[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9464-H9473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--DISMISSING CONTEST IN 46TH DISTRICT OF 
           CALIFORNIA UPON THE EXPIRATION OF OCTOBER 29, 1997

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
276), pursuant to rule IX, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the 
resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 276

       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California by the Secretary of State of 
     California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th district of California met on February 26, 1997 in 
     Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California and has not met since that time; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the 
     records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on 
     February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records 
     pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th district of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th district and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end 
     and now therefore be it;
       Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 29, 1997.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The resolution constitutes a 
question of the privileges of the House, and must be considered at this 
time.
  Pursuant to rule IX, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will each control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution which is brought on the privileges of 
the House is designed to try to bring to a conclusion now the question 
of whether or not Loretta Sanchez was elected in the 46th District of 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, this contest has been going on now for all of this year 
and almost 11 months into the proceedings there has not been evidence 
or proof presented by the committee or the task force which would 
indicate that Ms. Sanchez was not elected by a majority of the people 
voting in the 46th District in November 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, at my request, the Speaker and the 
chairman of the Committee on House Oversight has submitted a memorandum 
of understanding that would bring us to a point where we would attempt 
to bring this case to a close before we finish this year's session of 
Congress. I must report to the Members that in my view this memorandum 
of understanding is not acceptable and not appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, it suggests that we turn a whole set of records that 
have come from the Immigration Service to try to determine if a whole 
great number of residents of the 46th District, and people outside the 
46th District, were registered citizens and legal citizens of the 
United States and whether they voted in this race, and turn it over to 
the Secretary of State of California to make a determination as to 
whether or not everybody who voted was a citizen.
  First, let me say that it is totally unacceptable to turn this 
decision about whether or not this election was valid, and whether 
Loretta Sanchez was elected, over to the Secretary of State of 
California. I understand what the Committee on House Oversight may be 
trying to say. They would like to turn this over to a third party. 
Unfortunately, the Constitution gives the responsibility and the 
obligation to the House of Representatives, and only the House of 
Representatives, to decide and

[[Page H9465]]

to judge the election of its Members, not to the Secretary of State of 
California or any other State or any other group or any other body. In 
fact, the Secretary of State of California has certified Ms. Sanchez's 
election to this body many, many months ago.
  Second, I want to reiterate that after almost 11 months of inquiry, 
the committee has not presented to the House of Representatives, or to 
the public, facts, proof, evidence which would show that Ms. Sanchez 
was not validly elected in the 46th District of California. The burden 
of proof is on the contestant. The contestant is the former Member, Bob 
Dornan.
  Mr. Speaker, Bob Dornan made certain representations to the 
committee. The committee has had these 10 months to look at those 
representations and to date, no facts, no proof, no evidence has been 
presented that indicates that Ms. Sanchez was not elected or any proof 
that would indicate that we should look beyond the certification of the 
State of California that Ms. Sanchez was elected.
  Third, the procedure that the House Committee on House Oversight 
majority is suggesting is an unreasonable procedure. If we go forward 
and agree to a procedure that looks at the citizenship of everyone who 
votes in any election in the United States, I must tell my colleagues 
the work of the Congress on any other subject will have to end because 
we will have to spend all of our time searching through the citizenship 
papers of everybody who has voted in any certainly close election, 
maybe in every election, to make sure that everybody who voted was a 
citizen.
  Now, this is maybe a thing we would want to do. I do not think this 
is the way we want to spend our time. The records of the Immigration 
Service, and they have said this to the committee, will not indicate on 
their face whether or not people were actually citizens on the date 
that they voted. It is not the job of the Immigration Service to 
produce such information. They do not always have it in each case. That 
is not their duty. It is not their responsibility.
  So if we send to the Secretary of State all of the papers that have 
been amassed on the however many people that are suspected by somebody 
of not being citizens on the date the vote was taken, neither the 
Secretary of State, nor anyone else, can find out from looking at the 
paper whether or not everybody who voted was a citizen or who they 
voted for. So, Mr. Speaker, we would be sending off materials to the 
Secretary of State that could lead to no further conclusion than the 
committee has been able to reach. Why in God's green Earth would we 
want to do that?
  Mr. Speaker, I am told that the only way we could finally make that 
determination would be to actually physically go door to door to 
everybody who is suspected of not being a citizen on the day they voted 
and making them prove their citizenship. Again, if this is the 
precedent we are going to follow in any close or contested election in 
the future, these issues can be raised and we will then have to either 
go personally or hire people to go and make this kind of a 
determination over months and months and months of work. And even after 
all of that is done, we are not sure we are going to know the facts on 
the citizenship of everybody that voted in a particular race in any 
particular congressional election.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that what is going on here is 
totally unique, unprecedented. It has never been done before in any 
election contest case. If we send these records off as has been 
suggested, which I think is totally inappropriate, against the 
Constitution of the United States, this thing could be going on in May, 
June, July of next year. It could be going on after the election in 
1998.
  Now, I appreciate the concern of the majority that we should be 
concerned that every Member of this House should have validly won their 
election to come here and represent approximately a half a million 
people in every district in the country. The most important thing we 
have to do is to make sure that every one of us got validly elected and 
that there was not fraud or there was not abuse or there were not 
inappropriate procedures that went on in an election. That is our 
responsibility and that is our job and we take it seriously. I know the 
majority takes it seriously.
  But, Mr. Speaker, after 11 months and numerous hearings and thousands 
of records and numerous meetings and communications all over the 
country and the world, if we cannot now finally decide whether or not 
Loretta Sanchez was elected in the 46th District, I do not believe 
sending off the records to somebody else and letting them start off on 
this wild goose chase is going to make it any different or any better.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to let this go. The time has come to 
do the right thing. The time has come to decide that the facts are not 
there that anything went wrong in this election. The time has come to 
say to the people of the 46th District of California, ``You ran a valid 
election. Loretta Sanchez was elected in this district.'' It is time to 
let this go and stop this unreasonable procedure.
  Sending these records to the Secretary of State of California will 
accomplish no end of any kind whatsoever. Let us make sure that we can 
say to the people of this country that we have discharged our 
responsibility, we have looked at the facts, the facts are not there.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Let 
Ms. Sanchez serve her constituents as she came here to do and let her 
do it beginning tonight. Vote for this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the majority leader for 
bringing the resolution to the floor. We frankly have had some 
difficulty in getting a number of people to understand exactly what is 
going on. It is difficult when we try to follow the rules and the 
procedures properly; we cannot go out and demagog what we are trying to 
do. So this is an opportunity for us to once again review the facts, 
and I appreciate the minority leader providing us with the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority leader suggested the possible alternative 
of going door to door. He knows and I know and all of us know that 
going door to door is wrong. It is just as wrong as offering a 
resolution which will shut down the process before it is completed.
  We owe it to those people who know they cast legal votes in this 
contested election to make sure that all the people who cast illegal 
votes are determined. Would we have liked to have done it in the first 
week of the contested election? Of course. Would we like to do it in 
the time frame that he is indicating? Of course. In fact, we offered an 
agreement that would have facilities doing just that.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri also knows that we are not 
turning over the determination of who legally voted in California's 
46th to the Secretary of State. He knows that, but that is a useful 
rhetorical argument.
  What we thought might help us advance the finding of the facts was to 
use those people who are involved in this process every day. In fact, 
that is what their job is. The Secretary of State is the chief election 
officer of California.
  Interesting enough, in the first ``whereas'' they cite the Secretary 
of State having issued a certificate. My assumption is they believe he 
does a pretty good job of carrying out his role as the chief election 
officer. We thought we could use him as an assist in making decisions; 
that is, there already has been a discussion as to who can vote when 
one becomes a citizen.
  We believe that the decision should be made under California law, not 
under some agreement agreed to by a partisan majority or even a 
unanimous task force, to take from California its legal laws under 
their election code and substitute an artificial one, which has been 
done in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri says this is unprecedented. 
The gentleman is right. What we are trying to do here is reverse past 
history, and that is do not make a political decision on how we count 
the votes, but rely on the people who are legally charged in the State 
to do it.
  The gentleman from Missouri says we are going to have the Secretary 
of State determine the citizenship. He knows that is not true. The 
document we gave him showed that the INS

