[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10094-H10102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--DISMISSAL OF CONTEST IN 46TH DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA UPON EXPIRATION OF NOVEMBER 7, 1997
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the
House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 307)
pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kingston]. The Clerk will report the
resolution.
The Clerk read 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, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now persuing 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, as a member of Congress whose election in 1994 was
won by far smaller a majority than that which Ms. Sanchez won
the 46th District race in 1996.
Whereas, as an immigrant myself who proudly became a U.S.
citizen in 1972, I believe that this Republican campaign of
intimidation sends a message to new citizens that their
voting privilege may be subverted. We should encourage new
voters not chill their enthusiasm.
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. The resolution presents a question of the
privileges of the House.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Thomas] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 1996, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was elected by
the people of the 46th Congressional District of California. There was
a recount. The California Secretary of State confirmed that
Congresswoman Sanchez had won that election. Yet for over 10 months,
the Republican leaders have used every tactic to deny Congresswoman
Sanchez that victory.
Mr. Speaker, this is a Nation of immigrants. This is a Nation of
people who came to the shores to participate. This is a Nation of
immigrants eager to participate, eager to give their voice to this
great democracy. Mr. Speaker, I understand this because I, too, was an
immigrant. I came to this country in 1972. I was proud to become a
citizen and proud to cast a vote in an election. Then in 1992, I became
a Member of Congress. That is the way it is supposed to work, Mr.
Speaker, in this great democracy.
It is a disgrace that new voters, new citizens are being questioned
in this campaign against Congresswoman Sanchez. Let us not forget, this
is a campaign not just against Congresswoman Sanchez, this is a
campaign against new immigrants. This is a campaign against new
citizens. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we come together on the floor to
provide an opportunity to respond to resolutions which, frankly,
contain erroneous material, inflammatory material, material that simply
ought not to be presented on the floor of the House, in this
gentleman's judgment, in the way in which it is presented.
I am quite pleased to announce to Members some developments that have
occurred since the last time we were on the floor. If Members recall, I
reported to them that in the months that they have outlined it has
taken us to attempt to get to the bottom of this, I indicated to them
that not one Democrat staffer had signed a statement of
confidentiality. They had chosen not to participate in a meaningful way
in documents that we wanted to make sure did not get out so that the
charge that they make falsely, that we were attempting to intimidate
individuals, did not get, quote-unquote, leaked.
I am pleased to say that all of the key Democrat staffers, members of
the Democratic staff, have now signed statements of confidentiality.
That is a major step forward. I wish they had done it 9 to 10 months
ago so we could share the information that we know. I will tell Members
tonight, they are going to receive some of that information.
But I think for just a minute or two, we need to understand how we
got here. There were phone calls to the Orange County Registrar of
Voters. People said they knew that people who voted were not citizens.
There was a follow-up examination by the election authorities. There
was sufficient and credible evidence filed with the Orange County
District Attorney for the Orange County District Attorney to subpoena
records of groups who were supposed to be educating documented aliens
in the process to become citizens, the very process that the
gentlewoman from Oregon indicated occurred to her. Of course, we know
what happened in her case. She did it in the right order. She became a
citizen, and then she voted.
The record shows that there were people in the 46th Congressional
District who voted before they became citizens. There were many people
who did this on the advice of people who, frankly, chose to mislead
these people
[[Page H10095]]
when they had the solemn responsibility of providing them with the
enormous and wonderful opportunity of becoming citizens.
I will make one promise to Members tonight, that if anyone is
discovered to have not voted properly, in no way should their
citizenship be put in jeopardy if after the fact they became a citizen.
I believe that we should make sure that amnesty is provided to anyone
who may have technically broken the law, and especially if they broke
the law at the behest of others, because right now there is an ongoing
criminal investigation in Orange County that will work its way through
the grand jury and may, in fact, present us with evidence before we are
finished with our task as to exactly what happened for those who
engaged in a criminal conspiracy of voter fraud.
Based upon that evidence, a contested election contest was brought to
us, and we have pursued, although argued unconstitutionally, affirmed
by a district court, reaffirmed by an appellate court, that the process
that we have been following is, in fact, according to the statute. It
seems, therefore, somewhat incredible to me that one of the whereases
is that we have requested the agency charged with monitoring documented
aliens in this country, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to
assist us to determine if these individuals are, in fact, citizens.
