[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10253-S10257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S10253]]
            TERMINATING INVESTIGATION OF LOUISIANA ELECTION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise the Senate that the 
Committee on Rules and Administration met this morning at 10 o'clock 
for the purpose of voting in executive session to review the 
investigation by that committee into the 1996 Louisiana election. The 
committee reviewed the evidence, heard the report of the chairman, then 
voted unanimously on a resolution to terminate the investigation by the 
Committee on Rules and Administration into that election.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my remarks before the Rules 
Committee this morning, the text of the committee motion, and several 
letters, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Statement of Chairman John Warner, Committee on Rules and 
     Administration, Louisiana Contested Election, October 1, 1997


                              introduction

       This business meeting today is called to brief the 
     Committee on the findings of our preliminary investigation of 
     allegations that fraud, irregularities, or other errors 
     affected the outcome of the 1966 Senate election in 
     Louisiana. Our focus primarily will be on those matters the 
     Committee has investigated since the Committee's vote on July 
     31 to continue the investigation.


               history of contest prior to july 31, 1997

       Mr. Jenkins' petition addresses one of the closest Senate 
     contested cases in history: Senator Landrieu's margin was 
     just under 6,000 votes out of 1.7 million cast. Mr. Jenkins' 
     amended petition alleged that ``a pattern of misconduct, 
     irregularities, fraud, and political machine corruption 
     violating state and federal law changed the result of the 
     election . . .'' He also alleged that ``state, parish, and 
     precinct officials inadequately administered the 1996 general 
     election and failed to ensure the sanctity of the electoral 
     process in Louisiana so that the results of the 1996 United 
     States Senate election are in doubt.''
       On April 10, two outside counsel, Bill Canfield and Robert 
     Bauer, respectively selected by the majority and minority 
     members of this Committee to review the pleadings filed by 
     the parties, reported their assessment of only the following: 
     Jenkins' petition and related evidence, the rebuttal material 
     submitted by Senator Landrieu, and the surrebuttal 
     information presented by Mr. Jenkins. It is important to note 
     that their review did not include any field investigation. 
     These counsel jointly recommended that the allegations of 
     fraud, including vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent 
     registration, should be investigated by the Committee. They 
     also recommended that the next phase be conducted under their 
     direction, subject to guidance from the Chairman and the 
     Ranking Member. Counsel further recommended that certain 
     types of evidence be dismissed, such as evidence of 
     mismatched signatures and phantom votes. On April 15, the 
     Committee heard from Mr. Jenkins and counsel for Senator 
     Landrieu concerning the Bauer-Canfield joint recommendations.
       On April 17, the Committee, voting on partisan lines, 
     adopted much of the Bauer-Canfield recommendation, but 
     directed the Chairman to conduct a preliminary investigation. 
     In doing so, the Committee indicated that it would not ignore 
     potential evidence of fraud, including mismatched signatures 
     and phantom voting. I also announced that I desired that the 
     investigation be conducted by a team of outside counsel with 
     extensive investigative experience.
       Shortly after the Committee vote on April 17, Senator Ford, 
     on behalf of the minority, expressed his desire to conduct 
     the investigation jointly, and requested that an 
     investigative protocol be developed between counsel for the 
     majority, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, and counsel for the 
     minority, Perkins Coie. At the same time, I initiated efforts 
     to secure the assistance of detailees from the FBI. After 
     extensive negotiation and the adoption of a protocol, we were 
     able to secure two detailees from the FBI, and additional 
     personnel from the General Accounting Office, and we 
     negotiated the issuance of subpoenas for election records and 
     documents from Mr. Jenkins and Senator Landrieu.
       In the meantime, our majority outside counsel from McGuire 
     Woods Battle & Boothe, headed by Richard Cullen and George 
     Terwilliger, began a review of Louisiana's election laws and 
     to what extent these laws and implementing regulations were 
     followed in the November election. This examination revealed 
     that many of the laws and regulations--statutory safeguards 
     designed to protect the integrity of the election system--had 
     not been observed: Fraud could have occurred.
       The full preliminary field investigation then began in 
     earnest on June 9, when two FBI agents were detailed to the 
     Committee, and arrived in New Orleans to work with assistance 
     from two retired FBI agents hired by the Committee. Outside 
     counsel for majority and minority provided guidance as to the 
     agents' activities.
       A short twelve working days later, the minority 
     unexpectedly pulled out of the investigation and the FBI 
     terminated the detail of the two agents, despite my request 
     that the detail be continued.
       During those twelve days, our investigative teams had 
     interviewed a number of witnesses who had submitted taped 
     statements to Petitioner that they participated in or 
     observed vote fraud. As has been well publicized by the 
     minority, these witnesses recanted their testimony, stating 
     that they had been paid and coached by a person hired by the 
     Petitioner to make up their stories of fraudulent voting.
       The complete picture on these witnesses, however, was 
     complicated by the fact that there were reports of threats 
     associated with the witnesses' initial reports, making it 
     unclear if those who did recant were truthful in the first 
     instance, or truthful in their recantation. It is also clear 
     that many of these witnesses were acquaintances who clearly 
     had the opportunity to discuss their testimony. Moreover, a 
     small number of witnesses, alleging fraudulent voting, stuck 
     to their original testimony and never recanted.
       Senator Ford and I made separate referrals of the evidence 
     of alleged witness tampering and threats to the Department of 
     Justice. In addition, I made a referral of this information 
     to Doug Moreau, the District Attorney for East Baton Rouge, 
     Louisiana, who had opened his own investigation into 
     allegations of election fraud during 1996.
       Meanwhile, the Committee had charged detailees from the 
     Government Accounting Office to examine election records for 
     discrepancies between vote totals recorded on election 
     documents and machines. This examination focused specifically 
     on four of the seven categories of ``phantom votes'' alleged 
     by Petitioner.
       An interim report provided to the Committee on July 9 
     revealed that the allegations of widespread irregularities in 
     these four categories could not be substantiated. While this 
     review confirmed many of the discrepancies identified by Mr. 
     Jenkins, the GAO detailees concluded that all but 153 of the 
     several thousand ``phantom votes'' were explainable. The 
     problems with Petitioner's analysis resulted from three 
     primary factors: (1) transcription errors in the election 
     records themselves; (2) errors in the compilation of 
     numerical results by Mr. Jenkins; and (3) the fact that Mr. 
     Jenkins did not have available to him all of the election 
     documents which were available to the Committee. In short, 
     many errors identified by Mr. Jenkins could be explained by 
     our review of certain election records.
       It is important to note, however, that while the 
     irregularities in these four categories were not nearly as 
     widespread as alleged by Mr. Jenkins, there were a number of 
     precincts that did contain errors which might have been the 
     result of fraudulent activities. In addition, there was one 
     instance where 100 votes were erroneously credited to Senator 
     Landrieu.
       Let me for a minute return to the withdrawal of the 
     minority. When the minority withdrew from this investigation, 
     they focused on two facts. First, a number of witnesses to 
     fraud had recanted their original testimony. Second, the 
     allegations of widespread irregularities in four of seven 
     categories raised by Mr. Jenkins were not significant enough 
     to impact the election.
       At that time, however, there were other significant areas 
     of potential fraud which had not been examined at all. Mr. 
     Jenkins had submitted hundreds of allegedly mismatched 
     signatures which merited audit. He had alleged that massive 
     numbers of voters had not completed legally required forms, 
     which merited review. He had identified over one thousand 
     voters registered to housing that had been abandoned. 
     Petitioner had made allegations of fraudulent registration 
     that had not been examined even though the Bauer-Canfield 
     report had cited it as worthy of review. And allegations of 
     political machine corruption, including the illegal use of 
     corporate funds, deserved review. Remembering that the 
     investigation had already ascertained that many of the 
     statutory safeguards had been ignored, there was clearly the 
     possibility that fraud could have occurred in these areas. It 
     was our duty to further investigate these significant 
     allegations.
       On July 31, the Committee affirmed my recommendation to 
     continue the investigation, approved the use of designated 
     funds and authorized me to issue subpoenas.


