeks, it is somebody else tomorrow. We all stand with 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and want to make sure 
that she does not have to keep going through this unnecessary hassle.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I came in a little bit late but I, like yourself, came down here when I 
saw that this was the topic this evening. I have been watching this 
scenario unfold for some period of time.
  Let me not go away permanently from the issue of civil rights, which 
I think is important. I come from the Irish minority, which is not much 
of a minority around here, but we had our history and we had our 
difficult times getting into the electoral process. I am proud of the 
fact that we are very much engaged in it now and that we contribute so 
much.
  Let me take it to a political level. I think that is something that 
we have to be mindful of here. This is not only a recount that is going 
on out in California. I was the subject of a recount in my district. I 
know from past experience, working on other people's recounts over the 
years, that when those votes are counted, one by one, you have got a 
real definite idea of how the vote resulted.
  At the end of that recount, Ms. Sanchez was declared the winner by 
almost 1,000 votes. That is a significant margin of victory in a 
recount situation.
  Now I think we take it to the political level. This is not about just 
civil rights. It is about politics. This is about how can the 
Republican Party get behind a candidate who will not let go, a person 
who lost and now knows he lost, if he has any touch with reality, will 
not let go of the situation? And they come on and they get behind it 
and let this situation keep unfolding so that we have a Member of 
Congress, who represents almost 600,000 people, that has to come here 
and do the business for those people and represent those people on some 
very significant and important issues and at the same time, because the 
party chooses not to let it go, because they, I think, perhaps would 
like to see a Democrat in that position, allow that situation to unfold 
so that not only does Loretta Sanchez have to do the business here; she 
has to be mindful of what is going on back at home.
  As my colleague from Chicago just said, back home it is clear in the 
papers there is nothing going on of any substance there except for this 
obsession with the lack of reality that goes on and on.
  Let me just say that I think the voters back in Orange County should 
be significantly proud of the work Loretta Sanchez does in spite of 
what has been going on back there and the way it must be some sort of 
distraction, but you would never know it for the fine work she is doing 
here.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had a closer 
election than Loretta Sanchez?
  Mr. TIERNEY. It was a 360 vote margin. At the end of the election we 
had a recount and I won by 371 votes, which in that case was 
significant enough that a recount could not change that. Yet Loretta 
Sanchez' was so much larger than that.
  Mr. FARR of California. She won by 900 votes. So you have a very 
close election, and yet they are not going after you and doing a witch 
hunt in your district in Massachusetts. After all, you are close to 
Canada, you could have had some Canadians sneak over and vote for you.

[[Page H6000]]

