[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9487-H9491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IN THE MATTER OF CONTESTED ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA'S 46TH CONGRESSIONAL 
                                DISTRICT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we had a resolution on the 
floor that unfortunately did not achieve success but should have. 
Almost 6 months ago, the Los Angeles Times stated that, quote, it is 
time to wrap up the House inquiry, unquote, which, quote, has produced 
no evidence that Congresswoman Sanchez' victory, which was in the 46th 
District of California, was the result of electoral fraud. That is the 
Los Angeles Times of April 22 of this year.
  Echoing this was a Washington Post editorial that noted that in the 
Dornan-Sanchez case, quote, no credible evidence has yet been offered 
that votes were affected in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of 
the race. Washington Post, July 28 of this year.
  Just recently, again the Los Angeles Times pointed out, quote, there 
has been no evidence yet that Sanchez benefited from fraudulent votes, 
and the next regularly scheduled election is only 14 months away. That 
was back on September 23, 1997.
  Yet despite all of these independent statements by all of these 
newspapers who are looking at the facts and circumstances as they have 
unfolded since the election took place last November, the fact of the 
matter is that Republicans continue to drag out this process. They have 
done so with hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer moneys having 
been spent, and yet no clear and convincing evidence, no preponderance 
of evidence, no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt being presented to 
substantiate that Congresswoman Sanchez' election should not be upheld.
  It is clear to many of us why Republicans continue to pursue this 
matter. This is an all-out effort to intimidate and harass new citizens 
and those with foreign surnames and stop them from voting. This is 
plain from the fact that Republicans are not checking the citizenship 
of voters in any other close election across the country. As the 
President of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters has noted, the 
committee investigation is, quote, being carried out in ways that may 
intimidate future voters. Limiting access to the voting booth has been 
the plan all along.
  Just after the election, the Los Angeles Times reported that, quote, 
Dornan has said his Republican colleagues are seeking a case to use in 
challenging voter registration procedures nationwide. In targeting this 
election, Republicans have selected a seat where Hispanic voting played 
a vital role in the outcome of the election. Republicans have every 
reason to hope that Hispanic and other minority voters stay

[[Page H9488]]

