[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H9811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING QUESTION OF 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of 
rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution 
which raises a question of the privileges of the House.
  Whereas Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence 
that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez' 
election to Congress; and whereas I watched Loretta Sanchez become a 
marvelous, energetic Representative of the 46th District of California 
during the 5 months she shared my apartment with me; and whereas 
continuing this never-ending attempt on her election is wrong, for this 
woman who wants to serve her constituents to the best of her ability, 
and whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review 
of this matter and bring this contest to an end.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the form of the resolution 
appear in the Record at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resolution will be 
included for the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       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, DC on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California 
     and October 24, 1997 in Washington, DC; 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 the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a 
     duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the 
     Committees 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 judgements 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 I watched Loretta Sanchez become a marvelous, 
     energetic Representative of the 46th District of California 
     during the five months she shared my apartment with me; and
       Whereas continuing this never ending attack on her election 
     is wrong for this woman who wants to serve her constituents 
     to the best of her ability; 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 November 7, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's prior 
statement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior statement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentlewoman from Connecituct will appear in 
     the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________