[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8244-H8253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 244, SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT IN CASE 
                          OF DORNAN V. SANCHEZ

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 253

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 244) 
     demanding that the Office of the United States Attorney for 
     the Central District of California file criminal charges 
     against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to comply 
     with a valid subpoena under the Federal Contested Elections 
     Act. The resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution and the preamble to final adoption 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on House Oversight; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions and 
     on which the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gillmor]. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a rule which provides for 
consideration of House Resolution 244. It is a resolution relating to 
subpoena enforcement in the case of Dornan v. Sanchez. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of debate, divided equally between the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight. The rule 
also waives points of order against consideration of this resolution.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution this rule brings to the floor today is an 
attempt to express the will of this House relating to the proper 
enforcement of a subpoena issued under the Federal Contested Elections 
Act.
  The House will be asserting, by voting on this resolution, that 
ignoring a valid subpoena issued under this act is an affront to the 
dignity of the House of Representatives and to the integrity of its 
proceedings.
  We will hear from Members of the House on the Committee on House 
Oversight to explain the facts of the case during the debate on this 
resolution. But it is important to consider the relevant statutes in 
question at the onset of this debate, and I would like to take a minute 
just to make sure that we all understand those statutes.
  As the debate on this resolution unfolds, which is likely to be 
acrimonious, at best, I would ask Members to keep in mind these 
important provisions of law: Members should also be aware of their 
constitutional responsibilities as they consider this very, very 
difficult issue.
  First, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that each 
House, that means the House and the Senate, shall be the judge of its 
own elections, of its own returns, and qualifications of its own 
Members. That is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United 
States. This provides the groundwork for the House to judge contested 
elections involving its seats, a responsibility the House has practiced 
since the early Congresses, 200 years ago.
  Also, the Federal Contested Elections Act, enacted in 1969, sets 
forth the procedures for candidates to contest an election in this 
House of Representatives. The act provides for filing a Notice of 
Contest with the Clerk of the House, among other congressional 
procedures. Furthermore, the act sets forth procedures for subpoena for 
depositions.
  The Contested Elections Act is also very specific in ``allowing 
subpoenas to be issued by any party in the elected contest.'' That is a 
quote. We heard considerable testimony on that subject in the Committee 
on Rules for several hours last night.
  As the Members are well aware, there is a contested election pending 
in the 46th district in California. On March 17, 1997, and this is 
important for the Members to understand, the United States District 
Court issued a subpoena under the Contested Elections Act for the 
deposition and records of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional. The Committee on 
House Oversight voted to modify the subpoena and require compliance by 
a date certain, that date

[[Page H8245]]

being May 1, 1997. To date, compliance with this valid subpoena has not 
occurred.
  It should also be noted that, in the exercise of its proper role 
under the Contested Elections Act, the Committee on House Oversight met 
on September 24 just past and quashed several subpoenas, including one 
to the contestee in the case, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez].

                              {time}  2100

  Last week, Mr. Speaker, the United States District Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the deposition subpoena provisions of the 
Contested Election Act. House Resolution 244, the resolution before us 
today, will put the House on record asserting that the rights of the 
House as an institution and the dignity of its proceedings under the 
Constitution and under Federal law are called into question by the lack 
of compliance with the subpoena.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, last night during the Committee on Rules 
consideration of the resolution, a member of the Committee on Rules, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], expressed concern that 
the drafting of the resolution violated the spirit of the 
constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Because of this 
Congressman's concerns, I will be offering a manager's amendment to 
this rule that will address his concerns. This amendment to the rule 
will change the text of the House Resolution to read as follows:
  Resolved that the House of Representatives demands that the Office of 
the United States Attorney for the Central District of California carry 
out its responsibility by filing, and that part is what is in the bill 
right now, but we would then add to that, pursuant to its determination 
that it is appropriate according to the law and the facts. And then we 
go back to the regular language in the resolution which states criminal 
charges against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to comply with 
a valid subpoena issued under the act.
  The phrase again, what I would be offering in the manager's 
amendment, which I understand will probably be accepted by the other 
side, simply says, pursuant to its determination that it is appropriate 
according to the law and the facts, is what we are inserting.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the rule tightens the language of the 
original resolution to satisfy the concerns of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], and at the appropriate time I would urge 
support of the amendment and the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules was correct in stating that I 
expressed my serious concern, in fact was not able to support this rule 
last night. I opposed this rule last night because of my concern 
related to the separation of powers, not with regard to the process of 
discovery in this case.
  I agree with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
California that, and I would quote the court, in the review of its 
discovery process, Congress is not seizing a function not 
constitutionally entrusted to it, and there is no separation of powers 
violation, end quote, but, rather, in the demand that the resolution 
makes that the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California 
filed criminal charges.
  It was alleged more than once during the almost 4 hours that we 
listened to the testimony in the Committee on Rules last night that 
legal authority exists preventing that outright demand by Congress of 
the U.S. attorney. The Gorsuch case in the 1980's, specifically in 
1983, was referred to.
  So what we do with this amendment that the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules is proposing to the rule is to state and make clear that when 
the House makes its demands upon the U.S. attorney, that the 
determination to prosecute must be made by the U.S. attorney pursuant 
to its finding that it is appropriate according to the law and the 
facts in this case.
  The evidence that the subpoena at issue in this matter has been 
ignored after hours of testimony in the Committee on Rules became very 
evident. The fact that no one is above the law in the United States of 
America must be made clear. We made clear in this House just a few 
weeks ago that the rules of this House also cannot be violated when we 
barred from the floor of this House the contestant in this matter.
  With the amendment that we are proposing to the rule, Mr. Speaker, we 
are going the extra mile to make certain that absolutely no 
constitutional precepts are violated when the House of Representatives 
insists upon the principle that the law must be followed.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and if 
it is all right, I would say to the gentlewoman from New York, so that 
we are debating the actual resolution, I would at this time propound 
the unanimous-consent request that the amendment to House Resolution 
253 that was placed at the desk be considered as adopted now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment Offered By Mr. Solomon:
       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted.
       ``Sec. 3. The amendment described in section 2 of this 
     resolution is as follows:
       Page 3, line 4, after `filing' insert the following: `, 
     pursuant to its determination that it is appropriate 
     according to the law and the facts,'.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to turn to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules to 
ask a question.
  I heard my dear friend and colleague from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
describe what he believes is the reasoning behind this, and I would 
like to ask the chairman, ``Exactly what is your intent in this 
language?''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. It is exactly as the words that the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has asked us to place in it. Pursuant to its 
determination that it is appropriate according to the law and the 
facts. He just wants to make sure that we are not infringing on another 
branch of the Government, which he explained.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Does this indicate that the U.S. attorney has not made 
a determination that is in accordance with the law and the facts at 
this time?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, it does not.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Does it determine that he has made a determination?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, it does not.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. So it is up in the air as to whether or not he has a 
determination pursuant to the law and the facts. We do not know whether 
he has made one.
  Mr. SOLOMON. As far as the resolution is concerned, the gentleman is 
correct.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. OK. So, in essence, what we will be doing if we permit 
this specific language to amend it is to demand that the U.S. attorney 
carry out his responsibility even though we recognize that a basis to 
determine whether or not the laws and the fact in this issue should 
rise to the level of pursuing a criminal charge has been made.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman, it makes no material 
difference whether it is in or out or not. This simply states the fact 
that they will be pursuant to law and to facts, whatever they may be.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Continuing on my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, 
I just have a simple question; maybe I misstated it.
  The simple question is, are we saying that we do not know whether or 
not, or do we know whether the U.S. attorney has made a determination 
pursuant to the law and the facts that this is appropriate?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, and I do not know.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. We do not know.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not know.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. And so by placing this in there, we are recognizing 
that it is the responsibility of the U.S. attorney to determine that it 
is appropriate pursuant to the law and the facts.