                      actions since july 31, 1997

       Immediately after the Committee's action of July 31, I 
     wrote the Attorney General of the United States to request 
     the reassignment of FBI agents to the Committee: this request 
     was rejected. As an alternative, I then hired three 
     additional retired FBI agents using Committee funds. I also 
     sought renewed assistance from GAO, and after significant 
     delay, they provided personnel to review election records 
     assistance in late-August and accountants to examine 
     financial documents in early September. To date, our 
     investigation has encompassed a review of literally thousands 
     of documents and the interview of hundreds of persons.
       Subsequent to July 31, I issued 40 subpoenas to 
     individuals, organizations, and companies with knowledge or 
     documents related to the election. Some of these were for 
     personal appearance at hearings, some for documents, and some 
     for both. I would like to thank the United States Marshal's 
     office in New Orleans for their help in serving many of these 
     subpoenas in a timely and professional manner. These 40 
     subpoenas were in addition to

[[Page S10254]]

     the 134 Senator Ford and I agreed to issue in May for 
     election records and documents from the parties.
       The Committee also held four full days of field hearings in 
     Louisiana and another hearing here in Washington. I will turn 
     to the findings of these hearings in a moment.
       Our sole focus was to fairly and impartially gather a body 
     of evidence--to determine the presence or absence of fraud or 
     irregularities--upon which the Committee, and ultimately the 
     Senate, could make a reasoned judgment with regard to the 
     petition submitted by Mr. Jenkins.


                results: election records and interviews

       Election records, if properly prepared and maintained, are 
     the post-election means to a prompt and reliable assessment 
     that fraud did not penetrate an election. Indeed, with the 
     advent of electronic voting machines, these records are often 
     the only evidence available to demonstrate--corroborate--that 
     an election was conducted properly and that the machines 
     accurately reflect legitimate votes. Without reliable 
     records, investigation of vote fraud allegations must involve 
     time consuming and intrusive examination of the actions of 
     both individual voters and groups involved in the political 
     process.
       If the legal requirements of the registration and voting 
     process are adhered to and reliable records of the same are 
     created and maintained, allegations of fraud can be 
     expeditiously examined. If widespread fraud occurred, 
     reliable records should readily yield evidence of the vote 
     fraud. However, the absence of such records and effective 
     registration and voting processes creates opportunity for 
     fraud to exist.
       Thus, candidates, election officials, and voters all share 
     a common interest in electoral procedures that meet the 
     requirements of the law. Anything less challenges the 
     fundamental public interest in reliable and final elections.