home at election time, and that is because in 1996 Hispanic Americans 
voted in larger numbers than ever before, with the number of Latino 
registered voters increasing nearly 30 percent from 1992 to 1996 to 
more than 6.6 million nationwide. They supported Democrats by a 
significant margin in 1996. So there is a reason, a good founded reason 
why the Republican Party seeks to intimidate and suppress that vote.
  Voter fraud allegations must be vigorously pursued and prosecuted, 
but is not the U.S. attorney, who is investigating the matter, are the 
State officials and local officials who are already on the case not 
more than enough to investigate it? Are all the use of taxpayer dollars 
in all of those separate investigations in and of itself not enough to 
vigorously pursue and prosecute the case?
  Unfortunately, these actions in the House are consistent with a 
history of Republican Party efforts at the polls to intimidate voters 
in minority districts. For example, Republicans have an 8-year history 
in southern California of intimidating Latino voters at the polls. The 
Republican Party paid approximately $600,000 to settle two voting 
intimidation cases, one stemming from 1988 and 1989 in which the Orange 
County Republican Party placed security guards and signs at the voting 
polls designed to scare Latino voters. Because of this track record of 
voter harassment, in 1992 the Justice Department had to monitor 
elections because again there were complaints of Republican voter 
intimidation. Those are not the only places in the Nation, but 
particularly as it relates to the question of the election in the 46th 
District of California, it is relevant because there is a history as it 
relates to Orange County and the Republican Party's attempts to 
suppress the voters.
  But even though we agree that we have got to try to pursue and root 
out voter fraud, the bottom line is what has been the procedure? And 
speaking to Members of the minority who serve on the committee, the 
fact is they have a list of procedural outrages that have taken place 
by the majority. From the outset, the majority has disregarded the 
rights of the minority on the committee. It has made decisions for the 
task force without notifying or consulting the minority. The majority 
has failed to provide motions and other filings to the minority. The 
majority denied the minority access to materials provided by the INS 
and the Orange County registrar. The majority reviewed materials 
produced to the committee under seal without notifying the minority. 
The majority's handling of the discovery process has been unfair to 
Congresswoman Sanchez. The majority's decision to give Mr. Dornan 
subpoena authority again is unprecedented under the Contested Elections 
Act. Yet the majority permitted Mr. Dornan to issue subpoenas for more 
than 2 months after his discovery period expired and then cut off 
discovery for Ms. Sanchez without having notified her that her 
discovery period ever began. So we give the proponent of the election 
contest two months more than he was legally entitled to, but we never 
tell the subject of the election contest that her discovery period ever 
began and then we cut it off.
  The majority has made repeated unilateral demands for information 
from the INS. The majority provided information to the INS, but 
concealed it from the minority. What is this INS information that keeps 
being used to create the aura, to create the cloud, to suggest that 
there is fraud that should be pursued? What is being done, for our 
colleagues to understand, is that they have taken all of the voters 
whose surnames appear and compared it to lists provided by the INS. 
Now, the problems with lists provided by the INS is that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service has all of these names in which 
the surnames may appear a series of times. And even surnames and first 
names. And even surnames and first names with exactly the same birth 
dates. In one case, that appeared, the same name, the same birth date, 
the same address, over 18 times. What does the list prove? Not very 
much, because the only way truly of proving the question as to whether 
someone is a legal voter or not when the allegation is that that voter 
is allegedly not a citizen of the United States or was not a citizen at 
the time that they registered to vote is to produce proof of their 
citizenship. In this country, there are only two ways to prove your 
citizenship. One is your birth certificate. The other is, if you became 
a naturalized citizen through the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, to produce your naturalization certificate. The lists that the 
INS provided, of course, have no basis for birth certificates, because 
it is not within their purview. Yet it does have the names of 
individuals who, like myself, was born in the United States and who may 
have claimed a family member at some time from abroad and because they 
simply filed that appropriate petition to claim that family member from 
abroad under our immigration and naturalization laws is put on this 
list. However, the INS cannot prove that that individual is a citizen 
or not because they do not in fact have what in my case would be the 
birth certificate. That is not their document. They have naturalization 
certificates. So this list is promulgated not having a basis by which 
you can ever make a determination. The majority on the Committee on 
House Oversight knows that the only way, which they simply do not want 
to do, and I understand why they do not want to do it, is to take the 
list of those who they challenge as voters and be able to pursue those 
voters by having each and every single individual address and prove to 
them whether or not they are a citizen by birth, which means a birth 
certificate, or a citizen by naturalization, which means a 
naturalization certificate.