[[Page H8246]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. It is his responsibility.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. And we do not know whether he has made that 
determination yet or not.
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, but we sure want to find out.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for 
yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to defeat 
this rule and the resolution that it makes in order for several 
reasons.
  First, there are still, in my view, major separation of powers 
concerns regarding this resolution. If I can repeat, I still think that 
the major separation of powers question remains because we are still 
demanding that action be taken.
  Since when does this Congress demand that any law enforcement arm is 
to bring criminal action against private citizens? The majority knows 
very well it is beyond our power to compel compliance with this 
resolution, and the proof of that is the fact the resolution has no 
legal effect whatsoever. The role of Congress is to enact legislation, 
not to enforce it.
  Second, the Committee on House Oversight has failed to make even the 
most basic determination that enough specific votes were in question to 
bring into doubt the, certified by the Secretary of State of 
California, the certified 984 vote margin. Common sense would mandate 
that the Committee on House Oversight should have been able to 
substantiate specific allegations of the mistaken counting of at least 
984 identified votes before beginning the investigation. But no, we 
continued the investigation for 10 months and still are not able to 
identify enough votes to negate this outcome, and that is 
unconscionable. The Committee on House Oversight has allowed an 
election contest based not on facts or even specific allegations, but 
on innuendo and unsupported, vague assertions.
  From the very beginning, the supposed investigation has been a 
fishing expedition trying desperately to find enough votes and voters 
to justify its own continuation, and what do we have after 10 months? 
Very little. The majority on the committee is now looking for 
distraction to draw attention from its inability to make a case and its 
unwillingness to dismiss it.
  The red herring it offers today is a resolution that purports to 
demand that the United States attorney file criminal charges against an 
organization for its failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the 
defeated incumbent in the election, not by the House of 
Representatives, but by a defeated incumbent, a normal citizen, while 
knowing full well that this Congress has no authority to demand any 
such thing.
  Third, simply as a procedural matter this resolution is premature. A 
court has just ruled on the constitutional status of the Contested 
Election Act last week. The time for appeal of that court ruling has 
not even expired, and yet this resolution nevertheless purports to 
demand that criminal charges be brought against an organization for 
failing to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to that act. At the 
very least, it is inappropriate for this Congress to be acting so 
precipitously when it is still possible that a court of appeals may 
reverse the lower court's decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to divert 
attention from this committee's true responsibility and end this 
unwarranted fishing expedition. It is time for this committee to fish 
or cut bait. It has specifically identified sufficient invalid votes to 
overturn the certified 984-vote margin or declare an end to this 
floundering and this misbegotten challenge.
  The amendment that we just passed unanimously I think reinforces what 
we were saying, that this resolution has absolutely no power behind it. 
We cannot demand another branch of the Government do anything, and in 
fact, frankly, I think what we proved again here is a simple phone call 
perhaps might have sufficed, but to tie up the Houses's time with a 
resolution is beyond the pale.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I really would like to just be frank for a few minutes 
and, as my colleagues know, just try to clear the air a little bit, 
because I personally want to be as fair as I can on this issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the gentleman was just 
going to be frank for a few minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will be as frank as my friend would like me to be, for 
as long as that.
  But, as my colleagues know, I have heard the gentlewoman, whom I have 
great respect for, from Rochester, NY, use the term ``red herring'' and 
talk about fishing and cutting bait, and to tell the truth, I wish I 
was fishing and cutting bait right now up in the Adirondacks. It is a 
beautiful time up there. I invite all of my colleagues to come up when 
the beautiful colors appear at this time of the year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I mentioned flounder, too.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me point out the difference on how we Republicans 
are handling this, because we are trying to be fair, and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] said we ought to be rushing 
this thing, we ought to be getting it over with. But I just go back to 
years ago before many of my colleagues were on this floor. I have been 
here for 20 years. But there was a situation where there was a 
gentleman by the name of Rick McIntyre from Indiana had won an 
election. He was certified by the State of Indiana as the winner, and 
in spite of that certification at that time, the Democrat-controlled 
Congress would not seat the certified winner.