          Review of ``suspect'' precincts and voter interviews

       Our GAO detailees have thoroughly examined the election 
     documents in 34 precincts across the state. These precincts 
     were identified by the Committee as ``suspect'' because of a 
     variety of factors: Places where multiple voting was alleged, 
     unusual registration patterns, late closing of machines, etc.
       This analysis revealed numerous irregularities with these 
     records: names on a poll list but not on a register, and vice 
     versa; poll lists which are supposed to be duplicate have 
     names out of order; and names on poll lists more than once.
       Had irregularities not existed and had other safeguards not 
     been ignored, our investigation may have been completed 
     sooner. But these irregularities did exist, warranting 
     further examination of a sampling of voters to assess whether 
     this election was tainted by--and affected by--fraud. In 
     certain of these precincts, Committee staff compared 
     signatures on precinct registers with the signatures on 
     registration cards to identify potentially questionable 
     voters.
       Our investigators have now interviewed voters from a third 
     of the ``suspect'' precincts. With few exceptions, these 
     voters have confirmed the fact that they voted. In the few 
     exceptions of fraud that we have uncovered, there is no 
     evidence of an organized, widespread effort to secure 
     fraudulent votes on behalf of any individual, and certainly 
     no evidence of any effort to secure votes specifically on 
     behalf of Senator Landrieu.

                   Duplicate social security numbers

       We have identified over 1500 voters with the same social 
     security number as another voter, and we have learned that a 
     number of these pairs of voters both voted. However, our 
     investigation has revealed no scheme or effort to cast 
     illegal votes, and more significantly, the evidence we have 
     gathered to date indicates that the majority of these 
     duplicate social security numbers appear to be the result of 
     erroneous entry of social security numbers.

                 Voters registered at abandoned housing

       We have reviewed Petitioner's allegations that over a 
     thousand voters in Orleans Parish were registered at housing 
     that had been abandoned before the election. First, our 
     review of a sample of these voters revealed that none of them 
     had registered before the housing became abandoned. Second, a 
     comparison of registration records and records from the 
     Housing Authority of New Orleans revealed that of 522 voters 
     from four precincts that were reviewed, 41% still lived in 
     housing that Mr. Jenkins alleged was vacant. Third, an 
     additional 45% of these 522 voters had moved to other housing 
     within Orleans parish, and were legally permitted to vote in 
     their old precinct.

 Inactive voters required by law to complete address confirmation forms

       Under Louisiana law (18:192), address confirmation 
     postcards are sent to voters every four years. Voters whose 
     postcards are returned because the addresses are apparently 
     invalid, are placed on ``inactive status'', and these voters 
     are required by law to complete an ``Address Confirmation 
     Sheet'' confirming that they still live within the parish, 
     before they are permitted to vote.
       Petitioner alleged that approximately half of the inactive 
     voters in certain parishes did not fill out the required 
     forms. He also expressed concern that the list of inactive 
     voters is available to the public, and thus could be used to 
     send imposters to the polls.
       Of 170 precincts reviewed in Orleans Parish, we found 
     approximately one voter per precinct who had not completed 
     the requisite form and no more than seven in any one 
     precinct. Overall, 55% of those required to fill out the form 
     did not do so. In addition, in the 29 ``suspect precincts'' 
     in Orleans Parish, we found that few voters had completed the 
     form as required, but this still only amounted to 
     approximately two voters per precinct. We also attempted to 
     contact voters in the suspect precincts who should have 
     completed these forms. Although many could not be contacted, 
     of the nine we did contact, each of them confirmed that they 
     voted, and several reported that they had completed the form, 
     indicating sloppy record keeping.
       While it may be argued that these are illegal votes under 
     Louisiana law, it is also clear that these are errors that 
     could have been brought to the attention of the precinct 
     commissioners at the time of the election, and the issue may 
     be waived for failing to raise it at that time. In addition, 
     the disparate nature of these irregularities is far more 
     indicative of negligence than a pattern of fraud.


                    Illegal Corporate Contributions

       We have attempted to examine whether local political 
     organizations or gambling-related corporations illegally 
     influenced the election in violating federal and state 
     campaign finance laws. Foremost in this review was an 
     examination of the activities of a group known as the 
     Louisiana Independent Federation of Electors (``LIFE'') and 
     the marketing firm utilized by LIFE, Carl Mullican 
     Communications, and those of several gambling companies.
       Our review indicates that some federal and state election 
     campaign laws may have been ignored, avoided, and even 
     intentionally violated. There is evidence that gambling money 
     used to pay canvassers, and donations given to local 
     political organizations, may have resulted in illegal 
     donations to federal candidates. However, there is no 
     significant body of evidence that this use of money or other 
     infractions of campaign laws was intended to aid the campaign 
     of Senator Landrieu. Rather, the activities appear to be 
     directed at local initiatives and elections. The absence of 
     significant evidence of an organized effort to directly and 
     illegally assist Senator Landrieu makes it appropriate to let 
     the existing system (i.e., the Federal Election Commission 
     and appropriate state authorities) assess where possible 
     election campaign violations might have occurred.