[[Page H9466]]

would be involved. In fact, the INS has already been involved in the 
Western region because the Western region took the names that the 
Orange County district attorney had subpoenaed and the Los Angeles 
region of the INS examined them and, working with the Secretary of 
State, determined that approximately 300 people were not citizens but 
were on the voting roll. That was done with a sample.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are suggesting is perhaps they should look at a 
large sample. That does not mean that we have to agree to what they 
say, but it would certainly be nice to use people who were 
professionals and who do that job every day as a resource so that this 
committee could use that information as it sees fit under the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows me or who knows the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] or the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] knows we 
would not turn any final decision over to someone else. That decision 
is ours and we guard it jealously. But what is wrong, for heaven's 
sake, in using people who are professionals in what they do to help us 
make a determination?
  Let us look at the resolution that is in front of us. The first 
``whereas'' indicates that the Secretary of State is someone who issued 
the certificate. I already indicated that if he is held in high esteem 
by virtue of what he did before there was any hint of fraud or illegal 
voting in this particular race, what would be wrong with using him to 
help us come to a conclusion?

                              {time}  1615

  It is interesting also that in the third whereas they talk about the 
fact that the task force met early and it has not met recently. As a 
matter of fact, the task force, I understand from the chairman, is 
going to meet on Friday.
  Let us review briefly why the task force has not met. There were 
people, including the Congresswoman, who refused to comply with the 
Federal Contested Election Act in terms of the subpoenas that were 
issued under that act. She believed they were unconstitutional and 
wanted to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.
  I supported her right to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, 
if she thought it was wrong. But I doubt if you folks would, based upon 
this resolution, wait until she fought that all the way to the Supreme 
Court. We did have the judge who issued the subpoenas indicate that he 
certainly thought that the law was valid and subpoenas could be issued. 
So the committee issued interrogatories. It was the committee that had 
to move in and begin to act under the committee power.
  The gentlewoman from Orange County has, in fact, responded to the 
interrogatory. There are people who have not responded to the 
interrogatory. We have communications from Nativo Lopez, who said he 
will not respond to the interrogatory. In all probability we will have 
to subpoena him to get the information. You folks do not know and 
apparently you do not want to know what he is going to be forced to 
say.
  The Orange County district attorney currently has a criminal 
investigation of conspiracy against Hermandad and Nativo Lopez is the 
head of that organization. You do not care what happens there. You want 
to end it. I think those people who cast their votes legally and who 
would like to know if their votes were canceled out by illegal votes 
would not want to.
  The whereases go on to indicate in the sixth whereas that the INS has 
complied with the committee's request. As a matter of fact, if you 
really knew what was going on, you would know that the INS has not 
complied. They still have names. They turned in 200 just this week 
additional. They have hundreds more to turn in. They have not given us 
the complete list. Remember, they only began giving us the lists when 
the committee subpoenaed the Immigration and naturalization Service to 
begin providing us with those documents. That was not 9 months ago. We 
only have begun the process and we have not completed it.
  When you take a look at the whereas No. 7, indicating that we already 
have all the records because we placed a subpoena on the evidence that 
the district attorney gathered, remember, our subpoena was on top of 
the district attorney's subpoena to protect that material so that we 
would not lose it. We did not issue the initial subpoena.
  The district attorney did. it was a limited subpoena. kit was only 
for the materials that were in the offices of Hermandad. it is not all 
of the records. That whereas is simply factually inaccurate. There 
could very well be more records out there. We need to find out what 
Nativo Lopez knew and when he knew it. He refuses to respond to the 
committee. We will continue to make sure that he does not defy the 
committee.
  We would love to have the minority join us in supporting the 
Constitution and the laws in requiring people who we have decided need 
to provide information to us, that if they refuse to do it, we compel 
them to do it. There I would love to have you join us in supporting the 
Constitution and the laws.
  It seems to me that when you say that, in whereas No. 8, we are 
seeking duplicative and dilatory review of material already in the 
committee's possession, that you mean we want to really make sure that 
we achieve the highest level of verification where someone's vote is 
concerned. hey, I do not think that is bad. I think double-checking is 
good. I think being accurate is proper.
  I have a hard time understanding why that is bad. if we are dealing 
in such an area of sensitivity that you have indicated your concern, 
what is wrong with checking the list twice or three times or using 
those officials who do it every day to help us in coming to a decision? 
I think that is good. I do not think it is bad. you seem to think that 
it drives to a conclusion that we should end all of this.
  What amazes me is that you now indicate in whereas No. 9 that we have 
got all the evidence that there needs to be gathered. Fairly ironic 
that you could come to that conclusion, since not one staff member of 
the minority has been willing to sign a confidentiality statement to 
share, to look at the materials that we have. None of them have been 
willing to sign. They will not enter into a confidentiality agreement 
not to leak the material. So how in the world do they know what we have 
been doing? They refuse to sign a confidentiality statement to join 
with us without leaking. At least I admire their honesty in not signing 
the statement.
  It just seems to me that if you come to the conclusion that we ought 
to end this on October 29 based upon those whereases, you are saying 
you want to dismiss us, even if the INS has not provided all the 
records, even if material people who may be indicted for criminal 
conspiracy have not provided information to the committee, that you 
want to end it even if we do not know how many people voted illegally. 
It is not ``if,'' do not think it is ``if.'' It is how many. And to do 
ti right and to do ti properly takes time.
  I appreciate the gentleman offering the resolution. I think it is 
fairly clear that based upon the facts of the case as we have moved 
forward that this resolution is not timely. The call for dismissal on 
October 29 is premature, and I look forward to joining with you, 
notwithstanding the fact that you reject use of experts to assist us in 
determining what actually happened, in signing confidentially 
statements so we can work together to get to the bottom of it.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the Democratic leader for 
giving me this opportunity to appear before the full House to set aside 
any doubts about my full cooperation in this election contest.
  A few uninformed individuals have made accusations of stonewalling. 
In my case, the sooner this ordeal is ended, the better. That is why I 
took the affirmative action back in February to invite the task force 
to Orange County for a field hearing. At that 9-hour hearing, I 
voluntarily appeared and testified under oath. I answered each and 
every question put to me by the majority and by the minority. Ten days 
later, I provided this task force with the complete results of my own 
field investigation of the so-called 303 voters that the Secretary of 
State of California alleged were not lawful voters.
  I gave the names, the addresses, and voter registration information 
on nearly 200 of those individuals that we were able to interview or 
research and we