But, in fact, as Members may know from our previous discussion, the
Department of Justice was unwilling to cooperate in the investigation.
We were forced, on May 14, to subpoena the records. It was not until
June 23 that the Immigration and Naturalization Service began
responding to us.
Notwithstanding the whereas that says that the INS has complied with
the committee's request, the gentlewoman from Oregon needs to know that
that whereas is simply wrong. The INS has not complied completely.
There are hundreds of records that are still out that have not been
presented to the task force.
As we go through once again in terms of the whereases, the one that I
hope we will put to rest tonight, and the gentleman from Michigan, the
chairman of the task force, I believe, will provide more than adequate
material to discredit once and for all, our goal, of course, would be
to enlighten and to therefore not continue the process of repetition on
the whereas that says that we failed to present credible evidence.
Tonight Members will receive a substantial dose of credible evidence.
But more important than that, I find it difficult for someone who was
a citizen, whether naturalized or native born, to think that the effort
to make sure that we are accurate, double-check, triple-check if
necessary that no citizen is accused unfairly and that the documents of
the task force checked by the appropriate officials, Immigration and
Naturalization Service on citizenship and the Secretary of State on a
valid voter registration, would not be completely accurate before we
would make any assumption, any determination, any statement about a
final number of people who, in fact, voted invalidly in the California
46th. Because I will remind all of us, it is not if there were people
who voted illegally, it is the question of how many, and that the
pursuit of how many has been made a difficult one by virtue of agencies
of this government unwilling to cooperate unless their records are
subpoenaed.
And for a number of people to use such terms as ``a Republican
campaign of intimidation'' when, unlike the former majority, we are
trying to use California law to document, not something invented in the
task force by a 2 to 1 vote, we are trying to determine with absolute
accuracy who could and who could not have legally voted, and who did
and who did not.
Frankly, I am perplexed by your unwillingness either as a native-born
citizen or a naturalized citizen to not want to know. I think it is
important that if, in fact, there is a significant amount of people who
are not citizens who are actually voting, we need to know now. We do
not need to shut this investigation down. We do not need to pull the
wool over the eyes of voters who now will not know whether their vote
was canceled out by someone who should not have voted. Frankly, our
goal should be the one stated by the gentlewoman from Oregon: Become a
citizen first, and vote second, not the other way around.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I thank her for her time.
I ask those on both sides of the aisle to listen to what I have to
say and recall that I said that I did not believe that this matter was
being handled fairly. Let me read to Members a letter dated October 22,
sent to the Clerk of the House, which to this very hour the minority
has not yet received, but Members will find it interesting. That letter
is on the stationery of Hart, King and Coldren, a professional law
corporation. They represent Mr. Dornan. Mr. Dornan, under the Federal
Contested Election Act, is the contestant in this case. We have lost
sight of the fact that the act requires the contestant to carry the
case, not the committee.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is a three-page letter in which it
sets forth 14 items that have been forwarded to the committee. The
minority has not yet received it. They are depositions that should have
been forwarded to the committee months ago by the Dornan counsel.
Custodian of records, Fidelity Federal, dated 3/24/97, 3/25/97, 3/27/
97, 3/31, 4/14, 5/28. These are not newly acquired records by the
Dornan case.
{time} 2145
My colleagues, listen to this paragraph, listen to it well. This is
from the contestant under the Federal Contested Election Act. By copy
of this letter to the contestee's counsel, we are advising the
contestee that we consider contestant's record to be complete so that
she may file her brief within the time permitted by the act. Even Mr.
Dornan believes this case, from an evidentiary standpoint, is now at an
end. Even Mr. Dornan's counsel says this case is at an end from his
perspective.
The chairman of the committee said in debate last week, or 2 weeks
ago, last week I believe it was, and has reiterated today on the floor
of the House, that if we would only sign a confidentiality agreement,
we could get the material. He reiterated that just now.
My colleagues, no one on the majority side of the aisle, save only an
affidavit of confidentiality with respect to a particular deposition,
no one on the majority side signed a confidentiality agreement until
October 27, 1997. Notwithstanding that, we were refused access to
information because we had not signed a similar confidentiality
agreement. That is the unfairness in this case.