  Mr. TIERNEY. We counted every vote, and there was a reality in my 
district. The voters knew the first time. They certainly knew after the 
recount.
  Mr. FARR of California. The point is here is an election that is 
closer than the one that you were talking about in Orange County, a lot 
closer. There is no purge or going through and suggesting that the 
people in that election were all voting illegally because they were not 
properly registered. I think that this is obviously a witch hunt. There 
is 21 races that you say were close, that won by 6,000 votes or less, 
21 in the 435 Members of Congress. And of these top 21, there is only 
one that they are going after, and there is only one in that whole 
group of 21 that has a Hispanic name, Sanchez.
  I think that this is a witch hunt. It is embarrassing to this 
institution and ought to be called off. And it would not have been done 
had she not beaten Representative Bob Dornan, who everybody knows is a 
bulldog of every stripe and was here dominating this time usually in 
the evening on special orders about these issues.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the gentleman. 
During your recount or during any recount that you may know of, has 
there ever been a case such as this one where, in addition to the votes 
in your particular district, thousands and thousands of votes and 
thousands of voters' records were subpoenaed and looked into that had 
nothing to do with your particular election like in this case 
approximately 1.3 million Orange County voters had the INS go and look 
at their records?
  Mr. TIERNEY. No, certainly not. I suspect that this is what the 
American public has to hear. This is not about a recount to see if they 
are going to turn the seat over. I think everybody with both feet on 
the ground or both oars in the water knows that this election is over, 
that Loretta Sanchez has won. Never in my experience, either as an 
attorney representing people, my own recounts and other recounts, has 
anybody found the need to go outside. Most State officials would not 
let it happen.
  Certainly most Federal officials would not pursue it to go on. I 
think there should be some shame on the Members in this institution for 
allowing it to go on. To the extent they are participating in it, 
egging on and absolutely doing away with the rights of an individual, 
no longer do they make the person who is making the challenge prove the 
case. In this situation they would like Loretta Sanchez to prove a 
negative.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. On the question of the gentlewoman from California, 
the fact of the people who were, their files were requested to be with 
the INS, those surnames were Latino surnames. What kind of message are 
we sending to our Latino community? And yesterday on this floor there 
was the debate on the legislative branch where some of the Republicans 
were accusing us, the Democrats, of playing the race card. But how 
could you explain that, of all those who vote in California, the only 
names, the only voters that were requested to be proved by the INS were 
of Latino surnames?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I think that is a good point here. What we ought to be 
focusing on is why are we not having some explanation from the Members 
that are Members of this House that are driving this situation as to 
why this continues on. Why is there not some prospect here that a 
responsible leadership in this House would call on those Members to get 
down here and say why is it that this committee and this House would 
allow the kind of subpoena power to go on that has been going on when 
constitutional authorities have questioned it? Why would they allow 
this situation to go on when it has this overtone in terms of race? Why 
would they do that without coming down and explaining? If they say that 
is not the way it is, if they say there is some valid reason for this 
process to continue, I think the American people have to a right to 
hear about it.
  More specifically, I think the people in that particular district 
have a reason to know why they are inundated with this sort of nonsense 
day in and day out, article after article indicating this is nothing 
but a witch hunt, has no basis in reality, and there ought to be an 
answer given. I would suspect that there ought to be Members on this 
floor standing up explaining themselves.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to add that this is the first time where 
I see that the burden of proof is not on the loser. They are forcing 
Loretta Sanchez to prove that the people who voted for her had, in 
fact, the right to vote. That is not only wrong, it is shameful.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I 
had a point very much in keeping with what we have been saying here, 
pertaining to the spirit of this place at this very time. Right now, as 
we are talking about this situation, many of our colleagues are 
demonstrating the spirit of bipartisanship by having a baseball game. 
And that sends all kinds of signals out to the American people.
  On a more substantive matter, this week the House will probably 
overwhelmingly pass a bipartisan budget, tax relief bills that will in 
my judgment be of enormous benefit to Americans all over this great 
land. But in the midst of all this, in the midst of this spirit of 
bipartisanship, we must rise this evening to protest these wrongs that 
are being brought upon my friend and fellow Californian Loretta 
Sanchez. Others have focused on the bipartisan nature of this 
investigation. I want to talk about another aspect of it.
  First of all, I want to express my support of the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] but also to say that the real losers in this 
debate are the hundreds of thousands of Orange County residents whom 
she represents.
  I know from experience that being a freshman, a new Member, 
especially in a district previously in the hands of the majority, is a 
very difficult job. It is difficult to concentrate on legislative 
issues, constituent service, communities projects, without facing the 
constant drumbeat of electoral charges that have been rained down upon 
a very able Representative, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez].
  My colleague has been forced to expend so much of her time, her 
energy and her resources on what I would call a misguided inquisition, 
and it is to her credit that she has managed to become an effective 
Representative in this kind of working context. So it it is certainly 
time for the investigation to end. It is time to bring the same 
civility, the same spirit of civility that characterizes our current 
legislative breakthroughs to this issue. It is time to give the people 
of Orange County the same constitutional right to full-time 
representation as all Americans deserve. I want to say that I stand 
with Loretta Sanchez in tonight's very important special order.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add, sometimes people 
think that we stand here and on some of these issues that it is our 
view, it is our opinion. I said earlier today that the gentleman who 
lost this race, Bob Dornan, who is an ordinary citizen today, has been 
given tremendous power by being able to subpoena people. It is just not 
hearsay on my part about what he is willing to do, quite frankly, what 
kind of inaccuracies that he is engaged in. I think it is important 
that it be part of the record to note that his claims are proven time 
and time again to be baseless and to be without merit.
  In April, the Los Angeles Times wrote, and I quote, that a close 
review of Dornan's contentions shows them to be overstated and riddled 
with inaccuracies.
  So you have someone who is out there being bestowed with this 
tremendous power who is saying and doing, quite frankly, whatever he 
wants to do; and in trying to contravene what the people, the people of 
the 46th District of California said and they stated. And Loretta 
Sanchez is trying to represent them in this body and is doing a good 
job of representing them every single day with having to concern 
herself first and foremost with the job that she was elected to do.
  People put their trust and their faith in us when we come to this 
body. She is trying to carry out their wishes, what their interests are 
for themselves and for their families, as I said, doing a good job of 
that effort; and at the same time having to struggle with a whole lot 
of potentially and, as it is