[[Page H9467]]

had proof, they showed us proof that they were naturalized or native 
born U.S. citizens, some for many decades.
  In a detailed brief, I showed the task force each and every instance 
where our field investigation demonstrated that the INS data is simply 
wrong, wrong, wrong. I have complied with Mr. Dornan's subpoenas except 
those that the Committee on House Oversight quashed as not relevant to 
this election contest. My campaign has turned over thousands of pages 
of financial records.
  We filed thousands of pages of briefs and evidence which have refuted 
every one of Mr. Dornan's allegations, including his charge that U.S. 
Marines and Catholic nuns residing in my district were illegal or 
suspicious voters, and the committee has never issued a subpoena to me 
or to my campaign. The only subpoena the committee has issued has been 
to the INS.
  A few weeks ago the committee asked me, my campaign manager, and my 
campaign chairman to respond under oath to a handful of questions. We 
fully complied in the time frame the committee requested with over 
1,800 pages of sworn statements and evidence. I have cooperated with 
this committee at every step, even while I exercised my right to argue 
before the district court, which had issued subpoenas about the 
constitutionality of this process and the burden that it has placed on 
innocent parties.
  Even though the Federal Contested Election Act requires that all 
parties, that all parties file with the Clerk of the House copies of 
all depositions in compliance with all subpoenas, neither Mr. Dornan 
nor the committee has filed any evidence with the Clerk or has shown it 
to me. Eleven months into this investigation and months after the INS 
has complied with the committee subpoena, I have not been provided with 
one ounce of information on a single individual on this list of over 
5,000 people you continue to talk about.
  The committee has never offered me or my lawyers the opportunity to 
sign any confidentiality agreements necessary so we can take a look at 
any of the lists, let alone any evidence or details you might have 
about the truth. The investigation has been conducted in secret, 
despite the fact that the statute calls for full and open sharing of 
discovery in filings with the Clerk of the House that must be shared 
and should be shared with all parties in this dispute.
  This is a status report of what I have done and this is what I offer 
to my colleagues in the House. I hope this fully sets aside the notion 
of any effort on my part to stonewall this investigation.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] be allowed to manage the rest of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood]. Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can dispute the fact 
that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has served this 
institution with honor and dignity. She is hard-working, by all 
accounts, and I think she should be commended for that in her remarks 
that she has just made before this body. But this dispute is not about 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], or Mr. Dornan, the 
former Member that used to hold this seat.
  This is about potential voter fraud that has existed in this 
particular congressional district.
  I come from south Texas. It is notoriously known for elections that 
have been stolen over the years and we all know, we have read our 
history books, about how LBJ got his first Senate victory and zoomed up 
to the White House rather quickly because dead people voted for him in 
Duval County in south Texas.
  In 1990, we had a situation of a judicial race. A Republican 
candidate won. The Republican candidate goes to bed one night thinking 
that she had won, waking up the next day where they suddenly found in a 
border town that they had discovered 1,000 ballots that somehow did not 
get counted the night before.
  Then my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] cited 
the other day a Louisiana newspaper that tried to find out how easy is 
it to register false names, names that are just made up to see if they 
can register people to vote, had 25 names that they submitted to the 
local election officials, 19 qualified somehow to be registered voters; 
one was a dog.
  In each of these cases, somehow local communities turn their back and 
say, hey, well, let us just forget about it and move on. LBJ won the 
Senate race. The judicial seat was decided one way. In Louisiana, there 
are 19 new registered voters.
  But should we as Americans turn our back on the possibility that 
there was enough fraud committed in this particular race to just turn 
our backs on it? This is 1997. You would think that this kind of 
occurrence that has happened, could have happened in California, could 
not happen in this day and age when we have high-technology operations, 
when we have the ability to police what people are doing in elections, 
when we should have the technical expertise to find out who is really 
qualified to vote in this country.

                              {time}  1630

  We cannot turn our backs on that.
  I ask my colleagues what is wrong with getting to the bottom of this 
investigation? And if we find out one day that there were enough 
legitimate voters in this election to say that the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] should remain in Congress and serve her 
constituents the way she has been doing, hardworking, with integrity 
and conviction, like she has demonstrated so far, then more power to 
her. And, hopefully, she will have a long time here, if she continues 
to serve her constituents well.
  But what is wrong? What are we afraid of in finding out the truth and 
getting to the bottom of it? Before we get to that point, we should 
explore every opportunity to make sure that every voter was qualified 
in this election.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The answer to the gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, is 
there is absolutely nothing wrong, and we want to make sure that we get 
to the bottom of it. However, as the resolution points out, I tell my 
friend from Texas, we have been at this 11 months, with all the 
information necessary.
  We know everybody who voted and we can check every one of them. That 
has not been done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson], the ranking member of the Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I regret that Speaker Gingrich is not in 
the Chair today. He was here earlier and left. But Speaker Gingrich was 
elected to this Chamber with fewer votes than the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez]. It was a democratically controlled House. We 
let Speaker Gingrich be seated without question.
  If Bob Dornan had won this seat by 10 votes, I daresay we would not 
be here today, a year after the election, having an inquisition about 
the citizens of that district. Let somebody on that side stand up and 
say they would vote to keep this thing going if Bob Dornan had won by 
10 votes not by 1,000 as the gentlewoman from California has.
  What is this all about? I think it is about paranoia of the Hispanic-
Americans coming over the border and voting illegally and taking over 
our country. Give me a break. Anybody in this country that is on the 
lam is not running down to get registered to have the whole world look 
at them. They are trying to avoid official contact.
  And following procedures, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
and the committee are now, I think, incapable of a fair decision in 
this process. The law says Mr. Dornan has to prove his case. What we 
have here is the committee on a course trying to do all of the work and 
going after the gentlewoman from California.
  Illegal voters? We talk about illegal voters. There is no evidence 
that is near the significant nature to reverse this election. Here is 
one of their illegal voters, one of those notorious 305,