                              {time}  2115

  But in fact, seated the loser, another good friend of mine, a 
Democrat by the name of Frank McCloskey.
  Now, the point is this: In this disputed case, we did not try to rush 
this through and not seat the certified winner, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], because she should have been seated and she 
was, and she is here today; yet, we went ahead and we tried to 
investigate the matter.
  Now, that is the difference. We did not rush to it and seat the 
loser, we seated the certified winner. But yet, it is terribly 
important if we are going to have an elected process in this country 
that it be a fair process, and we need to get to the bottom of it and 
that is really what we are attempting to do here. So I wanted to clear 
the air.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio 
[Ms. Pryce], to further clear the air.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise to express 
my support for both this rule and the underlying resolution.
  House Resolution 253 is a closed rule to govern debate on a very 
serious matter that speaks directly to the issue of whether this 
institution is willing to demand that the laws it passes are honored 
and enforced. It is both that simple and that important.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear plenty of impassioned debate today that 
will be driven by politics and influenced by personalities. The 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is a pleasure to serve with 
and we all take pleasure in her company, but this is not about 
personalities. The resolution that this rule makes in order addresses 
the willful failure of the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional to comply with a 
valid legal subpoena.
  However, some of my colleagues clearly are missing the point. It does 
not matter who requested the subpoena; it does not matter what the 
subpoena is expected to uncover, nor does it matter what the ethnicity 
is of the parties served by the subpoena. What is significant is that 
the subpoena is valid under the processes laid out by a Federal law 
that has been on the books for over 25 years.

[[Page H8247]]

  How long can this body sit idle as the Hermandad completely ignores 
this subpoena and, in effect, challenges the legitimacy of the Federal 
Contested Elections Act? The bottom line is that if one breaks the law, 
then one must face the consequences, but somehow our friends on the 
other side of the aisle express outrage at this very simple principle.
  Are they really suggesting that voter fraud should not be 
investigated? Are they really suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should 
be allowed to vote? And if the Department of Justice is content to drag 
its feet in the face of this defiance, then as a former prosecutor and 
a former judge, I believe it is the responsibility of this House to 
send a strong message that we demand that the law be enforced.
  It is a sad day for all of us when we cannot expect this body, which 
is sworn to uphold the Constitution, to honor this very basic legal 
process.
  The other side's deliberately inflammatory charges are an insult to 
this great institution and to the American ideal of fair and honest 
elections. We keep hearing clamoring for campaign reform. Well, I 
respectfully suggest that we enforce the laws that we have at hand. 
That is what this resolution is about, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the voters of Orange County elected 
Loretta Sanchez and defeated Bob Dornan. Now, that is the way the 
American democracy is supposed to work: voters get to choose who 
represents them in Congress. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
and the Republican leadership seem to have forgotten that. They are 
trying to deny voters their choice through an outrageous campaign of 
harassment against the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and 
half a million Americans.
  The committee has abandoned its proper role to evaluate evidence and 
has assumed the role of partisan prosecutor. They say they are simply 
looking for information, but according to many press accounts, the 
Republican leadership has already decided the case in favor of Mr. 
Dornan.
  The committee appears willing to go to any extreme. The gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas] even directed the INS to comb through the 
records of 40 million Americans, trying to dredge up private 
information that somehow could be used to support Mr. Dornan's wild 
allegations. Of those 40 million Americans, half a million were singled 
out for further investigation. Of these, 50 percent were Hispanic, 30 
percent were Asian.
  Now, who are the actual people singled out as suspicious? Let us take 
a look. Mr. Dornan claims Carmen Villa was not entitled to vote because 
she was not an American citizen. Quite the contrary. She is proud to be 
an American citizen. She is proud to be an American citizen and she 
displays her naturalization certificate to prove it.
  Mr. Dornan even questioned the voting rights of 18 Dominican nuns and 
a group of 18 active-duty Marines based at a helicopter air station.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] continues to press on with 
this sham investigation, assuming thousands of Americans are guilty 
until proven innocent.
  Now, that is not the American way and that is not the way the 
American system is supposed to work. The burden of proof should be on 
Mr. Dornan, not on thousands of Americans who simply exercised their 
constitutional right to vote.
  So I call on this evening, and my colleagues will hear others call on 
this evening, the Republican leadership to stop this harassment.
  This has been a terrible day for many Americans in this country. We 
just went through a process on the census and on sampling. Four to 10 
million Americans were denied in the last census of being counted. They 
are people like every single one of us in this body. They deserve 
representation.
  We got rid of three-fifths counting a long time ago. Now that my 
colleagues on the other side do not want to count them, they do not 
want to count the votes of those people who are American citizens who 
come and vote and exercise their right. This harassment has gone on 
long enough. We call for this resolution to be defeated and we call on 
this rule to be defeated.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we should be very clear on 
what this resolution says. It forthrightly demands that the United 
States attorney do whatever he thinks he ought to do. Now, I did not 
realize that we had become the paymasters of the U.S. Government. 
Apparently this is kind of a bed check on the U.S. Attorney. It 
demands, it does not recommend, it demands, that he do whatever is 
appropriate.
  I guess, if that is all the majority has to do with its time, that 
may be a better way to take up time than others, but I think we ought 
to vote against the resolution anyway.
  In the first place, it is kind of a silly precedent to set; not a bad 
precedent, but a silly one, and understand, that is what the resolution 
does. It demands that he do what he thinks is appropriate.
  I suppose we could offer an amendment that we demand that he not do 
what he thinks is inappropriate, and we might also demand that if he is 
undecided, that he make up his mind. I mean, why pull any punches. I 
also, however, want to argue for letting the U.S. Attorney make the 
determination that they should not go forward.
  This has been a day. I started this morning, and three times today I 
have seen the Republican Party repudiate what used to be conservative 
legal doctrines. In 1983, William French Smith, the United States 
Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, said, ``No, Congress, you cannot 
tell me to prosecute a contempt citation. You cannot tell me to 
prosecute for failure to comply, because the way to deal with it is 
through the civil process.''
  No one is saying that Hermandad, who seem to be the victims in this 
case of a fishing expedition, no one is saying that they can simply 
ignore the law. They went to court; they are contesting it. A single 
district court judge has decided against them.
  Now, all year the Republicans have said that when a single district 
court judge rules on affirmative action or a single district court 
judge rules on something else, on immigration, ignore it. That is 
arbitrary. Now we have a single district court judge, and what is this 
organization saying? They want to appeal the decision. They have 
constitutional arguments to make. The constitutional argument is that 
the subpoena issued not by this House, but by Robert Dornan, might not 
be appropriate. I am myself not used to hearing the words ``Dornan'' 
and ``appropriate'' in the same sentence. I think that is a valid 
constitutional argument to make.
  What we are saying is, let them proceed with an appeal. Instead, the 
Republicans said no, no, William French Smith in 1983 filed a lawsuit 
to enjoin the House of Representatives from doing a contempt citation. 
That is what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] was referring 
to. He called the lawsuit, by the way, to show his respect for this 
institution: The United States of America versus the House of 
Representatives. The judge threw out the lawsuit, but there was an 
agreement that a civil process would be a way to go forward. What we 
are saying here is, we will prosecute these people criminally in the 
middle of their appeal process.
  Now, I have to say that is what we originally demanded. We should 
come back to what happened. Because of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart], my colleagues have backed off, and are now, with a very 
silly resolution, demanding that the man do his job, but the context 
makes it worthy of defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleagues will amend the resolution again 
while I am speaking, but I just again want to point out, conservatism 
ought to be some consistency to principle. I want to make a point, by 
the way. People talk about the McCloskey-McIntyre election. As a 
Democrat, I voted not to seat Mr. McCloskey. I thought he was a great 
Member, but I was not sure he won that election. No, I do not believe 
you to be partisan, but I think to deny this group the right to their 
civil appeal is a grave error.