[[Page H6001]]

listed here in the Los Angeles Times and others, some baseless 
statements of fact and being forced to have to raise hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to be able to counteract legal fees.
  The fact of the matter is, it is enough. In Italian there is a saying 
which is ``basta,'' enough. We have looked at this. There has been a 
certification. Let us allow the gentlewoman from the 46th District to 
continue to do the work on behalf of her constituents.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add and emphasize 
something that I feel is extremely important. Not only was the subpoena 
power given to an ordinary citizen, but the power that was given to 
subpoena far beyond the district election that was being contested so 
that the constitutional rights of thousands of other Orange County 
voters who had nothing to do with this particular election, their 
records were also subpoenaed. So it is extremely frightening, the fact 
that, No. 1, this leadership would give subpoena power to an everyday 
citizen and, second, that that power is extended far beyond the contest 
in question.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add by asking the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, based on his case where there was a 
recount, who had to prove that the voters who voted had the right to 
vote on his case?
  Mr. TIERNEY. The challenger. The challenger has the obligation and 
burden to overcome the results that are there and that are certified. 
In this instance, it is an even additional burden on that because there 
they are certified. The recount has been done. Again, I do not mean to 
contradict my colleagues here, but I like to keep bringing the focus 
back to this institution and this leadership that is allowing this to 
continue.