[[Page H9468]]

with her naturalization certificate, an American citizen who voted 
legally in that election.
  What are we all about here? We are going to try to create enough 
smoke to steal this election. If we cannot do it here, maybe we can get 
the Secretary of State to do it. There may be even debtors from the 
past, anger over previous actions of this House. We are here talking 
about this race today.
  And, frankly, I address the Members of the House who have not been 
involved in this effort. We need 12 honest men and women on the other 
side to stand up and join with us to put this mockery to an end.
  The Constitution says we make this decision. The Constitution says we 
have to make this decision here and now. In America there is an old 
saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We are now through 
almost 12 months of her term. When will we make a decision? Will we 
make a decision after the next election? Will we have to create enough 
turmoil to intimidate other Hispanics from voting so that Republicans 
can win that election because they are afraid to show up?
  We have to end this now. It brings disgrace on this House.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I tell my friend from Connecticut, he brought the same lady on the 
floor the other day, she is no longer on the list, obviously. That is 
why we need to go through and carefully check. But in trying to 
preserve people's privacy, does she really need to be exhibited this 
often, as some kind of a poster child?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers], chairman of the task force.
  And I am sorry the minority leader is not on the floor. He was here 
earlier but I guess he left, because I would have liked for him to be 
here so he could hear the chairman of the task force.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I share the regret expressed by the chairman 
of the Committee on House Oversight that the minority leader is not 
here, because not only would I like to have him hear my remarks but, 
frankly, I wanted to compliment him on the manner in which he presented 
his statement and his case, in a very straightforward manner, dealing 
with the facts. And that is what we are trying to do in this case.
  In response to the gentleman from Connecticut, I will answer just one 
of his questions. He asked if someone here would stand up and say how 
we would deal if Mr. Dornan had won by 10 votes. I do not care how many 
votes he might have won by, he would have been treated the same way as 
the present coutestee and the case would have been handled the same 
way.
  In regard to the contestee in the case, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], I commend her for her statement, and I want 
to assure her and assure every Member of Congress that I do not in any 
way question her actions. I have never accused her of stonewalling. I 
do not intend to. I am sure she wants to resolve this. I want to 
resolve it. And I think we will both be well served if we can resolve 
it as quickly as possible.
  However, it is not that simple when one has to deal with all the 
details we have had to deal with, and I will try to outline a few of 
the aspects of that.
  First of all, a few comments on the resolution presented. The 
chairman of the committee has already indicated a number of issues that 
we would disagree with. I simply want to say, although the task force 
has only had a few official meetings since the start of the year, we 
have had several informal meetings discussing the quashing or 
modification of subpoenas and, furthermore, we have had four meetings 
of the full committee where we have dealt with those same questions. So 
we have not been inactive on the meeting front.
  In addition to that, we have been very active in analyzing the data 
and information, and I will, if time permits, get into some of the 
details of that later.
  I do also want to comment on the ``whereas'' clause which states that 
the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to 
the INS; and also that this is the first time in any election in the 
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to 
verify the citizenship of voters.
  First of all, I do not believe the subpoenas are unprecedented, and, 
frankly, the reason they were issued is that, although the INS 
initially agreed to cooperate at the local level, they were stopped by 
the officials in Washington, and we had to resort to subpoenas because 
they simply refused to cooperate with us. I believe if my colleagues 
look back through the records, they would find the INS has been more 
cooperative in the past.
  Furthermore, they have been asked a number of times, or their 
predecessors have been asked, to verify citizenship not just of voters 
but of candidates for the office. I find it interesting, looking 
through some of the previous files in the last century, more of the 
questions about citizenship were raised about the winners of the 
contest than about the voters in the contest. But, clearly, this is an 
important issue and they have been involved in this issue before.
  Furthermore, I happen to think it is not bad to verify citizenship of 
voters. I think that it is extremely important, because the law 
requires that voters be citizens. I have no problem whatsoever with 
ensuring that voters of this Nation are citizens of this Nation.
  Just a comment about the resolution's phrase that we are now seeking 
a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the committee's 
possession by the secretary of the State of California. We are not 
asking for a duplicate or dilatory review. We have done enough work on 
these. Rather, we are seeking verification, because we want to have as 
few errors as possible.
  And that is why we are presenting what we have uncovered in the 
investigation, in great confidentiality, to the Secretary of State and 
to the INS, with whom we have been working, asking for verification of 
various factors there.
  Another comment, that no credible evidence has been provided. Well, 
first of all, I would relate to everyone that our task is somewhat 
similar to that of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has to work in a 
confidential atmosphere. We do, too. We do not release information. And 
that is why we have confidentiality agreements for anyone who works on 
the information.
  Some numbers are public, and I will mention those. My colleagues have 
heard them referred to. The California Secretary of State initially 
stated that 303 out of the list of 1,150 registrants, the list from 
Hermandad, had voted illegally. The Secretary of State's office has 
taken the information provided by the minority. We have worked with 
them. The California Secretary of State has now, through careful 
scrutiny of the entire list, verified that 305 individuals voted 
illegally. In other words, these are noncitizens who voted.
  In addition to that, the Registrar of Elections in Orange County has 
verified that 124 individuals voted illegally. This has nothing to do 
with a noncitizen issue. It is illegal use of absentee ballots. So we 
have approximately 430 known, publicized illegal votes in that 
district.
  Furthermore, one other number that has become public is that our 
examination of INS and Orange County reveals there are approximately 
4,100 potential noncitizen voters. That is, of course, a huge number. 
And we have, through months and months of staff effort, tried very 
diligently to try to find out which of those individuals might possibly 
have citizenship that did not show on the initial search of the INS 
records.
  After all this work, that number of potential noncitizen voters is 
now much smaller. And we are asking the California Secretary of State 
to verify our work so that we can have the most precise possible 
number. Verification is what we are seeking from the California 
Secretary of State, and I think it is very important to do that.
  I believe it is also very important to note that this Congress did 
seat the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. She has performed 
her duties, insofar as I can tell, and she has performed them well. She 
has all the rights and duties of a Congressperson and she is exercising 
them. There was no attempt to deny her the seat. There is no attempt to 
unseat her without sufficient information. We want to make sure that we 
have verified all the facts in this case before we act.

[[Page H9469]]

  Is it taking too long? It is certainly taking longer than I would 
like. I had hoped we could resolve it sooner, but there is a great deal 
of detailed work that needs to be done and we are nearing the end of 
that process.
  We are trying to keep it nonpolitical, and I know that is very, very 
difficult in this atmosphere. I have chided one member of our committee 
for wearing an orange ribbon in committee meetings and on the floor. I 
think that is inappropriate, but that is his choice. I am just saying 
that I have tried to be very evenhanded in my handling of this issue.
  We simply have turned to the chief election officer of the State of 
California to verify what we have done. That official issued a 
Certificate of Election, which we accepted, but we also want further 
verification of the numbers we are dealing with.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, a year was more than enough for the Iran-
contra investigation to gather documents, issue subpoenas, call 
witnesses, hold hearings, and issue a final report on a probe that 
stretched into the White House, the CIA, the military and over several 
continents. Here it is, all 42 chapters, 690 pages of it, covering 
everything from detailed constitutional analysis to the tracing of 
complicated covert arms shipments involving several foreign 
governments.
  But the majority on the Committee on House Oversight would have us 
and the American people believe that nearly 1 year, the same time it 
took to do this, is not enough time; and after hundreds of thousands of 
taxpayer dollars, that it is not enough funding to conclude their 
investigation into the 46th Congressional District election. We do not 
accept that assertion.
  If Bob Dornan and the Republicans want to challenge the election, it 
is their burden to prove the election should be invalidated, not the 
burden of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] to prove she 
won the election.