[[Page H8248]]

  The Republicans recently, in an amendment passed earlier today, 
decided that the constitutional doctrine of standing does not mean 
anything because we want to get at statistical sampling in the census. 
In the Committee on the Judiciary today they decided to have the 
Federal courts further involve themselves in zoning matters because of 
property rights.
  The notion that conservatism stands consistently for a set of legal 
principles is being thrown out the window with such rapidity that 
passersby probably ought to be warned. Yes, I think it is a good thing 
that my colleagues backed off on the resolution and that it no longer 
demands, it no longer makes any sense, but given the context in which 
it came forward, I think we ought to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, hesitating to respond, let me yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a very 
distinguished member that used to work for the Reagan administration, 
to respond to Mr. Frank.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and 
appreciating fully the arguments just advanced by my colleague from 
Massachusetts and former law school classmate, if there is just one 
Federal district judge that has ruled here, then we ought not to listen 
to the Federal courts when he ruled that a subpoena is not validly 
enforceable and what really matters is that people be given time to 
appeal, then one would think that we would not hear from the gentleman, 
that this thing has got to be over and shut down, that we cannot have 
an investigation, that it is taking too long.
  However, there are two simultaneous arguments. One is, this 
investigation should be dropped, it has not turned up anything after 
all of these months. The other is, we have litigated this through the 
district court and lost, but we deserve an opportunity now to litigate 
further and appeal. If you get to appeal and argue some more, even 
though you have already lost in Federal district court, obviously that 
consumes weeks and months and so on, and meantime, the subpoena issued 
under the Federal Contested Elections Act is not honored, the documents 
are not returned, the investigation cannot go forward, it is stalled.
  So pick your arguments. Either say we are going to have more time for 
this investigation because we need to wait for the Court of Appeals to 
rule on the validity of the subpoenas, or say we are in a rush and 
therefore the way the district court has ruled has to be adequate here, 
and let us go and enforce the subpoena based on the district court 
ruling.
  Obviously, we cannot walk north and south at the same time, but we 
are trying to get this done in a hurry. The Federal Contested Elections 
Act contemplates that we would decide this in what we would consider to 
be real time, that is, an election cycle, rather than what in the 
Federal courts typically is a normal period of time for civil 
litigation, which can be 4 and 5 years and so on.
  I think we are doing the right thing here by drawing the attention of 
the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's office to the issuance 
of a valid subpoena, something that has been litigated in district 
court, as you point out, Hermandad lost, they tried to resist the 
subpoena, and at this point Congress, in support of our own process, 
the Federal Contested Elections Act, and it would not matter if this 
were the Democratic Congress in control and so on, it would be the same 
story.