                              {time}  1900

  We can talk about a private individual having too much authority, a 
private individual getting subpoena power that no other private 
individual has, but we have to come back to this institution and wonder 
why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that have elected 
that leadership to this body, are allowing them to do to a Member of 
this body what has never been done before, and ought not to have been 
done in the first place, and ought not to be done, period, in this 
body, because it is a blight on this entire situation, it is a blight 
on the membership of this organization.
  We have an institution here that has to be protected, we have Members 
that have rights, and we have to go back to the voters and explain to 
them why it is that this body and this leadership is disregarding the 
Constitution, disregarding the rights of a Member, disregarding the 
rights of people living in that district and of the American public in 
general, and making a mockery of the electoral process.
  I think there should be some explanation for that. Because no matter 
how much we want to blame the individual who does not seem to be 
willing to let go, I think we have to blame the people in this 
institution who are driving this as a partisan matter.
  I know everybody likes bipartisanship and everybody likes to talk 
about how well we can get along down here. I do not necessarily 
subscribe to that. I think a good healthy dose of partisanship is what 
this place needs, but the right kind of partisanship.
  It is healthy for us to stand up and to debate our differences. It is 
healthy for us to set forth what our policies are and our principles, 
debate them, have a deliberative process, argue them, and come out and 
have a vote on them in this body. That is the kind of partisanship that 
the public has a right to expect and probably desires. What they do not 
need is petty bickering and petty partisanship where a majority in this 
body, through its leadership, would actually allow this kind of 
atrocity to go on.
  This type of a situation, where no one in their right mind believes 
it is allowable or acceptable to continue on, to harass a Member and to 
particularly make their life miserable, with no prospects of ever 
winning, and to take on an entire class of people that have done 
nothing wrong except go to the ballot box and exercise their right to a 
constitutional privilege to vote. And that is who we should have down 
in this body now, is that leadership, that group of people that are 
allowing this to continue. They should have to answer to the American 
public. They should have to answer to the people in the district of the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, 
and again I wish to point out that all of this has been at a tremendous 
cost to taxpayers. Over $300,000 has been spent on an election that has 
been duly certified by the Republican Orange County registrar and the 
Republican Secretary of State.
  So this is money that has been thrown away, and in spite of all the 
money and time and the violations and things that we have talked about 
on this floor, Dornan is no more closer to getting the election than he 
was on November 5. It has been a total waste of money, of taxpayers' 
money, and it really is a black mark on the leadership for allowing 
this to happen.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say, look, it is 
difficult to lose. Anyone who has run for public office understands 
that it is hard to lose. But when you have lost, and when there has 
been a recount of every single vote and there has been a certification 
of the election, quite frankly, after months and months of 
deliberation, 9 months, $300,000 in cost, there is a point in time 
where you have to say, ``I have lost this election. I don't feel good 
about it, maybe I can come back again as part of the process, but I 
have lost this election.''
  It really is a part of the leadership of this institution to take in 
hand their friend, Bob Dornan, and say enough is enough. This is 
concluded. We have checked it, we have rechecked it, we have asked our 
questions, and we too are sorry that you lost, and we will have to pick 
up another day and maybe go out and try to win that district back 
again, but we have lost for the time being. Let us get on and let the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, get on with her work.
  Mr. TIERNEY. That is, of course, if we are assuming that this is all 
about friendship and all about trying to do the right thing by their 
friend. I think we all know it is something else.
  I think this thing smells to high heaven and that people understand 
there is another motive and another goal here for people, and they 
ought, and again, I am going to close because I have to leave, but they 
ought to be on this floor explaining to the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, her constituents, the State of 
California, and the people of America as well as every Member of this 
body why they are allowing this to continue.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say not only have we 
spent $300,000 of taxpayers' money, but also the INS has spent over 
$50,000, and just one office only is dedicated to dealing with this 
issue.
  Mr. TIERNEY. If I can interrupt, this is the same group of 
individuals who fought us on spending money to insure children. These 
are the people that could not find the money to insure as many people 
as we wanted to insure, young people in this country, who can find 
$300,000 to argue a cause that is long lost.
  Again, I think this just goes to the point there is another motive 
here, another avenue that is strictly political partisan bickering, and 
they should get beyond it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield, and to be specific, a 
program that a number of us came down here to support and through 
actually shaming the other side we added money to the WIC program, 
Women, Infants and Children. We are talking about cereal, formula and 
healthy food for women, infants and children, and we were told that 
there was not enough money to do this.
  In fact, what we have done with the INS is to say they have to do 
this; they have to spend the money for this, in addition to $300,000 as 
a cost, when there are so many needs. My colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps], said we spent a long time coming to a 
conclusion on a balanced budget agreement and trying to look at how we 
can be fiscally responsible.
  So in fact we do have other motivation which underlies this issue, 
and quite frankly, I think when this sees the light of day, the 
American public, the way they saw what we ought to be

[[Page H6002]]

doing was the right thing with the Women, Infants and children program, 
will understand what is going on with this program. And I think that we 
ought to continue the debate and the dialogue so that, in fact, the 
public knows all about this.
  Mr. CAPPS. If the gentlewoman would yield, she makes a very good 
point that it is not easy to lose, and when people lose there is a 
natural reaction.
  But there is another fact here that we should consider, and that is, 
how many people have had the privilege of serving in this House since 
the beginning? There have been about 11,500, maybe 11,800 people who 
have served in the House from the beginning of this people's House.