                              {time}  1945

  Since they are unwilling to do that, and since they know the outrage 
that would be generated by people with the door on their home being 
knocked at and saying, ``By the way, we want proof of your 
citizenship,'' and I am sure they would equally go and visit a Smith or 
a Thomas or a Dornan as they would a Sanchez or a Suarez or some other 
Hispanic name. People would be outraged that they would be approached 
and their citizenship would be questioned.
  This constant number that is thrown out there and these lists, which 
can never suffice to prove or disprove the issue at hand, 300 names we 
heard today in the debate were clearly now in question. Yet of those 
300 names that are promoted by the Secretary of State, we heard our 
colleague, Congresswoman Sanchez, get up on the floor and say that she 
and people who had investigated the names found out that about 25 
percent of them were proved, and they stopped there, proved that they 
were, in fact, voters.
  It is interesting to note the article from the Los Angeles Times 
dated October 8, 1997. The headline says ``Four of targeted voters 
prove themselves. They show they were citizens, when they registered, 
and denounced Dornan for falsely accusing them.''
  I want to read from the article. It says, ``Four voters who were 
apparently targeted in a congressional investigation of election fraud 
stepped forward Tuesday with proof that they were U.S. citizens when 
they registered to vote and denounced former Representative Robert 
Dornan in his 11-month quest to regain his seat. `It really hurt me 
deep inside when I found out my name was on that list of alleged 
illegal voters,' said Maria Jimenez, a nurse's aide and mother of three 
who was born in Orange County 24 years ago. `I don't think it is fair 
for Bob Dornan to do this to me.' ''
  Continuing in the article, ``Another voter was Ramon Mascorro, a 15-
year California resident and a citizen since June of 1996. He 
registered to vote two weeks after taking the oath.''
  He said, `` `My major desire in becoming a citizen was to have the 
right to vote,' said Mascorro, who owns an electronic business in Santa 
Ana and wore a tiny U.S. flag in the lapel of his suit jacket.''
  Then it goes on to talk about one of the volunteers who went through 
these alleged illegal voters, who said, ``I personally checked over 75 
and I didn't find anybody who voted illegally,'' said Consuelo Smith, 
one of the volunteers. ``I found people who were born here, people who 
were citizens for over 20 years, but they were all citizens when they 
voted.''
  Or Virginia Ochos, age 70, who has lived in California since 1958, 
raised 11 children, and became a citizen last

[[Page H9489]]

June. Her oldest son served in Vietnam and she said, ``I feel very bad 
when they said I made a fraud. This is what hurts me the most.''
  Or Toribio Chacon, a factory worker from Santa Ana said he became a 
citizen in March 1996 after taking classes. His brother-in-law, who 
took the oath a month earlier, also is a target of the probe. ``I am 
under investigation and I want to know why,'' he said. ``I didn't do 
anything wrong.''
  The article states, ``All four said that they had not yet been 
contacted by investigators, congressional staff members, although their 
names, along with photos of their naturalization certificates and birth 
certificates were forwarded to the investigating Congressional 
committee last April.''
  So the fact of the matter is, and there are many other articles like 
this, there is proof time and time again of individuals who were born 
in the United States, whose children have served in the armed forces of 
the United States, who are veterans of the United States, and yet 
constantly their citizenship can be questioned.
  I want to read some of the comments of some of these other people 
involved, what they said. These are U.S. citizens, what they said about 
how they are being treated.
  ``The right-wingers cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they 
complain that the IRS has wrongfully targeted many citizens for tax 
investigations, and, on the other hand, they take advantage of 
instances when the INS and other officials have wrongly targeted 
naturalized citizens in the exercise of our voting rights,'' said Ramon 
Mascorro, who is an Orange County resident targeted in the Dornan 
investigation, someone who is a legal citizen.
  ``I have worked hard, played by the rules, and become a citizen. Yet 
I am still investigated because of faulty data collected by the INS and 
used by the right-wingers to serve their political purpose,'' stated 
Virginia Ochoa.
  So, the fact of the matter is that we have a double standard.
  Now, what did we attempt to do in the resolution today? Very simple: 
We said put up or shut up. If you have the proof, proof positive, after 
nearly a year after the election took place, then bring it to the House 
floor for all of the Members to consider and to make a judgment on.
  We did not get that. We would like to see every name and every 
address, and, if it is available, every phone number of every alleged 
noncitizen who voted in the 46th Congressional race in November of 
1996. Let us see it. What are you hiding? What is the problem?
  If you bring it forth, then it will be subject to being reviewed to 
determine whether or not, one, they are a citizen or not, and if they 
are proven to be, like all of these people who came forth, well, then, 
it is obvious that, in fact, there are going to be many people with egg 
on their face, because all of these people continue to come forward as 
citizens, continue to come forward as people who were born in the 
United States.
  Of all of those names that have come forth, we will review them all. 
Let us find out who is and who is not, and then we will see what the 
bottom line is. But why are you hiding the names? Why hide the names, 
unless, of course, you do not have enough names to substantiate what 
you would like to do, which is to steal the election from Congresswoman 
Sanchez.
  That is what we sought to do in the resolution today. Now, in that 
debate, it is interesting to note that there were other races at the 
same time that Congresswoman Sanchez got elected. There were two State 
assembly seats won by Republicans. We are not questioning the validity 
of their elections, even though one won by only 93 votes. Congresswoman 
Sanchez won by over 900 votes. We are questioning her election, but the 
Republican assembly person who got elected by 93 votes, we are not 
questioning them.
  We are not questioning the City Council races that took place in 
three major cities. We are not questioning any of those people who got 
elected, even though the same voters cast their votes at the same time. 
We are not questioning all of the judges who ran in that race, even 
though the judges were up for election at the same time in the same 
election and the same voters voted in that race.
  We are not questioning the school board races that took place at the 
time, even though all those school board members ran and got elected 
and had the election at the same time in the same election with the 
same voters.