                              {time}  2130

  We ought to stand behind the legal process, both of this Congress and 
of the Federal courts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the first place, there 
was not a subpoena issued by the committee. They are looking for these 
facts the way they think. But here is the problem. We are talking about 
private citizens, Hermandad. They cannot be forced, I think, to give up 
their constitutional rights for the convenience of this House's 
process.
  What the gentleman is saying is these people who are asserting their 
constitutional right to privacy should be put under the threat of 
criminal prosecution, and I am saying no, they have a right as a 
citizens' group to their full appeal process. The gentleman's 
insistence on subjecting Hermandad to criminal prosecution, cutting off 
their right of appeal, seems to me unfortunate, no matter how 
convenient it might be for this House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], a member of the committee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not want us to lose sight of why we 
are here. Let us concentrate on that.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution, after having sat on that 
committee for now nearly 10 months. They do not have the evidence. If 
they had it, they would bring it forth. The subpoena has been issued 
and this organization has complied. Members might not know that in 
January, the District Attorney in California drove a truck up to 
Hermandad and seized their records, everything; computers, files. They 
did a sweep of their hard drive. Members might not also know that on 
August 17 those same records were turned over to our committee. They 
have the records. Use the records, if they have them. And if there was 
something to be found, believe me, this House of Representatives would 
have found it.
  Let the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, go. She won 
the election by over 900 votes. She has been certified by the 
Republican Secretary of State. She has won in the recount, some more 
than 900 votes. I think it is horrendous.
  Let us defeat this resolution. Let us let the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] serve. She has been castigated and harassed 
enough. What is at stake is this institution. Will we allow an election 
won by some 900, nearly 1,000 votes, be overturned by constant, 
constant harassment?
  This House of Representatives has authorized over $300,000 in legal 
fees for this witch hunt. I would much rather see that in senior meals, 
senior services and health services. We have to rise up in a bipartisan 
way. This must come to an end. Let us defeat this resolution. Let the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] serve her constituents in the 
46th district. She has accumulated over $500,000 in expenses.
  Are we really a Congress for the people? Let us get back to the 
business of American citizens. Let us get to the work of jobs and 
industrial health for our people in this country. Let us defeat this 
resolution. Let the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] get back 
to work, and let us go about the business of building America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a day that we need to focus on the 
facts. The facts become as clear as day if we would just open our eyes. 
That is that neither the committee nor the Republican Orange County 
District Attorney nor California State officials have ever 
substantiated that one single vote has been fraudulently cast in this 
election.
  Then what is the issue, Mr. Speaker? The issue may be the Republicans 
have had an 8-year history in southern California of intimidating 
Latino voters at the polls; that they have paid to settle two voting 
intimidation cases, one from 1988, in which the Orange County 
Republican Party literally placed security guards at the voting polls 
in Hispanic neighborhoods, with signs designed to scare Hispanic 
voters, and the other case in 1989.
  These efforts are not limited to California or to Hispanic voters. In 
Bergen County in New Jersey, in 1996, Republicans distributed a flyer 
in black precincts stating that dire consequences would follow for 
anyone who tried to vote who owed money, was guilty of misdemeanors, or 
any other number of possibilities.
  The real issue is that Republicans do not want to place themselves in 
Hermandad's shoes. There are no more files, as have been represented. 
If there are, this organization has the right, the absolute right, to 
pursue its constitutional remedy. Just imagine if we would put a siege 
upon other citizens who are in the process of pursuing their 
constitutional rights, yet we in this body would insist that we want to 
instruct the U.S. attorney to implement a criminal procedure to deny

[[Page H8249]]

someone their constitutional right? Is it because they have a Hispanic-
sounding name that they can be subject to this kind of attack and 
abuse?
  I think the Republicans need to recognize if they have something, get 
to the floor of the House and deal with it. If they have nothing, allow 
the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Loretta Sanchez], to maintain her 
position and represent her constituents. Turn down this rule and allow 
Americans to believe in this country once again.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule on House Resolution 244, which demands that the Justice Department 
file criminal charges against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failing 
to comply with a subpoena issued by Representative Bob Dornan. Late 
last night the Rules Committee recommended a closed rule which blocks 
all amendments to the resolution. It is an outrage that the committee 
would allow such a resolution to come to the floor and an even further 
outrage to recommend a closed rule.
  Representative Sanchez was elected to the House of Representatives in 
November 1996 from the 46th District of California. Since that time, 
she has been besieged by attacks from former Representative Bob Dornan 
as he attempts to prove that his defeat last fall was the result of 
voter fraud, not the will of the people.
  Like the entire election contest, this resolution is about politics, 
pure and simple. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez has fully complied with 
requests for information relating to voter registration, organizations 
relating to voter registration and absentee balloting. She has objected 
only when those subpoenas became so intrusive as to demand access to 
her personal financial data. Further, the constitutionality of the 
subpoenas under the Federal Contested Elections Act was decided only 
last week. The House should, therefore, at the very least allow 
Hermandad a reasonable period from the time of the court's decision to 
respond.
  I could not agree more strongly that allegations of voter fraud must 
be vigorously pursued and, when found meritorious, prosecuted. However, 
in this instance, 10 months and more than $300,000 in taxpayer's money 
have been spent, and yet no evidence of fraud has been presented. To 
this day, no one--not the committee, not the Republican Orange County 
District Attorney, and not California State officials--has 
substantiated that a single vote has been fraudulently cast in this 
election.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives must not become a 
partner to Mr. Dornan's desperate charges. It is beneath the dignity of 
this body. I urge my colleagues to join me in saying enough is enough 
and to oppose the rule to House Resolution 244.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today to ask this Congress, which I hope is a 
fair Congress, to defeat this rule and the resolution. There is no 
precedent in the Constitution for someone to receive the authority on 
the part of Congress to issue subpoenas, so the committee took care of 
this. They issued him the authority to issue subpoenas.
  Mr. Speaker, what a shame on this country to see that happening in 
this day, when we have a young Hispanic woman who has given of herself 
to come forward to serve her country. What kind of message does this 
give to the other young Hispanic women in this country? What kind of 
message does it give to all young women in this country? Come forward, 
and we will just whittle away the votes that you have so that we can 
take your seat.
  Mr. Dornan is receiving an authority that I know I would not receive. 
I know that as a black woman, if I came before this committee, they 
would never give me a chance to subpoena anything. They would send me 
back to where I came from. They would never give me a chance. It is 
constitutionally wrong, it is logically wrong, and it is morally wrong.
  But do we want to stick with morals? Do we want to allow this young 
Hispanic woman to stand before this country, to say this Congress gave 
me a chance just because some male was defeated in California by 900 
votes? She won. That is not the worst of it. She is going to win again 
when she comes up, and they are not going to take it away from her.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Bill Thomas, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain some of the arguments that have 
been made, because frankly, they have been factually wrong. I do not 
want anyone who is listening to the debate to believe that the 
statements that have been made, because they are not challenged, means 
that they are correct. They are not.
  Mr. Speaker, the Orange County district attorney subpoenaed the 
Hermandad records, but as we know, when that subpoena is used as a 
criminal subpoena there is a fourth amendment search and seizure right, 
so you have to specify exactly what it is that you need. As a matter of 
fact, the Orange County district attorney has indicated that not all of 
the records and not all of the materials were obtained with the 
subpoena that he placed.
  The reason that the committee placed a subpoena on top of the Orange 
County district attorney's subpoena was that that subpoena was being 
challenged. We wanted to make sure that those records were not lost. 
There are additional records out there. This subpoena, under the civil 
section of the statute, can obtain that additional material.
  Our job is to get to the bottom of it. We want to know everything 
that Hermandad was involved with. Obviously, during debate on the 
resolution, I believe when I describe Hermandad, it will be a slightly 
different organization than has already been explained. These people 
have violated the law. The Federal and the State government has revoked 
their charters. They have taken money from them. These people are 
criminals. What we are trying to do is find out the extent of their 
activity. We need to have as many subpoenas as possible.
  This resolution, after this rule passes, is not about the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Loretta Sanchez], it is not about Bob Dornan. It 
is about people obeying the law, and it is about the House of 
Representatives demanding that the law be obeyed. That is what it is 
about.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I hope we are very careful how we use words on this House floor. When 
we talk about criminals, that means someone has in a court of law been 
convicted. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] just referred to 
individuals who are under investigation. There are a lot of folks that 
sit on this House floor who are under investigation, but we do not call 
them criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just urge that all of us during this debate be 
reasonable, and understand that when we refer to things, we use 
accurate words to describe what is going on. It is not accurate to say 
that there are criminals. There are people under investigation. In this 
country, you are innocent until proven guilty.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1997, I quote, ``In an apparent 
violation of Federal and State tax laws, Hermandad was also found in 
the audit to have spent $107,184 that it withheld from its employees' 
wages to satisfy Federal income taxes. Its director admitted that 
withholding the taxes was against the law.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. . Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Republican 
colleagues, and they use very sinister language. They try to give the 
impression that those of us on this side are the ones, that the people 
that voted for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Loretta Sanchez] 
are all illegals or criminals, I think I heard the term, or otherwise 
badly motivated people.
  This sinister language borders on racism. I have to say that, because 
it really concerns me. They claim, they claim to be so self-righteous, 
but they