  It is more difficult to get in here if one is of a certain 
characteristic. That is, how many women have served in this House? I 
think 165 out of the 11,800?
  I do not have all the math down with precision, but I think one-third 
of the women who have ever served here in the long history of our 
country, one-third of all these women are here now.
  How many African-Americans have served in this House? Less than 100. 
Less than 100 out of the close to 12,000 people that have been here. 
How many Members of the Latino community have served in this House? 
Very, very few. Proportionately very few. And I would think that the 
majority of those from the Latino community who have served in the 
House are here at the present time.
  What does this say? Clearly, if the Congresswoman's name was not 
Sanchez, this would not be going on. This would not be going on. We 
need to call that to the attention of the American people because that 
is wrong. That is immoral. And we are not going to have full democracy 
in this House when it is so difficult for certain segments of the 
population to be elected. I think we should call it what it is.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I think the gentleman is right. I think that the more 
one takes a look at this, the more one hears about what names are being 
requested and how many and in what volume.
  And I think my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lucille Roybal-Allard, has said they have gone well beyond the 46th 
District. This is Orange County, and people who in no way are engaged 
or involved in this particular election, and that it speaks volumes, I 
think, about what the nature and what the tendencies are. And that is 
wrong. It really is. It is wrong and it is divisive in this country.
  We have a difficult enough time with people coming together and 
wanting people to be together. We have a bona fide, certified election 
in the 46th District of California, and we ought to acknowledge that 
and not put people's ethnicity at the center of what our electoral 
process is all about. That really is wrong. It takes us back years and 
years and years. That is not forward looking, it is backward looking in 
this country.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. At some point, the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, months ago, announced that not only would they be going 
after the district of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez, but he mentioned three more districts, all of them represented 
by Latinos.
  They get upset when we bring this issue onto the floor and they say 
we are playing the race card, but I was elected and I was sworn in and 
no one contested my race. Why did he have to mention the 12th 
Congressional District? Why did he have to mention three other 
districts represented by Latinos who were not contested by any 
opposition from their own districts?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I did not come 
here to rain on her parade. I understand what my colleagues are doing. 
But I do have to simply rise and voice some concern about the language 
and the words which were used. And, frankly, I take them personally, to 
the point almost of wishing to raise a point of personal privilege.
  The term ``witch hunt'' was used to describe this. I am the chairman 
of the task force attempting to resolve the issue of the contested 
election in the 46th District. I have tried my very, very best to keep 
this fair and honorable. We did not initiate it, Mr. Dornan initiated 
it. We have a responsibility to pursue it.
  The issue was raised by the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps] 
that if the name of the gentlewoman from California was not Sanchez, 
this would not have happened. I do not happen to believe that is true, 
but at any rate that is immaterial to the discussion.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I take back the balance of my time.
  On that point, I would say, then, how could the gentleman address the 
fact that subpoena powers have been given to a private citizen? How 
does the gentleman explain the fact that the chairman of the Committee 
on House Oversight in a press conference said that he would go after 
three other districts that have been duly elected, where Latino 
representatives were elected? How would the gentleman explain that?
  Ms. DeLAURO. The gentlewoman is absolutely right, there is no 
explanation for the direction that this investigation has taken. I have 
a high regard for the gentleman, but the fact of the matter is that we 
are 9 months into an investigation. We have spent $300,000, $150,000 of 
the INS's money, going well beyond the 46th District, calling into 
question hundreds of thousands of Latino, Hispanic names, done nowhere 
else in this country. Unprecedented. And providing powers to an 
ordinary average citizen who lost an election.
  People win and lose elections every single year, and when we lose, it 
is tough, but what we have to do is to get over it. And there is a 
responsibility on the part of the leadership, whether they chair a 
subcommittee, whether they serve as Speaker, majority leader, or 
whatever position they serve in this body, to look at these events and 
say enough is enough.
  We had an election process. We have a certified number, after a 
recount, bipartisan officials who, quite frankly, those officials have 
done their job. They took a look at this, they counted every ballot, 
and they said the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, 
represents the 46th District. And this body, in response to a former 
member who says that he lost for some reason, has given him subpoena 
powers, and that is truly outrageous that this has happened. Again, 
unprecedented in the history of this institution.
  This is a noble institution. My colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps] said only 11,500 people have served in this 
body. These elections are sacred.

                              {time}  1915

  The people's vote is sacred.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. I will not take any more of the gentlewoman's time. I 
just want to say that I will continue this in the next special order. 
But I do invite all of my colleagues to remain for that. And I will be 
happy to explain and answer for my colleagues and give the facts of the 
situation.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. If, in fact, we are going to be hearing the facts, 
I would also like to ask the question that, if we are talking about 
93,000 voters in the 46th district that cast votes for the Sanchez-
Dornan election, then why were 1.3 million Orange County voters' 
records subpoenaed and why were they all Latino names?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for 
coming here and debating this issue and raising the awareness of the 
American people in this country. I know that the Republican leadership 
will have a public relations battle ahead of them. They are going to 
lose this one, the same way they lost the WIC battle and they lost the 
disaster relief package debate.

                          ____________________