  We are not questioning the initiatives that might be at stake in 
California that were on the ballot at the same time in the same 
election with the same voters. So none of those things that Republicans 
were successful on do they seek to question.
  Now, the fact of the matter is that we heard a lot about our 
responsibility. And, yes, we have a responsibility. We have a 
responsibility to make sure that individuals who are elected to this 
House are elected in free and fair elections. But we also have a 
responsibility to do it in a timely fashion.
  All we heard today from the majority is if there are enough voters to 
overturn it, and if there are enough questions of citizenship, and as 
one of our colleagues from Texas said, if we find out some day that, in 
fact, there were not enough votes to overturn the election, then we can 
clearly confirm Ms. Sanchez.
  Well, that is a lot of if's. And if this House can permit itself that 
simply claiming fraud is sufficient to have a Member hang out there for 
over a year, without being able to have finality, as well as for the 
voters of their district to have finality, that this is the person who 
is representing them without question, simply by the allegation of 
fraud, then this institution is in serious trouble, because what you 
will see in the next cycle of elections come next year is that someone 
who loses and wants to contest the election, oh, just raise fraud. 
Whether or not you can prove it, as they have been unable to prove it 
in this case, that is another matter. But just raise fraud.
  I want to yield at this time to a distinguished colleague of mine 
from Maryland, who is an attorney and I know has been pursuing the 
interest in this case and the questions that surround it, the gentleman 
from Maryland, for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the gentleman 
for yielding and also take this opportunity to commend him for his 
outstanding work on this issue.
  It is not easy to carry the banner sometimes, and I have observed his 
diligence and his conscientiousness in working on this issue to 
champion the cause of justice. He has done an exemplary job and I 
commend him for it.
  I came down this evening to add my voice to those of us who were 
quite frankly outraged at what is going on in this chamber. We are 
outraged, first, at the waste of taxpayer money. This investigation has 
taken over one year. There has been lots of opportunities, plenty of 
opportunities, ample opportunities, for the Republicans and their 
allies to make their case. They have investigated individuals ad 
nauseam. They have subpoenaed individuals ad nauseam. They have allowed 
Mr. Dornan, a former Member of Congress, to seek subpoenas, to bring 
people in, to ask questions, to conduct a thorough investigation.
  At every step of the way, those of us on this side of the aisle have 
attempted to cooperate. Notwithstanding the fact there has been a 
consistent lack of communication from their side, a lack of 
cooperation, we recognized that Congress does have a role in looking 
into these matters. We believe that properly an investigation can 
proceed.
  But, there comes a point in time when reasonable men must conclude 
that the investigation has run its course, that those persons seeking 
to prove that there was some sort of fraud have had a fair and 
reasonable opportunity to make their case. There comes a time when we 
must say the business of Congress must move forward, the harassment of 
this new Member, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, must cease, and we must go on.
  But the Republican Party is not willing to do that. The opponents of 
Loretta Sanchez are not willing to do that. They have a clever strategy 
of trying to soften her up, of trying to wear her out with endless 
rounds of investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries, accusations and 
innuendo.
  Constantly going over the same turf, but never producing the 
evidence, producing the proof, that would be necessary to overturn this 
election.