            Vote Buying and Transporting Voters to the Polls

       There is evidence that voters were transported to the polls 
     which is illegal under most circumstances under Louisiana 
     law. However, our investigation has revealed little evidence 
     of fraudulent vote buying, and no evidence of an organized 
     effort to buy thousands of votes so as to impact the Senate 
     election.


                      employees forced to campaign

       We did confirm the existence of an organized effort to use 
     city employees in support of election efforts. We did not, 
     however, find any evidence that this was directed toward the 
     benefit of Senator Landrieu. Nor did we find any significant 
     evidence of illegal coercion. Moreover, this type of evidence 
     normally does not support an election contest.


                        areas under examination

       Before making my recommendation with regard to Mr. Jenkins' 
     petition, I note that there are two areas of examination that 
     require greater discussion.
       First, we were unable to conduct a direct examination of 
     possible fraudulent registration by using the State's voter 
     registration computer database. This system, when prepared 
     and operated properly, is a significant safeguard against 
     multiple registrations. In addition to the many voters 
     registered with the same social security number, we learned 
     that there are over 200,000 registrants who have no social 
     security number in the database, making in easier for 
     fraudulent registrations to be submitted without detection.
       A federal district court has ruled that the Commissioner of 
     Elections may no longer collect social security numbers, 
     raising issues about the propriety of his maintaining those 
     he has collected. This issue caused the Commissioner to 
     refuse to comply voluntarily with a subpoena, and to advise 
     us that he would resist our request in court. This position 
     has been confirmed by the fact that Doug Moreau, the District 
     Attorney for East Baton Rouge, is currently in court 
     litigating the Commissioner's refusal to provide him a copy 
     of the state voter registration computer database (which 
     include social security numbers). Mr. Moreau is seeking these 
     records to assist him in his investigation of possible 
     illegal election activities during the November 1996 
     elections.
       Second, under Louisiana law (18:102(1)), a convicted felon 
     may not legally vote until he has completed this sentence, 
     including any period of parole or suspension. These voters 
     are supposed to be taken off the voter database and not be 
     allowed to vote. It was recently reported that there are over 
     100,000 convicted felons that may not have been purged from 
     the voter registration records, possibly leading to illegal 
     votes. The Office of the Commissioner of Elections advised 
     Committee staff last week that only about 2,100 felons 
     remained on the registration records, with the number that 
     voted less than the 2,100. Yesterday, it was reported in 
     Louisiana press that parish registers are finding felons on 
     their registration rolls at a

[[Page S10255]]

     number higher than indicated by the Commissioner of 
     Elections.
       I spoke with the Governor last evening and he assured me--
     as he also stated in his letter to me which I received on 
     Monday of this week--that he would call for a bipartisan 
     investigation of this issue of felons possibly voting in the 
     election. I also spoke with the East Baton Rouge District 
     Attorney who informed me that he would be examining this 
     issue also.
       There is no way, at this time, to itemize the amount of 
     time and Committee effort that could be expended in assessing 
     these two areas, although it clearly could be very 
     substantial.


                             Recommendation

       While it is not necessary that the evidence gathered during 
     a preliminary investigation prove that the election outcome 
     was the result of fraud or irregularities, that evidence must 
     indicate that further investigation is likely to result in 
     that conclusion before proceeding to a full and lengthy 
     investigation.
       The facts submitted by Petitioner, and gathered by this 
     Committee to date, do not meet that level of proof. It may be 
     impossible, given the state of observance--or lack thereof--
     of election laws, and lax record keeping by Louisiana 
     officials, for Petitioner to ever overcome this burden. This 
     observation has been made by the Governor and the Moreau.
       But the failure of election safeguards and lax record 
     keeping do not suffice to overcome an election. More is 
     required. There must ultimately be proof that the election 
     would have been decided differently, or proof of such a 
     magnitude of fraud, irregularities, or other errors that the 
     true result of the election are unknown.
       While there were some irregularities in this election, and 
     isolated incidences of fraud, there is insufficient evidence 
     in the aggregate, at this time, to indicate further 
     investigation would result in the degree of evidence 
     necessary to overcome petitioner's burden.
       Our investigation to date has revealed a failure of 
     safeguards and discrepancies in records. It has revealed 
     possible campaign finance violations, although no indication 
     of such violations on the part of Senator Landrieu. It also 
     has revealed isolated instances of fraudulent or multiple 
     voting and improper or duplicate registration. But it has not 
     revealed an organized, widespread effort to illegally affect 
     the outcome of this election. It has not revealed an 
     organized, widespread effort to buy votes, or to procure 
     multiple votes, or secure fraudulent registrations. It has 
     not revealed such gross irregularities in the election and 
     record keeping process that--by themselves and in the absence 
     of massive fraud--meet the burden, which is always on the 
     plaintiff, to prove that fraud or irregularities affected the 
     outcome of the election. Finally, it has never been alleged, 
     and no evidence has been uncovered, that Senator Landrieu was 
     involved in any fraudulent election activities.
       I would like to discuss briefly the challenges faced by the 
     Committee in conducting this investigation--and I mean 
     problems beyond the very difficult ones caused by the 
     partisan division on the Committee concerning the conduct of 
     the investigation.
       The last time the Committee handled an election contest 
     alleging voter fraud was in the Hurley v. Chavez contest in 
     1953-54. In 1954, there were actual paper ballots which could 
     be reviewed, rather than electronic voting machines which 
     print out results you hope are reliable. In 1954, there was 
     no Federal Election Commission and few, if any, prohibitions 
     on how money could be spent on campaigns. In 1954, there was 
     not the communications system which made it easy for 
     candidates, groups, and others to work together, both legally 
     and illegally, by fax, by e-mail, or by cell phone.
       But in both 1954 and 1997, there were many of the same 
     problems with which this Committee has struggled: the need to 
     balance a voter's right to privacy versus the need for 
     information; the tendency to assume that all elections should 
     be run perfectly even though most of the individuals actually 
     running the precincts are volunteers putting in long hours 
     with limited training; and the difficulty in deciding how and 
     whether to determine if irregularities had an impact on the 
     outcome of the election.
       All of these have been problems which the Committee has 
     faced and overcome in fulfilling its constitutional duty as 
     ``the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of 
     its own Members...''
       From the inception of this case, I have viewed the 
     obligation of this Committee to be to fairly and objectively 
     judge all the facts, with the Senate as our client. I submit 
     to this Committee and the Senate a record which I believe is 
     a credible discharge of the Committee's duty to the Senate.
                                                                    ____