                              {time}  1645

  The Republicans and Mr. Dornan have had nearly a year to meet that 
burden of proof. Yes, she has been seated, but what you are doing is 
bleeding her of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars. She has 
spent nearly a half a million dollars in legal costs just simply to 
maintain her process, her rights in this process. That is what you are 
doing to her. If you had cold, hard evidence to overturn the election, 
it would be in all of our hands, each and every Member of the House. 
But you do not. You do not have a list of voters who you can give and 
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt or even a preponderance of the 
evidence that voted illegally. Because if you did, you would not only 
have to invalidate her election but you would have to invalidate the 
election of the two assembly seats won by Republicans at the same time. 
One won by 93 votes in California. You would have to invalidate the 
municipal elections in 3 major cities. You would have to invalidate the 
judicial elections that were held, school board races that were held 
would be held in question, and even initiatives that were passed in 
California. Yet it is interesting that you pick on Ms. Sanchez but we 
remain silent about all those Republicans who won those elections and 
you do not question the names of individuals who allegedly voted in 
those elections as well. It is okay to count them towards the victory 
but not towards her victory.
  The fact of the matter is you say we do not care about finding the 
truth. We do. We are willing to depend upon the U.S. Attorney to pursue 
Hermandad and find out whatever the truth is. You say that we were not 
going to shift this to the Secretary of State, yet the list that you 
want the committee members to adhere to that you are going to provide 
the Secretary of State is flawed. It inaccurately portrays who is a 
citizen. It cannot prove who is native born or naturalized. It cannot 
prove that I as born in this country who might be on that list, it 
cannot prove my citizenship because only my birth certificate can prove 
that citizenship. You know, the only way to do this is to go door to 
door, but that would be an outrage, and so you are going to make this 
last forever.
  Everyone in this Chamber should consider the precedent that would be 
set if this resolution does not carry, that any Member, Republican or 
Democrat, engaged in a close race could spend their entire 2-year term 
defending a victory duly certified by their home State. The simple 
justice for Congresswoman Sanchez, for the people of the 46th District 
of California she represents and for millions of Hispanic Americans who 
are watching across the country, what you are doing to her and to us as 
a community who are waiting and watching, is to simply vote for this 
resolution, which says either put up or shut up. Show us the proof or 
end the charade. That is what the resolution asks for. That is what our 
colleagues should be voting for.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate the 
machismo of the gentleman from New Jersey, and of course challenging us 
to provide names or to create some kind of a fatally flawed decision is 
something that is devoutly wished on his side. We will not. Our job 
under the Constitution is to examine the congressional race that came 
to us as contested. If in fact the results of that indicate that there 
are other races that come under question, then that should be dealt 
with by the proper authorities. That is never an argument nor should it 
ever be an argument not to find out who voted legally or who voted 
illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Long Beach, CA 
[Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, with the exception of Representative Sanchez, 
I have heard a lot of shouting on the other side of the aisle. Because 
one shouts does not mean that one is seeking the truth.
  I think most people in this Chamber know that I would vote for the 
person who has the evidence on their side and it would have nothing to 
do with their party. I would not do as a Democratic colleague of mine 
and friend of long-standing did a decade ago when the evidence was very 
clear that a Republican had won and he voted strictly the party line 
against that Republican. I do not tend to follow that kind of a 
precedent.
  Ms. Sanchez has not been denied her seat. She sits in this Chamber. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] said quite well what a lot of us 
feel.
  We have heard a lot about what is appropriate. What is not 
appropriate is this resolution.
  The Gephardt resolution is simply an attempt to deny the truth to 
this House, and everyone here knows it. Frankly, the resolution shows 
that maybe this investigation is on the right track. Let us wait and 
let us get at the truth.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I tell the gentleman 
from New Jersey that in my term of ``machismo,'' being from the 
Southwest in terms of the way we describe feelings that in fact if that 
did come across, as someone came up to me and indicated, a remark that 
is not acceptable on your side, I would then substitute the words 
``emotion'' and ``passion,'' because I rely on the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to assist me at times in terms of 
sensitivity, and in my reaction if he would allow me I would not use 
the term ``machismo,'' I would use the term ``emotion'' and 
``passion.''
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remove the 
emotion and the passion for a minute and use a bit of analysis that 
appeared in a California newspaper about two weeks ago on this subject. 
The article was entitled, ``Who Abandoned Dornan? Republican Voters.''

[[Page H9470]]

  Ever since the election, Bob Dornan has insisted that unregistered 
Latinos voted illegally enough to provide Loretta Sanchez's margin of 
victory. An analysis of that race done for Republicans, however, 
asserts that Dornan lost not because of surplus Latino voters but 
because Republicans stopped voting for him.
  The analysis goes on to point out that Bob Dornan ran 6 percentage 
points behind two Republican assembly victors who ran in a coterminous 
area, 96 percent of which was in his congressional district, his at the 
time, Loretta Sanchez's today. Had he racked up among Republicans the 
same percentage that they achieved, he would have won by some 10,000 
votes.
  The fact is in the strongest Republican precincts, assembly candidate 
Jim Morrissey got 75 percent, Bob Dornan got 56 percent. He ran in the 
strongest Republican districts 20 percent behind his own colleague on 
the ballot. The bottom line is the people of Orange County, certainly 
the Republicans, were tired of his buffoonery. They got tired of him 
calling people lesbian spear chuckers. They got tired of his explaining 
bounced checks at the House bank and his interminable presidential 
campaigns.
  Bob Dornan ran out of support in his own party in Orange County, and 
I think he has run out in this precinct as well tonight because as we 
look at the Republican side of the aisle, there may be five Members 
here to defend him. Democrats are here in large numbers to defend 
Loretta Sanchez and her right to claim this seat. Yes, Bob Dornan has 
lost Republican support in Orange County and in Washington, DC.
  Mr. Speaker, the editorial referred to in my remarks is as follows:

                [From the Sacramento Bee, Oct. 7, 1997]

                Who Abandoned Dornan? Republican Voters

                            (By John Jacobs)