[[Page H9490]]

  The American people need to know as they watch this witch hunt play 
out in the halls of Congress, the American people need to know that the 
Secretary of State for the State of California examined this question 
and has certified that Loretta Sanchez is the winner. The Republican 
opponents of Loretta Sanchez have had a year to marshal their evidence, 
and armed with all of the tools of the American legal justice system, 
have failed to do so.
  It is time to move on.

                              {time}  2000

  Let me mention something that particularly offends me, the fact that 
this investigation was conducted primarily based on the use of Hispanic 
surnames. I find that very offensive. I also find it quite ironic. The 
party that is quick to say we ought not to have affirmative action, the 
party that is quick to say there should be no race or ethnic 
consciousness in our country, that we are colorblind and ethnically 
blind, when it becomes time to conduct an investigation, that is the 
party that wants to conduct the investigation based on Hispanic 
surnames. They want to call in all sorts of people based on their 
names.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is, there has been ample time to conduct this 
investigation. Those persons whose citizenship was in question, who 
happened to have Hispanic surnames, were reviewed. Those cases were 
reviewed. My question now becomes, where is the proof? But I do find it 
offensive that they would take this tactic.
  Having taken this tactic, however, having had the opportunity to 
pursue this distasteful course of action, again, we have no proof. What 
we have is a request on their part to continue this activity. I find 
that unacceptable. I find it a harassment of the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, I find it a harassment of Hispanic 
voters, and I think our Republican colleagues will suffer the 
consequences of this unwarranted harassment.
  This Congress has much important business to take care of. We do not 
have much time left. We cannot afford these endless rounds of 
investigation, this endless procrastination, this failure to 
communicate, and then attempts at the last minute to say, well, we need 
to work together. There have been plenty of opportunities to work 
together; there have been plenty of opportunities to investigate. On 
both counts, my colleagues on the other side have failed miserably to 
make a case. I think it is time we bring this matter to a close.
  We had a vote today. Unfortunately, we did not win. We said, look, 
produce your evidence by next week or let us close the door. They are 
not willing to do that. We are going to continue to press the case 
before the American people, to say that if they do not have the 
evidence, quit harassing the Hispanic community, quit harassing the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, and let us move 
forward with the people's business.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] for his 
efforts in this cause.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
participation and for his position. It is always a great situation when 
Members who are not directly involved, in terms of being from 
California or being Americans of Hispanic descent, are willing to come 
out and speak for justice in this process. I appreciate the gentleman's 
being here with us.
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, in this regard, let me just say, I know 
there are those, including someone who called my office and said, 
watching the debate, he said, this is not about ethnicity, it is about 
fraud. My problem with that statement is, yes, it is about fraud, 
alleged fraud which is not proven after a year, and hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. But it is about ethnicity 
when you target exclusively those with surnames that are either 
Hispanic or Asian. Those are the groups whose names are being pursued.
  Is that not amazing, that those are the individuals who are being 
pursued? Yet, if we do not want to face up to that hard reality, that 
of all of the registered voters that could exist and of all of those 
who did vote, that the only names that they pursue are those who are 
overwhelmingly Hispanic or Asian, the fact of the matter is that it 
certainly gives rise that you are pursuing a suspect class of 
individuals who you are pursuing simply because of their surname. That 
is the reality.
  That is why people across the country, even those not Americans of 
Hispanic descent, are disturbed, because today it is about a certain 
ethnic group, and tomorrow it could be about a certain religious group 
or it could be about some other ethnic group, or some other form of 
determining a class of individuals who we now want to seek to suppress.
  The Republicans know that this is a problem for them. Just recently 
the Republican National Committee has created a new majority council to 
highlight Republican issues that would be popular with the Hispanic 
community. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Trent 
Lott, and 31 other Republicans have signed on to the effort.
  But even a local newspaper here on Capitol Hill called ``The Hill'' 
said the following in its editorial:

       But when it comes to Hispanic voters, the GOP has a huge 
     monkey on its back. Its efforts to oust Representative 
     Loretta Sanchez, the California Democrat who defeated Bob 
     Dornan, the eccentric Republican who claims she stole the 
     election, Dornan provides a weak foundation on which to base 
     a political campaign.