  Committee on Rules and Administration--Committee Motion, October 1, 
                                  1997

       1. Whereas Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins filed a Petition for 
     Election Contest with the United States Senate on December 5, 
     1996 and an Amended Petition for Election Contest on December 
     17, 1996, and Senator Mary Landrieu filed a Request for 
     Summary Dismissal on January 17, 1997; and Petitioner Jenkins 
     filed Petitioner's Answer to Request for Summary Dismissal on 
     February 7, 1997;
       2. Whereas the Committee on April 17, 1997 authorized ``the 
     Chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority member, 
     to direct and conduct an Investigation of such scope as 
     deemed necessary by the Chairman, into illegal or improper 
     activities to determine the existence or absence of a body of 
     fact that would justify the Senate in making the 
     determination that fraud, irregularities or other errors, in 
     the aggregate, affected the outcome of the election for 
     United States Senator in the state of Louisiana in 1996'';
       3. Whereas the Committee on July 31, 1997 authorized ``the 
     Chairman to continue the investigation of the 1996 election 
     for United States Senator from Louisiana authorized by the 
     Committee Motion of April 17, 1997'';
       4. Whereas during the Committee's continued preliminary 
     investigation, the Committee examined a number of areas of 
     potential fraud, irregularities or other errors which had not 
     been reviewed before July 31, including but not limited to 
     the following allegations:
       (A) use of funds from gambling interests to influence the 
     Senate election;
       (B) inaccurate and unreliable election records in certain 
     precincts;
       (C) apparent discrepancies in voters' signatures;
       (D) duplicate voter registrations;
       (E) illegal transportation of voters to the polls;
       (F) improper and unreported campaign expenditures;
       (G) voters registered at vacant public housing; and
       (H) voters failing to submit required address confirmation 
     forms;
       5. Whereas the preliminary investigation has uncovered 
     evidence that many of the statutory and regulatory safeguards 
     meant to protect the integrity of the registration, voting, 
     and campaign finance processes were violated, ignored, or 
     enforced unevenly by election officials and others;
       6. Whereas the Chairman has throughout this preliminary 
     investigation conferred with the Governor of Louisiana and 
     the District Attorney for East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and 
     both of these officials have written regarding their concerns 
     about the election procedures, the violations of many 
     election safeguards, and the absence of records corroborating 
     the election results;
       7. Whereas the Governor of Louisiana wrote to Chairman 
     Warner on September 29, 1997, and concluded that:
       ``These issues are not about party affiliation. They are 
     not about individual candidates or specific elections, even 
     though this election in question clearly has illustrated some 
     of the problems. The issue is the integrity and sanctity of 
     our election process and its results. I share wholeheartedly 
     with you your basic premise that our foremost duty is to 
     ensure that our elections are conducted fairly and in 
     accordance with law.
       ``I particularly share your frustration that our system of 
     record keeping precludes adequate standards of accountability 
     and that our lax enforcement substantially lowers public 
     confidence in our elections. Witness to this is the fact that 
     we recently learned that we have thousands of felons still on 
     the voter rolls.
       ``Regardless of the future course of your investigation 
     with the Rules Committee, Louisiana has a duty and an 
     obligation to fashion a remedy for the many ills which have 
     so amply been illustrated throughout these past months.
       ``Therefore, I will call for a bipartisan state legislative 
     initiative with hearings focusing on every element of our 
     registration and election process, involving Democrats and 
     Republicans, and all appropriate state and local registrars, 
     elections officials, and enforcement authorities.''
       8. Whereas the District Attorney for East Baton Rouge wrote 
     to the Governor of Louisiana on September 2, 1997, and 
     concluded that:
       ``We are currently conducting an investigation into 
     election and voter registration irregularities. During the 
     investigation, we have come across many concerns, including a 
     number which I feel should be brought to your attention. That 
     is because it appears that many of the Louisiana laws which 
     were designed to assure the integrity of voter registration 
     records and voting procedures may not be achieving the goals 
     intended by the Legislature when enacted. The immediacy of 
     the situation is that if the current procedures are not 
     addressed, then the simple passage of time will result in the 
     inability to insure that our laws provide either registration 
     or election result integrity.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``These various practices, among others, create the 
     opportunity for fraud in registration and voting and make it, 
     for all practical purposes, impossible to discover, after the 
     fact, if it occurred.''
       9. Whereas the breakdowns in Louisiana's electoral system 
     indicate significant institutional problems which create the 
     opportunity for fraud and irregularities to affect the 
     outcome of Louisiana's elections; and
       10. Whereas, notwithstanding the breakdowns in Louisiana's 
     electoral safeguards, the Committee has not found a 
     cumulative body of evidence of fraud, irregularities, or 
     other errors--after review of a significant number of 
     potential areas of fraud, irregularities, or other errors--to 
     meet the petitioner's burden, as determined by Senate 
     precedent, which burden is: to show not only proof of fraud 
     or irregularities, but also that, upon completion of a full 
     investigation, such fraud or irregularities, in the 
     aggregate, did affect the result of the election or clearly 
     make the true result of the election unknown.