       One of the enduring images of the recently concluded 
     Republican state convention in Anaheim was of former Rep. 
     Robert Dornan, a wild-eyed look about him, careening around 
     the convention hall hounding reporters and anyone else who 
     would listen with tales of how he has been wronged.
       Dornan, a bombastic conservative who once called feminists 
     ``lesbian spear-chuckers'' and who ``explained'' his bounced 
     check from the House bank by saying he used the money to 
     build a shrine to the Virgin Mary in his backyard, has 
     finally become a buffoon, even to the many formerly 
     sympathetic Republicans.
       Dornan went on so long at his press conference that the 
     local PBS camera crew assigned to cover him that day ran out 
     of videotape. At that point, Boston Globe columnist Marty 
     Nolan asked the crew, only half-jokingly, ``Which PBS show 
     are you from, Nova?''
       Dornan was defeated by 984 votes last November when he ran 
     for what would have been his 10th term in Congress from the 
     very Disneyland district in which the state convention was 
     held. The victor was Loretta Sanchez, a Latina Republican-
     turned-Democrat now serving her first term.
       Ever since the election, Dornan has insisted that 
     unregistered Latinos voted illegally in that election, enough 
     to provide Sanchez's margin of victory. An analysis of that 
     race done for Republicans, however (more on the analysis 
     later), asserts that Dornan lost not because of surplus 
     Latino votes but because Republicans stopped voting for him.
       Even though he had no national base and no chance, Dornan 
     spent most of 1995 and early 1996 running for the Republican 
     nomination for president. It was his second futile attempt. 
     He was far more interested in ideological combat elsewhere 
     than in serving his constituents. Ultimately, they got tired 
     of his act.
       Dornan is demanding that the House of Representatives 
     invalidate the election and set a Dornan-Sanchez rematch. The 
     House Oversight Committee has so far spent some $300,000 
     to investigate the charges that noncitizens voted.
       Investigators have concluded that there may have been some 
     voter fraud and are continuing to examine it. Whether it's 
     enough to make a difference, no one, besides Dornan, is 
     prepared to say. At the convention, Dornan charged that he 
     has ``bulletproof'' evidence that between 1,200 and 1,500 
     people voted illegally, but he did not offer it.
       ``As far as I'm concerned, we've won,'' he announced at an 
     Orange County lunch Thursday. ``I don't want to step on 
     anybody's glory, although it's my life and I have the seat 
     and I won and I am the congressman-elect, the longest 
     congressman-elect in the history of our country 11 months and 
     three days.''
       House Democrats say they are outraged that Dornan has had 
     such a sympathetic hearing before the Republican-controlled 
     committee, including the use of subpoenas. Sanchez says she 
     is some $400,000 in debt for legal fees defending himself. 
     Many Republicans say they don't want to fall on their sword 
     defending a man whose very existence exacerbates their 
     electoral problems with women and Latinos, even if they do 
     have a duty to probe potential voter fraud.
       But a detailed statistical analysis of the Sanchez-Dornan 
     election concluded that Republicans in Republican precincts 
     abandoned Dornan in droves.
       Overall, Dornan ran 6 percentage points below the two 
     Assembly Republicans, Curt Pringle and Jim Morrissey, whose 
     Assembly districts include more than 95 percent of Dornan's 
     46th congressional district. Among Democrats and Republicans, 
     Dornan got 49.46 percent of the vote. Among Democrats and 
     Republicans, Pringle and Morrissey got 55.55 percent of the 
     vote.
       If Dornan had racked up the same vote totals in his race 
     that fellow Republicans Pringle and Morrissey got in their 
     Assembly races, according to this analysis, Dornan would have 
     defeated Sanchez by 9,365 votes. Because he lost by 984 
     votes, Pringle and Morrissey ran more than 10,000 votes 
     better than Dornan.
       This analysis also looked at the strongest (and weakest) 
     Republican precincts in the congressional district. In 
     precinct 68069, which has a Republican registration of 58.51 
     percent, Dornan got 56.6 percent of the vote. Morrissey got 
     more than 75 percent.
       Precinct 68106 is the weakest Republican district in Santa 
     Ana, with a GOP voter registration of just 11.44 percent. 
     Morrissey got just a few more votes here than Dornan, 16.8 
     percent to Dornan's 15 percent. But Morrissey was able to win 
     re-election with huge majorities in the Republican precincts, 
     something Dornan couldn't do,
       The conclusion: The seat is still winnable for a 
     Republican. Three Republicans are interested in the June 1998 
     primary: Pro-choice divorce lawyer Lisa Hughes; Superior 
     Court Judge Jim Gray; and Anaheim City Councilman Robert 
     Zemel, who has retained former Christian Coalition executive 
     director Ralph Reed to run his campaign.
       If the House calls for a special election before June, 
     Dornan, because of superior name recognition, has the best 
     shot of winning. Then he will likely lose again to Sanchez. 
     That's why some Republicans would like to see Dornan step 
     aside for another Republican.
       Good luck. They don't call him ``B-1 Bob'' for nothing.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this debate and this matter is not about Bob 
Dornan and it is not about Ms. Sanchez. This debate is really about the 
Committee on House Oversight, on which I serve, finding the facts in 
this case.
  Why could this matter not and why can this matter not be concluded? 
It is simple. We found as a committee that agencies have dragged their 
feet in compliance with requests that we have made, simple requests to 
get to the facts. This House just a few weeks ago, September 30, passed 
a resolution to the Department of Justice asking the U.S. Attorney to 
do their jobs, to help us get the facts. So what we have been faced 
with is stalling, delay, a lack of information.
  This is not a complex issue if our committee has the facts. The facts 
that we have in fact indicate that a significant number of voters who 
voted illegally. We heard the minority leader say that we need the 
facts, we need the proof, and we need the evidence, and that is exactly 
what we need and that is all we are asking for.
  There is no intent to go through the citizenship of every voter. 
However, we have reason to be concerned about the validity of a 
significant number of voters in a contested election.
  Ms. Sanchez has been seated and treated fairly by this side of the 
aisle and by our committee. Again, this is not about Ms. Sanchez, it is 
not about Mr. Dornan. I agree that the time has come to conclude this 
process with one caveat, that we have the facts.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 gentleman for yielding me this 
time. There are a lot of folks in Orange County who are going to have a 
chance to watch this. I am glad. I hope this is well-reported, because 
it is time for the voters in Orange County to know what evidence there 
is that their Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez, did not really win this 
election.
  Unfortunately, in the hour or so that I have been listening to this 
debate, I must tell the voters that I have yet to hear one shred of 
evidence that Loretta Sanchez did not win the votes of the majority of 
the people in Orange County.

[[Page H9471]]

  What I have heard is that we want to move this forward and apparently 
now the majority, which has for 11 months and after hundreds of 
thousands of dollars investigated this matter, now wants to move this 
over to the Secretary of State to do what we can do. Well, you have had 
11 months, hundreds of thousands of dollars, you have put at stake the 
representation of the 46th Congressional District and Loretta Sanchez's 
ability to represent. You have put in an indicted stage the votes of 
thousands of voters in Orange County. You have run this game, you have 
taken the ball, and now you want to punt. You are saying, this 
political football has been too much, let us send it to the Secretary 
of State.
  The Secretary of State cannot do anything more than you have already 
done. They can only look at the same names, same numbers, same 
addresses and tell us what you can tell us. It is our duty. Do not 
punt. Let us decide. If you have got proof, show it. If you do not, 
close down this investigation. There are people at stake, the first of 
whom is Loretta Sanchez, the second of whom are all the people in the 
46th Congressional District who deserve representation. It has been 11 
months. Let this woman go. Let her represent her district.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, as best as I have understood the debate, 
there are 4,100 names that match first name, last name, and date of 
birth from those who were registered to vote, were in the process of 
becoming citizens, but were not yet citizens. The next process that has 
to be taken is to compare these 4,100 names which match first name, 
last name and date of birth and see if they match up against those who 
voted. If as a result of that process there is a number that exceeds 
the difference that made the difference in the election, then it is 
appropriate to consider a new election. No one, certainly me least of 
all, is interested in seating Robert Dornan by fiat. I think it is only 
fair to point this out. But the numbers are very serious cause for us 
to concern ourselves about whether the constitutional processes were 
followed. The numbers are 4,100 from which we build the case that there 
may have been more people voting than should have to make the margin of 
difference in this election.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell Members that I think 
that we ought to put an end to this. The American people have lost 
faith with our ability to analytically and systematically look at each 
other and investigate issues that are important to all of us and the 
citizens of this country. We look at these things. This has taken 11 
months, 11 months, and we have no conclusion to this.