And I ask my friend from California in particular, if he will listen,
because I respect his judgment and his fairness, as I do others on this
side of the aisle.
So Mr. Dornan has said, I am through, finished, it is time for Ms.
Sanchez to file a reply brief. Mr. Dornan has not filed, interestingly
enough, his own brief required under the Federal Contested Election
Act. My supposition is that he believes a brief is not required by him.
My further supposition is because he believes that committee is now
carrying the case.
I want to bring to the attention as well, because the chairman is
very concerned about accurate information, that the chairman indicated
that there have been many cases that have gone on longer than this. My
colleagues, no case, and there have been 28 of them, in the history of
the Federal Contested Election Act, has gone longer than this one if we
do not resolve it before we adjourn in committee.
There have, in fact, been cases which have been carried over and
disposed of on the floor. In fact, the Rose case was held for almost a
year between the time under the 104th Congress when the committee
disposed of the case and when the committee brought it to the floor for
final disposition, which was, of course, at that point in time
noncontroversial. No case in the history of the Federal Contested
Election Act has gone longer than this one if we do not dispose of it
by the date we adjourn this first session of this Congress.
My colleagues, this case, according to Mr. Dornan, is ready to close,
and I suggest to my colleagues that Mr. Dornan has not filed a brief
because he knows that he has not done what is required under the
statute, showed that
[[Page H10096]]
but for certain factors occurring, he would have been elected to
Congress. That simply has not occurred, and having not occurred, the
committee has not brought to this floor any request to take action to
dispose of this case based upon Mr. Dornan's making that case.
Now, my colleagues, there is a question which the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] raises. There is nobody on this floor who
either sanctions or wants to hide the fact that voters may have voted
without being citizens and may have voted illegally. That, in and of
itself, is worthy of an investigation, but it is clearly a much broader
investigation than the case that Mr. Dornan brought against the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], the sitting Member of
Congress from the 46th Congressional District.
So that, in fairness, I say it is time to end this case. Mr. Dornan,
in his letter of October 22 through counsel, says he is through. But it
is now Ms. Sanchez' chance to reply, but she has very little to reply
to because Mr. Dornan has not made his case.
I would ask the Members of this House, as they reflect upon this
case, think of themselves. Each and every one of us could be in the
same situation. Each and every one of us could have the opposite party
being in control of the House and a contestant coming forward and
saying, I have certain suspicions, certain allegations that I will
file, but in 12 months, essentially from November of 1996 until
November of 1997, I have not been able to make my case.
Think, if my colleagues were in that situation, if they would not
expect their 434 colleagues to say under those circumstances it is time
to end this case, it is time to dismiss the contestant's action because
he has not, as required by the statute, made his case.
If our oath means something, to defend the Constitution, it clearly
means that we should defend the right of each district to elect a
Member and to have that election sustained unless it is shown, pursuant
to law, that but for certain things happening, the election would have
turned out differently.
I would hope that all of us would come to a conclusion and urge the
committee to end this matter, to move on, to say to the voters in the
46th District there will be an election shortly, Mr. Dornan says he is
going to run, that election will be contested. I believe the committee
should and will continue its investigation into any wrongdoing.
Clearly, the district attorney is doing that; clearly, the secretary of
state is doing that; they are the appropriate authorities.
Let us bring this case to close and bring it to a close now.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
I would tell my friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that we can make a
comparison between the time when his party controlled the House and
when our party controls the House now. The reality was, there was a
gentleman who came to this body with a certificate of election. He was
denied being seated. They counted the votes in his district under the
rules created by the task force on a straight partisan vote, and he was
denied his certificate of election. That is what happened under my
colleague's majority.
Under our majority, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] had
a certificate. She has been seated. She is a full Member of this body.
She has a full staff. She has a full budget. She carries out her duties
every day. Rick McIntyre would have loved to have an opportunity to be
treated the same way.
And I will not yield. I will also say that I admire the gentleman's
cleverness and his capability. He seems to think that it is important
that members of the majority signed a confidentiality statement on
October 27. We were working on our work product. We had full confidence
we were not going to leak our own material. Leaking the names of people
we were checking would have worked against our purposes of keeping
things confidential. Once we agreed to a memorandum of understanding
with the secretary of state when he said he was willing to sign it, our
work product would no longer be protected by us alone. So as a gesture,
we said, let us all sign a confidentiality statement.