[[Page H8250]]

are the ones that are seeking to tear up the Constitution here tonight 
in this House of Representatives that we value so much. They know that 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] was duly elected and 
certified by the State of California.
  What gives the Republican leadership the right to overturn her 
election? Because they are the majority here in Washington? If the 
majority here determines what happens in Orange County, CA, then we 
have the worst form of tyranny that the Founders of this country sought 
to guard against in the Constitution.
  This is an effort to intimidate voters, specifically Hispanic voters. 
Republicans want Hispanic and other minority voters to stay home at 
election time.
  I listened to what the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Sheila Jackson-
Lee] said. I remember that election in New Jersey when those warnings 
were put up at the polling places, and I saw armed guards in camouflage 
and guns, I do not know if they were real guns, but they tried to give 
the impression that they had guns, because they did not want minorities 
to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, what is going on here is not right. It needs to end. Let 
us start right now by defeating this rule and defeating the underlying 
resolution. This resolution is nothing but a hoax to try to hide what 
they are really trying to do here, and that is steal this election from 
the voters of Orange County and the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have served here for 41 years and more. I 
have seen an awful lot of these kinds of challenges of elections. I 
never saw one like this. I have never heard charges of crime made about 
what appears at this time, at least, to be reasonably innocent behavior 
with regard to the election process. I have never seen subpoenas 
delegated in such an outrageous fashion by a committee of this body to 
a single individual, to be hurled around like confetti in a parade.
  I have never seen the kind of behavior that brings, I think, this 
House into such low esteem. It gives every appearance that what we are 
doing is not inquiring into an election, but rather, that we are 
harassing a woman who is of obvious good character and integrity, who 
has been certified as having been duly and properly elected.
  This proceeding tonight and the other proceedings that have been 
associated with this give a very bad appearance with regard to this 
body. I would think my colleagues on both sides would be embarrassed by 
what it is we are seeing happening tonight.