                              {time}  1700

  I think that that is enough. We have been disruptive to the House, 
and we have not allowed Ms. Sanchez to do her job and represent the 
people of her district.
  We can debate about the technical things, and I believe that the 
committee has looked at that. I think it is time that they render a 
decision to us and let us make that decision. I think that is important 
for us to do that.
  Enough is enough. Let us make a decision, and let us let the 
committee bring it to the floor so that we can decide whether or not 
she should be able to represent the people of her district. That is 
important for us to do that.
  I would just call upon my colleagues to think just for a moment about 
if this happened to any one of us. She has had a great financial 
burden. I do not think we would tolerate that, and I do not think we 
ought to allow it to be done to her.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the chairman of the task force.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify a few points and respond to 
a few items mentioned by the last two speakers, the two gentlemen from 
California on the minority side.
  First of all, the statement was made that they have not seen one 
shred of evidence. Apparently they did not hear my comment that, 
independent of our work, there are 305 illegal voters identified by the 
Secretary of State, and 124 illegal absentee ballots identified by the 
Registrar of Elections in Orange County. That is a substantial number 
right there, certainly more than a shred. In addition to that, of 
course, we have the other areas we are investigating.
  I also want to respond to the repeated comments, both on the floor 
and off the floor, about the length of time this is taking. Let us get 
a little reality in here. I would hope that the Members of this House 
would look back in history and look at what has happened in the past.
  I have in my hands a chart, which I will be happy to share with 
anyone, going back to approximately 1930, of all the contested 
elections that had real substance to them, such as this one, where an 
investigation was required.
  The first one was 22.75 months duration; then we have a series of 
over 12 months duration; two of 16 months duration; several more of 12 
months duration; 13\1/2\ months; 16\1/2\ months; 19, 22, 16\1/2\, 18\1/
2\, 19\1/2\. And you think this one is too long? Look at the history. 
Look at what we have had in the past.
  This case has not taken too long. If we would decide this contest 
today, it would be one of the earliest decisions made on an issue of 
substance in the history of contested elections.

                                           EXAMPLES: DURATIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE HOUSE CONTESTED ELECTIONS CASES                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Final vote                
              Congress and contest                        Outcome supports            Party of      Majority     Committee     on House     Duration in 
                                                                                       seated         party      action \1\   floor \2\       months    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th--Anderson/Rose (NC)......................  Contestee........................            D             R      10/25/95      9/26/96           22.75
98th--Archer/Packard (CA)......................  Contestee........................            R             D      10/25/83     11/15/83           12.25
98th--Hendon/Clarke (NC).......................  Contestee........................            D             D      10/25/83     11/15/83           12.25
96th--Wilson/Leach (LA)........................  Contestee........................            D             D       2/12/80       3/4/80              16
96th--Thorsness/Daschle (SD)...................  Contestee........................            D             D       2/12/80       3/4/80              16
95th--Dehr/Leggett (CA)........................  Contestee........................            D             D       9/21/77     10/27/77           11.75
95th--Hill & Panasigui/Clay (MO)...............  Contestee........................            D             D      10/13/77     10/27/77           11.75
95th--Lowe/Fowler (GA).........................  Contestee........................            D             D      10/13/77     10/27/77           11.75
94th--Young/Mikva (IL).........................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA     12/19/75            13.5
94th--Mack/Stokes (OH).........................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA     12/19/75            13.5
94th--Wilson/Hinsh (CA)........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA     12/19/75            13.5
94th--Ziebarth/Smith (NE)......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA     12/19/75            13.5
86th--Maloney/Smith (KS).......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      3/24/60            16.5
85th--Cater/LeCompte (IA)......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      6/17/58           19.25
85th--Oliver/Hale (ME).........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      9/12/58           22.25
82d--Osser/Scott (PA)..........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      3/19/52            16.5
82d--Macy/Greenwood (NY).......................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      3/19/52            16.5
81st--Stevens/Blackney (MI)....................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      5/23/50            18.5
80th--Wilson/Granger (UT)......................  Contestee........................            D             R            NA      6/19/48            19.5
79th--Hicks/Dondero (MI).......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA     12/12/45           13.25
78th--Clark/Nichols (OK).......................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      2/16/44           15.25
78th--Moreland/Schuetz (IL)....................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      2/17/44           15.25
78th--McEvoy/Peterson (GA).....................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA       5/5/44              18
78th--Schafer/Wasielewski (WI).................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      3/29/44           16.75
78th--Thill/McMurray (WI)......................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      1/31/44           14.75
78th--Sullivan/Miller (MO).....................  Contestee........................            G             D            NA     11/24/43            12.5
76th--Swanson/Harrigton (IA)...................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      3/11/40              16
76th--Scott/Eaton (CA).........................  Contestee........................            R             D       3/14/40           NA           16.25
75th--Roy/Jenks (NH)...........................  Contestant.......................            D             D       4/28/38       6/9/38              19

[[Page H9472]]

                                                                                                                                                        
74th--Lanzetta/Marcantonio (NY) \3\............  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      6/20/36            19.5
74th--McCandless/King (HI).....................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA       6/2/36           18.75
74th--Miller/Cooper (OH).......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      3/11/36              16
73d--Reese/Ellzey (MS).........................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      2/24/34            15.5
73d--Brewster/Utterback (ME)...................  Contestee........................            D             D            NA      5/28/34           18.75
73d--Gormley/Goss (CT).........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      4/20/34            17.5
73d--Chandler/Burnham (CA).....................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      5/15/34           18.25
73d--Ellis/Thurston (IA).......................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      4/25/34            17.5
73d--Fox/Higgins (CT)..........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      5/28/34           18.75
73d--Lovette/Reece (TN)........................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      5/25/34            18.5
73d--McAndrews/Britten (IL)....................  Contestee........................            R             D            NA      4/26/34           17.75
73d--Weber/Simpson (IL)........................  Contestee........................            R             D        5/4/34       NA \4\              18
67th--Paul/Harrison (VA).......................  Contestant.......................            R             R            NA     12/15/22           13.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Date which the Committee made its recommendation to the full House, usually in the form of a House Resolution.                                      
\2\ Date that the House voted on the resolution of the contested election case.                                                                         
\3\ Although the election was held Nov. 6, 1936, the case was not filed with the Clerk of the House uhtil the early part of 1936.                       
\4\ No record of its being called up for passage found.                                                                                                 