And so the gentleman's remarkable observation that once the product
went outside the committee's jurisdiction, we asked them to do no more
than what we did, signing the confidentiality statement somehow became
a remarkable point to the gentleman. I think it would be common
business.
The gentleman also pointed out that this may be the longest contested
election under the act. My colleagues might recall that the act was
passed in 1969. Most of the cases were dismissed without ever looking
at the question of fraud. This task force was presented with a criminal
conspiracy case involving ongoing and clear evidence of fraud, and we
are pursuing that based upon the election.
The gentleman says that the filing by Dornan's attorneys that they
are through means that the whole case would be through. What happens in
the courtroom when the case is presented and the jury then goes to
deliberate and has every right to ask for additional information as
they make the decision? The gentleman believes that we should have half
a case and then stop it before the opinion is rendered.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce], who also happens to be a judge.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the privileged resolution before
us. Let me start by saying that there are few in this body who do not
take pleasure in the company and comity of the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Sanchez]. It is not pleasant to dwell on the
misfortunes of this case, but this issue speaks directly to the
integrity of this institution which we should all strive, and strive
hard, to protect.
There is a constitutional responsibility of this House to judge the
qualifications of its Members, and that of course includes judging the
outcome of contested elections. While this task is not a pleasant one,
it is one that requires serious attention and thoughtful deliberation
as our decisions set important precedents about the legitimacy and
integrity of the Federal elections and the laws which govern them and
each and every one of us here in this body.
We will hear plenty of impassioned debate today that will be driven
by politics and influenced by personalities, but this is not about
personal attacks, and it is not about personalities, it is about
obeying the law and fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities.
Are my colleagues who have repeatedly asked us to put this matter
unresolved behind us really advocating turning a blind eye to voter
fraud? Are they really suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should be
allowed to vote in elections and in the same breath demanding campaign
finance reform in the interests of honest elections?
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that we should
spend our energy enforcing the laws we have at hand. The law of our
land, the law we are bound constitutionally to obey and enforce, that
is what this debate is about. Inflammatory rhetoric that evokes images
of racism and discrimination, that is transparent. It does a disservice
to this institution and to the American ideal of free and fair
elections.
In the interests of protecting our Nation's great democracy, I urge
my colleagues to fulfill their responsibility to protect the sanctity
of American elections by demanding a thorough and honest investigation
of this and all contested elections. Nothing less will bring credit to
this House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the resolution.
{time} 2200
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
privileged resolution and urge the House to consider it favorably.
The investigation undertaken by the majority on the Committee on
House Oversight has been long drawn out, and I think it is really long
past due when it should be decided. It is exactly a year since Loretta
Sanchez won a tough, close election in California. It is now almost
exactly 9 months since she was sworn in in this body, in this very
Chamber, and it is a little more than a
[[Page H10097]]
year before she will face the voters of the 46th District of California
again.
Mr. Speaker, the women are coming before this body tonight with these
privileged resolutions to say, justice delayed is justice denied, and
justice has been denied, but let me talk about how it has been delayed.
Loretta Sanchez was elected to the office that she took the oath and
was sworn in in this very body, and all she wanted to do was to serve
her constituents, to use the talents that attracted her constituents to
vote for her, and yet, since she has been here, she has been constantly
having to face motions, legal motions, legal bills, legal questions and
all she wants to do is serve her constituents.
But, Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution of the United States of
America, this House of Representatives has the sole authority to be the
judge of its own elections, and there is no credible evidence before us
at this point to suggest that Ms. Sanchez does not win her election to
this House, and that the House was incorrect in swearing her in on that
day that we all were sworn in. Yet, now we find out that the House
Committee on Oversight wants to send volumes of information back to
California to the very Secretary of State that certified that this
woman should be the Representative.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we went to see the Speaker of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and we talked to him about what
we were about, what the women of this Congress are about, that we just
wanted to have this woman, who has been under this huge problem for a
year now, that she should be sworn in, and the Speaker spoke to us
about problems in the law, in the Federal law. The Speaker spoke to us
about problems in the State law, the law of California. The Speaker
spoke to us, as he always does, with brilliance, and he was erudite and
he did all this good conversation, but what we said to him is, it takes
a long time to pass a law in this House, a long time to pass a law in
California. All we are asking for is justice for this woman. Please,
Mr. Speaker, let her go about her duties; pass the legislation
necessary.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 9\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], chairman of the task force,
to in part respond. Now that both sides have signed confidentiality
statements, this information will probably be made available, and we
would like to be the ones to make it available.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the chairman yield? I am not sure I
understand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Michigan
controls the time.