  It goes on to say:

       House Republicans should follow the lead of their Senate 
     counterparts, who dropped their effort to oust Senator Mary 
     Landrieu, whose Republican opponent claimed she stole the 
     election. House Republicans should cut their losses and see 
     their standing in the Hispanic community dramatically 
     improve.

  But they have chosen not only not to do that, but they have not 
chosen to bring I think the type of decency and honesty to the process 
that could give those people credibility in believing, well, it is 
taking longer than it should, but at the end of the road we believe in 
the process. It cannot when you deny the minority opportunities, and it 
cannot when we heard the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] talk 
about the many times she has been denied information, as one of the 
contestants in this issue. It cannot when we only see that Hispanic and 
Asian surnames are being pursued.
  If it is all right to ask someone named Sanchez or Gutierrez or some 
other Hispanic surname to prove their citizenship, why do not 
Republicans go and seek to ask other individuals their citizenship, as 
well? The bottom line is, that is not what they are doing.
  I have many, many new immigrants to my congressional district whose 
surnames are from European nations. We do not question those surnames 
as to whether or not that individual is a citizen or not. So the fact 
of the matter is when some people say you are talking and trying to 
create a question of ethnicity, we are not trying to create that, that 
has been created by the Republican majority of the committee, how they 
have pursued this, the procedures that they have followed, the fact 
that the only names being pursued are those of Hispanic and Asian 
descent, and overwhelmingly so.
  So it is no question that the Hispanic community nationwide is 
looking at the 40 Republican Members of Congress who have over 10 
percent of their voting population in their districts, who are from the 
Hispanic community, and saying, how are these people representing my 
interests? How are they standing up for me as an American of a certain 
ethnic group?

  Certainly today, after today's vote, they are concerned. That is what 
we heard in phone calls subsequent to this vote today. I think that as 
the next 2 weeks approach, we are going to find ourselves with another 
opportunity. I would hope that our colleagues would understand that the 
precedent being set here today about the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez) is a precedent that can easily be applied to someone 
else.
  If simply the allegation of fraud a year later, without the proof of 
fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the election, can keep a 
Member dangling, and the congressional district that they represent in 
terms of those voters wondering whether or not this person is their 
Representative by the mere allegation of fraud, and no proof, hundreds 
of thousands of dollars later, and ultimately, if you can seek to 
nullify their votes by taking that person's seat

[[Page H9491]]

away, then the message that will be sent is a very chilling one for the 
community, and it is also a very chilling one for every Member of this 
House. Because in next year's election cycle, when individuals, and 
there have been many individuals here who have won by much less than 
900 votes, and their challenger simply claims fraud, and that is 
sufficient to go ahead and keep them out there for that whole period of 
time without proof of fraud sufficient to overturn the election, it 
becomes a dangerous precedent, not only for this institution, for the 
Members, but more importantly, for our democratic process. We have a 
right to a speedy determination of whether or not an individual has 
been duly elected.
  Yes, we should take the time to make sure that that person is duly 
elected, but one year and several hundreds of thousands of dollars 
later, and with a process that is flawed and that continues to be 
flawed, where the minority is deprived of rights and where one of the 
contestants is deprived of rights and information, as we witnessed here 
today, and heard from her here today, that is an outrage. That outrage 
will be felt across the land over the next 2 weeks.

                          ____________________