                              {time}  2145

  We have a criminal process going on out there in California to 
inquire into whether or not there was criminal misbehavior. Let that 
process go forward. Let us have the kind of proper inquiry that we have 
always had into these kinds of election situations, to find out what 
has happened. Let us not give the appearance of harassing innocent, 
law-abiding Hispanic Americans because they have chosen to vote. Let us 
not bring this body into discredit by the kind of behavior in which we 
are engaging.
  I would tell my Republican colleagues, with all respect and with all 
affection, what it is that you are doing tonight is sowing a terrible 
wind. And you will reap the whirlwind, because it is not just going to 
be the fact that you bring discredit on this body by the behavior that 
I am seeing before me tonight or what I have seen in connection with 
your loose use of the subpoena and the enforcement process of this 
body. What is happening here is, you are creating further distrust and 
disrespect for this body.
  It is going to have a bad effect on each and every one of us, whether 
we are Democrats or Republicans, but it is going to do something worse 
than that. It is going to do it to you, I would say to my Republican 
colleagues, because citizens all of a sudden are going to realize that 
elections are not about fighting out the issues in an honorable and a 
proper way and having an intelligent discussion of what it is that 
concerns the people, whether they be Hispanics, minority members, or 
whatever they might happen to be, but rather, it is win at any cost, 
win with any device, use the powers of this body to elect somebody who 
was clearly not elected by a fair election and who was clearly not 
elected by any vote of the people. And what you are giving the 
appearance of what you are seeking to do is to eject a legitimately 
elected Member of this body.
  People are going to remember this. Be prepared to reap the whirlwind. 
You deserve it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, two quick points to the departing 
gentleman: I would hate to see the action he would take if a subpoena 
by his committee were not answered. Second, I hate to see Members bring 
up this business about stealing elections. My good friend and a 
gentleman I respect from Michigan was here in 1985 when there was a 
stolen election, and everybody knows it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Poland, Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant], another respected Member of this body.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate. I 
believe it is a needed debate. There are Members on the Democrat side 
of the aisle who will not like what I have to say, and I will not 
explain it later, I will explain it now.
  To me, this is not about Loretta Sanchez. I believe under heavy 
pressure she has done a remarkable job, and I want to commend her. This 
is not, to me, about Bob Dornan. To me, it is not about Democrats at 
all and it is not about Republicans at all.
  To me, this issue is about the possibility that illegal votes may 
have determined the outcome of a Federal election in our country. That 
is the issue before us. This is not about somebody that misplaced some 
ballots. This is not about a mistake of interpreting counts. This is 
about the possibility of illegal votes corrupting a Federal election. 
Congress must not allow a precedent to be set tonight that would allow 
the Federal election process to be corrupted or give the impression 
that we have soft-pedaled that possibility.
  In my opinion, any individual or organization that has information or 
evidence in this matter should be compelled to comply. If the Justice 
Department does not pursue it, then, by God, Congress shall demand it. 
Congress must ensure enforcement. The Constitution requires it. The 
amount of illegal votes cast in this election must be carefully sought 
out; the exact numerical count must be known to Congress.
  Let me say this: If there is any precedent to be set in the House of 
Representatives tonight, it should be a precedent that preserves the 
integrity of the election process. Let me say one other thing. The ox 
that may seem to be gored tonight is an ox different than what we see 
that might be gored tomorrow.
  I support the rule. I support the bill. I believe the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] has done a remarkable job, but the taint 
of her election must be removed and Congress must ensure, whether it is 
a Democrat or a Republican or any other party or an independent Member, 
that their rights are protected and that election and the integrity of 
that process is worthy of an individual being seated in this body.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could take just a second to correct 
what I think is a grave injustice here, the comment has been made 
several times this evening that these were committee subpoenas. I think 
it needs to be pointed out once again, these were given by a private 
citizen, Mr. Robert Dornan of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here tonight is enough to 
give abuse of power a bad name. This act brings only one question into 
my mind: Does this body still believe in the biblical admonition, 
``Thou shalt not steal?'' All I have to say about what you are about to 
do tonight is shame, shame, shame, shame, shame.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding me the time.

[[Page H8251]]

  With all due respect to my colleague from Wisconsin, putting 
personalities aside, dealing strictly with law, if this House of 
Representatives fails to take action to live up to the Constitution and 
the letter of the law, then shame, shame, shame, shame on this House 
and this process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the question here tonight is 
why, why are we doing this? The American public knows the results of 
last November's elections. Look at those elections. There were six 
elections that were less than 1,000 votes. But look at the names: Fox, 
Tierney, Smith, Smith, Brown, and, guess what, one Sanchez.
  Why were not the elections where there was only 84 votes difference 
contested? Why was not the election of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Tierney] contested? He lives close to the Canadian border. Perhaps 
some people who speak English crossed over the border and voted for 
him. Why were not the Smiths and the Browns challenged? This is a 
challenge to Loretta Sanchez, a Latino woman.
  The State of California's secretary of state certified her election. 
She is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Do not abuse 
that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Let me begin by first saying, as I think has been repeated often on 
my side, this resolution has no effect. The founders of this country, 
in drafting the Constitution, made it clear that we as politicians have 
no role of telling the Department of Justice how to prosecute.
  We cannot demand that they prosecute, and I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for making it clear, with the amendment that we have all 
accepted, that we cannot do anything with this resolution. It is just 
posturing. If we cannot do anything with this resolution, what are we 
really doing?
  I think there are probably three things that we can say are behind 
this particular resolution and its intent. Either it is an intent to 
bootstrap this electoral investigation that we know is going nowhere 
and perhaps to justify, and I want to say it now on the record, perhaps 
to justify in the future some action by this House to possibly vacate 
the seat of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] using this as 
an excuse for being able to do that.
  Second, as many are whispering, maybe, as some have said, maybe it is 
payback time for 1985, because Republicans feel that there was an 
election stolen in 1985. So if that was a wrong, maybe two wrongs will 
make a right.
  Or, third, perhaps it is just a downright honest attempt to 
intimidate voters, in this case Latino voters, who are now beginning to 
vote. Perhaps you do not like that they are beginning to vote.
  Regardless of what the intent is, there is a message that you are 
sending, whether you like it or not. It is to folks like my parents. My 
father was born in this country but speaks broken English and probably 
falls within the category of folks you want to go after. My mother was 
not born in this country, speaks better English than my father, and is 
a U.S. citizen of this country, and she probably is on that list of 
names that you are now disclosing, violating her privacy rights in the 
process of doing so.
  You are sending a message to these folks. You are telling them you do 
not want them to participate, you do not care about what they do, you 
do not value their worth as citizens.
  I will just say this: Remember this, because the message will be 
sent. I will say, as I conclude, I do not need to talk to my parents 
about this vote. They will be watching. And just like my parents will 
be watching, there will be a lot of other folks who, for the first time 
in 1996, had a chance to vote. Some of them voted for Loretta Sanchez. 
Some of them may have even voted for Bob Dornan. But they will remember 
what this House of Representatives is doing, because you certainly are 
not out to get a conviction, you are not out to get a criminal 
investigation, but you are certainly out to get the hides of people who 
have participated in this American process. That is wrong.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have heard what I have 
heard tonight, because the references to race and gender are not what 
concern me. What does concern me is fairness, and the investigation of 
the honest outcome of an election should concern all of us.
  The certification by the secretary of state is not a certification 
that there was no fraud. We know that. The matter deserves to be 
investigated. It does not deserve to be trivialized and to be said that 
we are simply doing what we do because of racial motivation. What a sad 
comment when our attempts to enforce the law, to enforce the 
prerogatives of our constitutional office, are taken instead to mean 
that we are acting in a racially motivated manner.
  The statute says that failure to abide by a subpoena is a 
misdemeanor. We draw attention to the United States Attorney for the 
Central District of California of this violation, and we ask that he 
proceed pursuant to the determination that he would make or she would 
make. It is a sorry day.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. HUNTER. The rule of law, my colleagues, it is the most precious 
thing that we have, and perhaps the most precious rule is that we vote 
and the person with the most votes wins. And sometimes it means for us, 
in fact, at times during all of our careers, we have agonizing defeats. 
The winner that has a victory sometimes goes on from that victory to a 
defeat fairly shortly thereafter, but it is the central part of our 
democracy. It is the heart of our democracy.
  We had a group which took immigrants who were trying to become 
naturalized citizens and registered and voted those immigrants knowing 
that they had not yet raised their hands and become citizens of the 
United States. And from that group we want to get more information. 
That is absolutely appropriate.
  I remember during the Contra wars of the 1980's, when we tried to 
export this precious thing called democracy to El Salvador and the 
guerrillas tried to stop the elections, we had one woman waiting in 
line who actually had a bullet wound in her arm, and she would not 
leave the line to get medical aid because she said, ``I must vote. I 
must participate in this democracy.''
  All we want to see is who got the most votes. We can do no more and 
we should do no less for our country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from 
California [Mr. Campbell], and I challenge any Member in this House 
that has the certificate from the Secretary of State certifying that 
there was no fraud in their election. When I got my certification from 
the Secretary of State, it did not specify that there might not have 
been some fraud in my election.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, my statement was that the certification by 
the Secretary of State was not a certification that there was an 
absence of fraud. It is a certification of the numerical outcome of the 
election.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that the gentlewoman from California's certificate was a 
certification that she got more votes than anybody else, and fraud was 
not mentioned.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
stand by what I said.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