Point of Order
Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that under the
rules of the committee, at the request of the committee, we have signed
confidentiality agreements. I have not disclosed any information which
I have received that was confidential information. The Chairman now
says that confidential information is going to be disclosed because the
agreements have been signed.
I am not sure I understand that, and whether from a parliamentary
standpoint confidential information is appropriate to be disclosed on
the floor of this House. We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not able to rule at this point
if any information is available or not available as taken in executive
session.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is recognized for 9\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to discuss confidential
information which would be from the INS, such as names and issues such
as that, but I do want to share with the body some numbers, numbers
which the gentleman from Maryland is familiar with from the work of the
task force since he has received most of this information. These are
going to be very approximate numbers, but I felt it important to deal
with that, and also to give a little bit of history of what the task
force has done. I have given partial histories in past debates on this
issue, and I will try to deal with some of the questions that have been
raised since then.
First of all, it is important to recognize that the Committee on
House Oversight and our task force did not choose which election to be
involved in. That decision is made by the contestant who files the
notice of contest, and that was Mr. Dornan in this case. Mr. Dornan, as
has been observed, filed many charges as part of his notice of contest.
We have investigated that. We found that many of them did not have a
strong basis and were not factors in the election, and so we have put
those aside.
The largest issue that did emerge, however, is a question of
fraudulent votes by noncitizens, and that deserved greater study.
Now, the problem developed with that, which I will get to in just a
moment, that midway in the investigation as Mr. Dornan and the
California Secretary of State were pursuing that, suddenly their source
of information in the INS was shut off, and that has created a good
deal of the delay that we are discussing tonight. Furthermore, as
everyone knows from previous discussions, a number of the subpoenas
were not responded to.
Now, I have, just for graphic purposes, and I apologize for the poor
quality of this, I am an X professor and I am used to working with
materials at hand and not hiring people to prepare fancy displays
suitable for this audience, but several numbers to remember. The margin
of the election. 984 votes is a certified margin, but the recount
actually was a 979-vote margin. The Secretary of State does not in
California change the certificate to reflect the recount total, but the
actual margin of election was 979.
The Registrar of Elections of Orange County, conducting her own
investigation of the election, discovered 124 fraudulent absentee
ballots using the standard measures under California law for
determining which absentee ballots are fraudulent, and also under
California law subtracting them from the total.
The California Secretary of State received information from
Hermandad, the organization that has been mentioned before, through the
Orange County district attorney, indicating 1,163 individuals, and I am
sorry I did not write that number down, 1,163 individuals who had gone
through citizenship classes at Hermandad.
That is not necessarily the complete list, because the Orange County
District Attorney was not specifically looking for that information,
but that is the information they received when they went in and seized
the records. There are other records they did not seize. We would like
to see those records; they have ignored subpoenas up to this point, and
we simply do not have the information.
From those 1,163, with the aid of the Los Angeles district office of
the INS, 305 have been identified as noncitizen voters in Orange
County, so add the 124 and the 305, those are rock-hard certain voters
who are noncitizens.
At that point the Director of the INS in Los Angeles was told by his
superiors in Washington to no longer cooperate. That was in late March,
early April. We then asked the INS for assistance so that they would
furnish the materials to the California Secretary of State. We were
refused. We then had to subpoena the INS records, which we did, and
there was all together approximately 3 months delay as a result of
their decision to cut off the assistance they had been providing.
As the committee tried to develop a list of potential noncitizen
voters, the initial list was approximately in the neighborhood of
6,000. That included a list from the INS, a computer match of the
Orange County voters versus the records of the INS of individuals where
they matched the first name, last name, date of birth.
This also includes a list from the Orange County Registrar of Voters
and other officials there of individuals who had refused to accept jury
duty because they checked off they were noncitizens, but yet they had
voted. This also included individuals who had voted, but there were
border crossing cards on record for them in which it was clear that
they had been born in another country, and their citizenship could not
be verified with the INS.