[[Page S10256]]

       Now, therefore, the committee hereby states that it finds 
     that the evidence collected to date does not meet the 
     applicable burden to justify further consideration of the 
     amended petition by the Committee, or by the Senate, and the 
     Committee terminates its investigation of the 1996 election 
     for U.S. Senator from Louisiana and directs the Chairman to 
     so inform the Senate;
       The committee further hereby directs the Chairman to 
     prepare a committee report, with minority or supplemental 
     views as appropriate, which details the actions taken by the 
     Committee, the legal standards applicable to the petition, 
     and the evidence developed during the preliminary 
     investigation;
       The committee further hereby directs the Chairman to 
     determine whether the evidence obtained during the 
     preliminary investigation indicates that evidence of 
     violations of federal or state election, campaign finance, or 
     other laws or regulations should be referred to the Governor 
     of Louisiana, the Department of Justice, the Federal Election 
     Commission, law enforcement authorities in Louisiana, or 
     other investigative authorities, and to report such 
     determinations to the Committee for further action by the 
     Committee and the Senate, according to Senate Rules; and
       The committee further hereby authorizes the Chairman to 
     maintain appropriate copies of relevant records for the 
     official Committee files and to return or otherwise forward 
     to the appropriate parties, as determined by the Chairman, 
     all original documents submitted to the Committee in response 
     to subpoenas issued in furtherance of the Committee's 
     investigation.
                                                                    ____

         Nineteenth Judicial District, East Baton Rouge Parks, 
           Office of the District Attorney,
                               Baton Rouge, LA, September 2, 1997.
     Re: Voter registrations and elections.

     Hon. Murphy J. ``Mike'' Foster,
     Governor, State of Louisiana,
     Baton Rouge, LA.
       Dear Governor Foster: We are currently conducting an 
     investigation into election and voter registration 
     irregularities. During the investigation, we have come across 
     many concerns, including a number which I feel should be 
     brought to your attention. That is because it appears that 
     many of the Louisiana laws which were designed to assure the 
     integrity of voter registration records and voting procedures 
     may not be achieving the goals intended by the Legislature 
     when enacted. The immediacy of the situation is that if the 
     current procedures are not addressed, then the simple passage 
     of time will result in the inability to insure that our laws 
     provide either registration or election result integrity.
       Though there are too many to be detailed in a letter, I 
     will attempt to highlight some of the problems which we have 
     found.
       I would like to mention at the outset that the purpose of 
     this letter is to point a finger at problems, not at people, 
     so that they may be identified, discussed, understood, and 
     solved. Blame assessment, if it occurs, will come at its time 
     and in its forum.
       Our investigation began with a focus on the Election Code, 
     LRS 18:1 et seq, which was enacted to ``. . . regulate the 
     conduct of elections . . .'' It governs all aspects of 
     elections, including officials, voters, registration, voting 
     procedures, results, reporting, and even campaign finance.
       Recent discoveries have prompted me to write this letter. 
     The first is the finding of duplicate, inaccurate and/or 
     incomplete information in the voter registration computer 
     database. As of approximately one month ago, that database 
     admittedly contained thousands of instance of duplication of 
     social security numbers as well as over 200,000 registered 
     voters who were shown as having no social security number. 
     From our continuing review, this number is much higher today 
     than it was then.
       There are also a number of persons who are shown on the 
     State Voter Registration Computer System to be registered in 
     the same or in different parishes with the same social 
     security number. Investigation has shown that in some cases, 
     the registration seems to be of the same person who has 
     moved, and in some cases, the registration seems to be of a 
     completely different person. Regardless of which of these 
     scenarios is true for any particular record, to maintain the 
     status quo is to invite fraud.
       These problems fly in the face of the enactments of the 
     Legislature contained in Louisiana Revised Statute 18:104 and 
     101 which requires that citizens who register to vote provide 
     certain unique information to the Registrar of Voters in 
     order to be properly identified and registered, and that 
     there be no citizen registered in more than one place. Among 
     the statutory requirements is the applicant's social security 
     number. Despite this statutory mandate, the Commissioner of 
     Elections office recently sent a directive to all registrars 
     instructing that the obtaining of a social security number 
     would no longer be required from a voter applicant. The 
     directive was presumably based on a judicial decision 
     rendered in a lawsuit filed by an individual against a 
     Registrar and the Commissioner of Elections. The State of 
     Louisiana was not made a party to the suit. Pursuant to the 
     requirements of LRS 18:64, the Registrar of Voters was 
     represented by an Assistant Attorney General. However, the 
     State as an entity was neither made a party nor represented. 
     Based upon that ruling the Commissioner's office is advising 
     registrars around the state that they are no longer required 
     to follow the mandate of LRS 18:104.
       Permitting a discussing of the legal issues involved, if 
     the necessary identifying information is not required when a 
     voter is registered, then it is a matter of which you should 
     be aware.
       The second recent discovery occurred in attempting to match 
     voter signatures from ``Motor Voter'' applications to 
     signatures on the precinct registers which are signed on 
     election day. Though no handwriting analysis has been done, 
     there are a number of obvious discrepancies apparent in many 
     of the records. This, of course, has been one of the concerns 
     raised by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and 
     appears to have caused a problem in our election records.
       Further complicating all of these matters is the lack of 
     administrative rules, which has resulted in inconsistencies 
     among the various offices of the local registrars, not the 
     uniformity envisioned in the law.
       These various practices, among others, create the 
     opportunity for fraud in registration and voting and make it, 
     for all practical purposes, impossible to discover, after the 
     fact, if it occurred.
       There are many other problems we have found which cause a 
     great deal of concern, but they will not be detailed here. 
     The purpose of this letter, instead, is to inform you of the 
     existence of some of these problems in our system of 
     registration and elections so that you can take whatever 
     action you think is necessary to correct the problems. I 
     stand ready to assist you in identifying the depth of, and 
     solutions to, these problems.
       If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me.
           Yours truly,
                                                      Doug Moreau,
     District Attorney.
                                                                    ____