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter.]
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to my colleagues who have 
asked us to have consideration for Ms. Sanchez. There have been a 
number of debates on this issue, lots of speakers on both sides, and 
one thing that I think has been consistent on the Republican side is 
that nobody has spoken derogatorily about Ms. Sanchez. Nobody has 
spoken in a mean way, nobody has attempted to personalize this with 
respect to Ms. Sanchez. I think we have all attempted to be polite and 
attempted to look at the major issue, which is the voting issue.
  I cannot say that with respect to what people who do not like Mr. 
Dornan have said on the other side. My friend, Mr. Fazio, I am pretty 
disturbed that you have gotten up and simply made a personal attack on 
Mr. Dornan.
  Both of the principals have been through a lot here for a lot of 
months. We should give consideration to both of these principals; not 
just Ms. Sanchez, but to Mr. Dornan. Let us decide this case on the 
facts, and see that the person with the most votes wins this thing.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, this is not a personal attack 
on Bob Dornan. This is the result of Bob Dornan's career and reading of 
the voters of Orange County, CA.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the 
majority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in my brief career in the House 
of Representatives that I have seen the House take up this 
responsibility, mandated on the House by the Constitution, to determine 
the legitimacy of the election of its Members.
  When I was elected in 1984, when I came here I was a bright-eyed and 
naive, innocent freshman, who had never been in a legislative body, 
even insofar as having attended the gallery. In a very few short weeks 
after I was here, I saw a young gentleman from Indiana named Mr. 
McIntyre refused his seat in Congress and his election overturned by 
the actions of this body in a very short period of time.
  At that time there was a heated debate on this floor. There was 
anger. My eyes bulged out. I had not seen people act this way toward 
one another, outside of a faculty lounge, in my lifetime. I knew it was 
exciting, and I understood there were good points made on both sides.
  I remember the then majority, that was acting definitively to deny 
Mr. McIntyre his seat in the House, made the point that it is our 
solemn responsibility, given to us by the Constitution; we can do no 
less, we must act with discipline and integrity. And, in 3 or 4 weeks, 
they did so.
  Now here we have a committee addressing the same kinds of question, 
the same kinds of issues. They are taking their time, they are being 
thorough.
  We have the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. Mr. Ehlers, I 
believe, is a physicist. He is some kind of hard scientist, a careful 
man. He wants the facts to be clear. He does not rush to judgment, 
checks and double-checks his work, needs all the data; we have the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], hardly a rabid partisan, a very 
thorough-going man; the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], certainly 
none of us would think of Mr. Hoyer as a partisan; all of whom have 
said we need to be sure we do this thoroughly, professionally, and in 
light of all the data.
  It is not about Congresswoman Sanchez, it is not about former 
Congressman Dornan; it is not about your party, and it is not about my 
party; it is not about race, it is not about sex; it is about whether 
or not this body has the discipline to do its duty thoroughly and 
completely down to the last detail before they come to the 
determination of judgment about who does in fact have the legal, 
legitimate right to represent 500,000 people.
  There is evidence that demands more thorough investigation. The 
committee has not had the full and complete and prompt response it 
should have had, and the work is not completed.
  But make no mistake about it. For all these years I have thought 
about the McIntyre case. I always knew it was important. I always knew 
that the majority was then dedicated, but I always wondered, was it in 
fact the truth which was gotten to? I never knew.
  I think maybe a few more months, an extra amount of time, a more full 
and complete verification of what it is we found and how we found it 
that brought us to this conclusion might have made me more comfortable 
throughout all these years that this body was a body of honor and duty 
fulfilling its obligations under the Constitution. I would like to have 
been comforted by no doubt on that point.
  I do not want somebody sitting here on this side of the aisle as a 
freshman, celebrating in their own mind the wonderful responsibility 
and privilege of getting to be in this body, 10 years from now 
wondering, in 1997, even if it took us into 1998, did we dare to take 
the time to do the job completely, fully, thoroughly, in full respect 
to our duty and the wisdom of the Constitution that endowed us with 
that duty?
  We all deserve, 10 years from now, to have no reservation about that, 
and I believe we all ought to dare wait for the facts to be fully 
known.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is correct. We stand in 
those seats and we raise our right hand and we swear to preserve, 
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no 
more sacred right that the people have than to select their 
representatives, and to select them in an election that is fair and 
does not dilute in any way their votes.
  Therefore, I tell you that it is appropriate that if those who voted 
illegally affected this election, this election should be scrutinized 
carefully and appropriate action taken. But in the same vein, the 
voters of the 46th Congressional District have the right to expect us 
to conduct that process in a manner befitting of that oath.

[[Page H9473]]

  I tell my friends in this House, sadly, as the minority member of 
this task force, that that has not been done. I asked early on that we 
proceed in a bipartisan fashion to establish process, to establish the 
way that we would reach a decision, in an orderly, fully dispositive, 
timely way.
  I tell my friend, that has not been done. In point of fact, as the 
resolution points out, the task force has not met since April of this 
year. I asked in February in a letter to the chairman of the task 
force, let us meet together to come to agreement on the process. No 
such meeting has ever occurred.
  I tell my friends that I asked to be fully apprised of the 
information we were seeking and the information we were receiving. I 
tell you sadly, that has not occurred.
  In fact, my friends, this very day I found out at 4:15 that there 
will be the third meeting of the task force since the beginning of this 
year, tomorrow at 10 o'clock. No prior notice. And I tell my friend, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the chairman of the task 
force, he and I talked for approximately 45 minutes this morning at 10 
o'clock, and I was never informed that there would be a task force 
meeting.
  No, my friends, this process has not been fair, it has not been open, 
it has not been directed at fully getting out the information that is 
necessary to fairly determine this election.
  Now, my friends, I tell you, the Republican Secretary of State in 
latter March or early April said there were 303 votes that were in 
question in this election. You heard the testimony from the gentleman 
from Connecticut saying many of those votes have already been found to 
be registered, valid voters.
  The Secretary of State of California, two weeks ago, had a press 
conference and he said, after 6 months, he now believed there were not 
303, there were 305. That is a third of a voter a month. I tell my 
friend from California, at that rate it would take us 160 years to get 
to 984, and then you would have to assume that every one of those 
voters voted for [Ms. Sanchez], and our precedents do not allow that, 
and logic does not compel it.
  My friends, this resolution says, as the two bipartisan individuals 
who were counsel for the Republicans and counsel for the Democrats in 
March of this year said, let Mary Landrieu go, because they have not 
made a prima facia case. And, very frankly, the Republican leadership 
rejected that. It took them 5\1/2\ months.
  I tell my friend from California, the distinguished legal professor, 
to come to exactly the same conclusion. Why, Mary Landrieu twisted in 
the wind and had to spend money and had to have her focus diverted to 
defend a case that Republican counsel and Democratic counsel 5 months 
ago said had no merit.

                              {time}  1715

  I ask that this resolution pass; that we decide the case on the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Sanchez] or we dismiss this case, 
which is without merit.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. 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 204, 
nays 222, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 525]

                               YEAS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     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
     Forbes
     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
     Schumer
     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
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--222

     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
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     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
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     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
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sanchez
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McIntosh
     Ryun
     Schiff
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. BONO and Mr. GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FROST and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________