So this is the gross number, greater than 6,000. Out of that, we
culled down
[[Page H10098]]
approximately 4,000 that looked very seriously as if they could be
nonvoters--pardon me, noncitizens who had voted.
Now, much has been made in the resolutions that have been presented
here over and over about this delay and no credible evidence. This is
credible evidence. Why the delay? Because we have been going through
very, very carefully, and what we have to verify is that indeed, the
individuals in the INS records and the individuals in the Orange County
records are, in fact, one and the same, and so that has allowed us to
narrow down the list.
Something else we had to verify. Are the INS records accurate? When
they indicate that someone is a citizen or a noncitizen, is there some
verification for that? We have to depend on the INS, but we have had
them go through and do a search of their records, and we keep searching
and keep trying to find the most accurate record we can. The minority
has also been helpful in this. They took another search approach, and
the information that they came up with has been included.
So notice the number has been shrinking, greater than 6,000, then
greater than 4,000, greater than 2,000, approximately 1,000 at this
point. Actually, the number is larger, but I do not want to claim any
larger number at this point, and we are still working on it, trying to
finalize as closely as we can.
In addition, we recently asked the California Secretary of State for
assistance, because we want independent verification of these numbers.
Roll Call Newspaper erroneously said we were turning the issue over to
the California Secretary of State. Not true. We are simply asking them
to review what we have done and to verify that it is accurate.
I also want to make it clear that contrary to charges that have been
made on the floor, and to which I take considerable offense, we have
not targeted Hispanics or Latinos. We have never once asked for any
records specifying that we want those with Hispanic or Latino names. We
are not targeting women in this race. We are not including illegal
immigrants, which we probably should do if we could get a handle on
that, and the California Secretary of State is looking at that
independently. But there is a whole group of individuals who are not
included in this examination, that is the illegal immigrants, simply
because the INS has no record of them. If they are illegal, they do not
sign up with the INS.
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has made a point that Mr.
Dornan says he is finished. He has submitted his evidence. That is
fine, but all of us know that when we go into a court of law, when we
finish the case, it is not over. The jury has to deliberate, and we
perform the function of the jury.
The point is simply we want to complete the analysis. We are not
proceeding with malice, we are not proceeding in an effort to be
unfair; we are trying our very, very best to look at these numbers
which are very, very substantial numbers and verify as precisely as we
can what the actual numbers are, and then we will discuss them with the
committee; we will discuss them with the House of Representatives, and
a decision will be made as to the final result of the election. That is
our responsibility as Members of the task force. Nothing more, nothing
less.
There are many other issues that have emerged from this. Others have
registered concerns about targeting and this sort of thing. We do not
look at those issues; we are simply looking at the votes that were cast
in trying to identify which votes were fraudulent.
Now, let me add one more point. The difference between this case and
what makes it different from previous cases that the House has
frequently dealt with is that the fraud in this case is different. In
most previous Congresses when the Congress has dealt with fraud, it has
been deliberate fraud, organized fraud, large blocks of votes. That is
not true in this case.
I think this is not deliberate fraud, except perhaps on the part of
Hermandad, we have to determine that later, but certainly not on the
part of the individuals voting. I think they were misled. We are
dealing with individuals who honestly thought they were doing the right
thing. Nevertheless, if the votes are fraudulent, that must be dealt
with.
I thank the Speaker for the time to present this, and I ask the
indulgence of the House as we continue to wrap this up, I hope as soon
as possible, and as accurately as possible.
{time} 2215
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], a Member of the committee.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I can frankly only remember one other
similar instance, when a Senator from Wisconsin held up a list of 120
suspects in the State Department, and somehow they were disloyal to the
United States; never got any names, we never found any agents in the
State Department, but boy, he had numbers out there and he was waving
them around.
What they have done here today is they cannot tell us the names
because they are secret. Let me tell Members, the chairman of this
committee has an obsession with secrecy. He tried to make the public
minutes of a meeting secret at one of our first meetings, and
astounded, frankly, all of my staff.
We have come here today once again back exactly where we started.
They have never before used the INS to check for election results. Why?
One, we have never had an Hispanic woman we were looking at. So when we
are dealing with other ethnic groups of this country, we do not think
of going to the INS.