                                               State of Louisiana,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Baton Rouge, September 3, 1997.
     Hon. Doug Moreau,
     District Attorney, 19th Judicial District,
     Baton Rouge, LA.
       Dear Mr. Moreau: Thank you for your letter of September 2, 
     1997, about your concern for the integrity of the election 
     process in Louisiana. Your remarks have caused me grave 
     concern as to whether our election laws require extensive 
     legislative review in order to ensure that election results 
     in Louisiana are reliable, and so that the public may have 
     confidence in our election process. The first duty of 
     government is to protect the democratic election process 
     against all risks of fraudulent practices, so that those who 
     are chosen in the election process are indeed the true 
     choices.
       I am so very concerned about the questions which you have 
     raised that I will forward a copy of your correspondence to 
     Senator Randy Ewing, President of the Senate, and 
     Representative Hunt Downer, Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, recommending that these questions, as to 
     election process integrity, be reviewed by a joint committee 
     of the legislature, with assistance of appropriate legal 
     counsel and the power of subpoena. With such legislative 
     oversight we will be able to ensure that the election results 
     based on the election laws of Louisiana are above any 
     suspicion as to their reliability.
       I thank you most sincerely for calling these matters to my 
     attention.
           Sincerely,
     M.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr.
                                                                    ____

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                     Rules and Administration,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
     Hon. J.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr.,
     Governor of Louisiana,
     Baton Rouge, LA.
       Dear Governor Foster: This letter follows up our telephone 
     conversation earlier today and the important personal meeting 
     we had several weeks ago at the Southern Governors 
     Conference. The Committee on Rules, which I chair, will meet 
     next Wednesday to receive my report on the status of the 
     Committee's preliminary investigation on behalf of the 
     Senate, into allegations that fraud and irregularities 
     affected the outcome of the November 5, 1996 election for 
     U.S. Senate in your state.
       My report will contain references to Louisiana's election 
     laws, the presence or absence of adequate regulations, and 
     the need for a proven level of enforcement of such laws and 
     regulations. You have expressed to me your concerns related 
     to Louisiana's election process and have told me that you 
     plan to make your own evaluation of this system, in 
     conjunction with members of your state legislature.
       I particularly commend Doug Moreau, District Attorney for 
     East Baton Rouge whom I have consulted on several occasions. 
     He is continuing to perform investigation into areas which 
     overlap with our own efforts.
       One area in particular that Mr. Moreau is pursuing is a 
     complete review of the state's voter registration computer 
     database, which we have both discovered contains a 
     significant number of voters with the same social security 
     number or with no social security number at all. We were 
     unable to obtain the complete database because the 
     Commissioner of Elections would not voluntarily comply with a 
     subpoena, as confirmed by the fact that Mr. Moreau is now in 
     court seeking to enforce his subpoena.
       At such time as the ongoing Senate preliminary 
     investigation ceases--and I will know more details after my 
     full Senate Committee meets next Wednesday--I want to