[[Page H8252]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] is recognized for 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution. The outcome 
of this vote tonight on this resolution will not decide the Sanchez-
Dornan case. It will, however, be a statement as to whether or not we 
are going to proceed in a fair, judicial manner. I agree with the 
gentleman from California, that is the way we ought to proceed.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts observed what has happened with this 
resolution. In the first instance, the committee proposed the harshest 
resolution it could ascribe, demanding that a U.S. citizen be indicted 
for crimes while under investigation by another body, the district 
attorney. My colleagues, that would not wash. It would not even wash 
with the majority of the majority party, and so that resolution was 
rightfully changed, and we did not object to that change.
  The title was not changed. It still demands that the U.S. attorney 
seek criminal action against a citizen who has, as we have pointed out, 
still his and the organization's constitutional rights to contest the 
validity of the subpoena that is pending.
  This resolution I have called precipitous. I believe it is. In 
response to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] yesterday, I 
said that what we ought to do, if we feel this way, is write a letter 
to the U.S. Attorney and say we think that he ought to take the 
appropriate action because the subpoena has not been responded to.
  My colleagues attempt to adopt my suggestion by adopting language 
which now says that we demand, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] pointed out, that pursuant to its determination, that is the 
U.S. Attorney's office, that it is appropriate, according to the law 
and the facts. In other words, do what you think is right.
  Do we go around passing resolutions through the House of 
Representatives demanding that people do what they think is right when 
we know, my friend from California, the gentleman talks about the 
sanctity of a vote, the sanctity of the Constitution is something we 
are all sworn to preserve and protect, and it accords to every citizen 
that when the government moves against him or her that they have a 
right to go to the courts of this land and say ``I need not respond.''
  Let us not put the House of Representatives in a position prematurely 
of demanding the denigration of that absolute constitutional right. 
Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Vote ``no'' on the final resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from San Antonio, Texas Mr. Henry Bonilla, one of the most 
respected Members of this body, in my mind.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight started out on the high 
road, and I was highly impressed and glad to see Members that are 
opposed to this resolution standing up and arguing the validity of this 
case on its merits. I even had a tremendous amount of respect and 
watched with great attention when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], my colleague on the Committee on Appropriations, stood up and 
got very emotional to tell us that he disagreed strongly with what we 
were doing tonight.
  But then the debate deteriorated to those who choose to play the race 
card, when it is inappropriate, when they know they have lost other 
merits in their argument. That is unfortunate.
  Three of my four grandparents emigrated here from Mexico at the turn 
of the century to seek a new life for their children and grandchildren. 
They did not come here to set up an isolated society within this 
country. They came here to be Americans first and to become part of the 
melting pot of this country that stood for certain values that all of 
us could benefit from regardless of what country we came from.
  This country has prospered greatly because of the great immigration 
that we have seen from every part of the world. We should all be proud 
of that. To see Members tonight talk about racism is totally 
unjustified and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.
  Members cannot tell me this is racism. I grew up in a barrio, in a 
Spanish-speaking neighborhood in South Texas, always with a dream that 
someday I would be able to aspire and work towards the American dream.
  The implication among those who cry racism is one that says if a 
burglar broke into their home, that somehow they should have a 
different standard if the person is of a different color or ethnic 
background. How dumb an idea can that be? We are talking about people 
who are possibly implicated in crimes here. This Hermandad Mexicana 
Nacional, or whatever they call themselves, is one of the most corrupt 
organizations that has ever existed that is receiving Federal money.
  We are trying to get to the truth of this. This has nothing to do 
with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] or Mr. Dornan. And 
if the gentlewoman comes out winning this election after this 
investigation is finished, I will be the first to congratulate her on 
her victory.
  This is about justice, this is about finding out the truth. That is 
what all Americans want in every corner of the country, and I urge all 
Members to support this resolution and the resolution tomorrow as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 202, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 477]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra

[[Page H8253]]


     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Sanchez
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McDade
     Oxley
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2229

  Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________