[[Page S10257]]

     offer, in compliance with Senate Rules, the opportunity for 
     Rules Committee staff to brief the appropriate forum you 
     establish for your legislative review.
       My experience in this case leads me to recommend that--in 
     light of the number of instances where the electoral 
     safeguards, including record keeping, were not followed in 
     the November 1996 elections, from the precinct level right up 
     to the office of the Commissioner of Elections--your review 
     should include an examination of what legislative or 
     regulatory changes and enhanced adherence to present laws are 
     needed to ensure that an official body, be it a body of the 
     U.S. Congress, a court of law, or an appropriate governmental 
     authority in your state, can more readily reach a credible 
     and well documented decision about a statewide election 
     contest.
       Our foremost duty is to ensure our elections are conducted 
     fairly and in accordance with law. We remain willing to 
     provide you our observations and suggestions, within Senate 
     rules, to assist you in your efforts to protect our electoral 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Warner,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                               State of Louisiana,


                                         Executive Department,

                              Baton Rouge, LA, September 29, 1997.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I am in receipt of your letter of 
     September 26 in which you informed me of your Rules Committee 
     report to be delivered Wednesday and detailed some of your 
     observations and wisdom gained through years of oversight.
       So much of your thought process and concerns directly 
     parallel my own. The allegations of fraud and irregularities 
     which may have affected the outcome of the November 1996 U.S. 
     Senate election are serious and disturbing. But, of even 
     greater long term consequence are the suspicions that you and 
     I apparently both share that there are chronic, systemic, and 
     structural problems in the Louisiana election process.
       These issues are not about party affiliation. They are not 
     about individual candidates or specific elections, even 
     though this election in question clearly has illustrated some 
     of the problems. The issue is the integrity and sanctity of 
     our election process and its results. I share wholeheartedly 
     with you your basic premise that our foremost duty is to 
     ensure that our elections are conducted fairly and in 
     accordance with the law.
       I particularly share your frustration that our system of 
     record keeping precludes adequate standards of accountability 
     and that our lax enforcement substantially lowers public 
     confidence in our elections. Witness to this is the fact that 
     we recently learned that we have thousands of felons still on 
     the voter rolls.
       Regardless of the future course of your investigation with 
     the Rules Committee, Louisiana has a duty and an obligation 
     to fashion a remedy for the many ills which have so amply 
     been illustrated throughout these past months.
       Therefore, I will call for a bipartisan state legislative 
     initiative with hearings focusing on every element of our 
     registration and election process, involving Democrats and 
     Republicans, and all appropriate state and local registrars, 
     elections officials, and enforcement authorities.
       Nothing in a democracy is more sacred than the integrity of 
     elections. On behalf of the state of Louisiana we offer our 
     deepest appreciation for your efforts in identifying the 
     problem areas in our elections system, and we gratefully 
     accept your offer to have Rules Committee staff provide 
     important information and examples of problems to our state 
     hearings.
       Again we sincerely appreciate the earnestness of your 
     efforts and hope that your diligence and the ensuing hearings 
     in Louisiana will profoundly impact our elections system for 
     the better.
       With kinds regards, I am,
           Sincerely,
                                        M.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr.,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the 
chairman of the Rules Committee for one of the most difficult tasks 
that any Member will be called upon to take in the U.S. Senate, and 
that is to look into the election of another Member of the Senate. It 
immediately has partisan overtones and can take a very ugly turn.
  I can say that having sat through many of the hearings, both open and 
closed hearings, having sat with the chairman and seeing the efforts of 
this case and seeing the level of detail to which he took personally 
getting involved in this investigation and trying to ferret out the 
validity of the charges that were alleged, I am very proud of Senator 
Warner's work on this investigation. He did it with the skill of the 
trained lawyer that he is. He did it in a way, really as the Senate's 
counsel, if you will, and also did it with, I believe, an extraordinary 
air of bipartisanship when, in fact, the partisan wranglings had boiled 
over far beyond what he actually deserved.
  He did an excellent job. He did a thorough job. He used the resources 
that he had to the greatest extent that he possibly could. He took lots 
of arrows, in many cases in the back. But he stood tall and kept his 
eye on the ball, and that was to find out what happened in Louisiana, 
whether these charges that were put forward were, in fact, legitimate. 
He is determined, as well as the other members of the committee, that 
at this point there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that there 
was a systematic case of fraud in Louisiana, and so the investigation 
must come to a conclusion.
  I support the chairman in that decision. I supported him, as did 
every other member of the Rules Committee, in the decision that he came 
to after this thorough and thoughtful investigation of the information 
that was presented to him.
  I just wanted to take the floor today to commend him for a job well 
done. No doubt he will be criticized by many for ending this 
investigation, but I want to stand with him in saying that I think he 
reached the conclusion that was the only conclusion that could be 
reached at this point.
  Having said that, obviously, just like with any of us, if information 
comes out subsequent that is a smoking gun or that is really 
problematic, then that evidence can be brought before the Rules 
Committee and we can take a look at it. To this point, that has not 
occurred, and I think the chairman has acted judiciously with respect 
to the evidence before him.
  I wanted to stand and offer my gratitude for his excellent work and 
state my support for his effort. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, for his honest, 
straightforward, and direct investigation and statements in closed 
session and in public today. I think it is evident from his effort, 
with the vote of 16 to nothing, bipartisan, that we now cease and 
desist as it relates to the investigation of the Louisiana election, 
and the distinguished Senator Mary Landrieu be seated as a true Senator 
without any cloud over her head whatsoever, so she can get about the 
business of full-time representation of Louisiana.
  I thank the chairman. I thank the members of the committee. I think 
it is now time that we put this behind us and proceed with the business 
of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Florida.

                          ____________________