What did the INS tell the chairman of the committee and the Congress
when it was first asked for these numbers? And, by the way, these are
not all the numbers they have. They started off with half a million
suspects in a district where 100,000 people voted. The INS said, you
cannot use our files to verify voters. But even if we look at their
numbers down to that final thousand, from that we cannot tell whether
that final thousand voted for Sanchez or Dornan. The law says we have
to prove it would change the outcome.
I cannot give Members the names, either, but let me tell the Members,
there is a Mrs. Jones here. It is a Spanish surname, instead of Jones.
There are 18 of them in the INS records. Mrs. Jones exists 18 times in
the INS records. Yes, there is one Mrs. Jones in the voting list that
did vote. Now, Mrs. Jones might have voted wrong once, but she could
not vote wrong 18 times, because there are not 18 times Mrs. Jones'
name is on that list.
Let me tell the Members something. This may be about a lot of things.
It could be a vendetta. We keep hearing about the Indiana case. I am
happy to argue the Indiana case in a separate venue. But let me tell
the Members, if it is the Indiana case that is going to drive the
majority, we will make Bosnia look like a picnic. They take one, we
will take one; next year we will challenge everybody, and we will get
the INS in everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, when we get sensitive to the attack on the basis that we
keep raising the Hispanic issue, excuse me? The record of their party
makes the statement very clearly.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with this. In 1980 the Republican Party
went to New Jersey, and it dressed people up in police officers'
uniforms, and they used ballot security police to intimidate new
citizens and poor people from voting. In the 1990s in California, the
Republican Party paid a $400,000 fine for the same kind of Gestapo
tactics at the polls.
Now, once again, we have the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Sanchez]. We have a list of people here. We have numbers. That chart is
about as graphic an example of the phony arguments on the other side as
we can find. If they had a thousand names, they would bring them out
here. What they are doing is dragging this lady through the mud. They
are trying to break her financially. They are trying to break her
spirit. But I have news for the Members, she is getting stronger.
The country is not going to put up with reviewing elections for
longer than the term of office the individual is elected to. We are
going a year after her election. She has won by more votes than the
Speaker of this House won by when we were in control. Leave her alone.
Let her do her job.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his crosscheck with
the
[[Page H10099]]
INS. Apparently his request he believes to be more accurate than our
request.
Where we found citizens, for example, Mrs. Jones was removed, where
we found duplicates, they were removed; where we find a Jane A. Jones
with a date of birth that matches, first name, last name, middle
initial, date of birth, with the same address on the INS records as on
the voted list, we are pushing it to that level and beyond for
accuracy. Those are the numbers that the gentleman presented us.
It is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Ms. Dunn], a State which has a procedure on their voting
records, their Registrar of Records, which I wish the Nation would
emulate.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the privileged
resolution on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am lucky to be from a State that has so far
experienced little or no voter fraud. Lord knows, if any fraud were to
occur in any of our elections in Washington State, we would be very
quick to staunch it and make sure we had a process in place never to
allow it to happen again. That is, Mr. Speaker, why I have so many
questions about the issue before us this evening.
Why would anyone want to end this election fraud investigation before
the facts are in? Why have the Democrats resisted the establishment of
precedents that will ensure that future contested elections will be
investigated thoroughly and efficiently? Why have they challenged the
constitutionality of the Federal Contested Elections Act? Why do they
not want a process that allows the contestee and the contestant to get
at the truth?
Why are they not eagerly supporting a process that allows State and
local officials to verify the legitimacy of registrations? Mr. Speaker,
why not find out exactly how many persons are illegally registered in
the 46th District of California? Why would anyone want to leave a
single illegal voter on the voting rolls of the State of California?
Mr. Speaker, during our last debate the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Menendez] commented that this affects more than just the Federal
election. He is exactly correct. That is what is so disturbing about
the Democrats' position in this case. Fraudulent voters jeopardize the
legitimacy of all the elections, up and down the ballot, all across
California and many other States. We need to do something about that,
and we need to start by completing this investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recall the words of Democrat President Grover
Cleveland, who, in his first inaugural address, stated ``Your every
voter as surely as your chief magistrate exercises a public trust.''
That is what this is about, public trust in our democratic process.
We have an honor system of voting in our Nation, and that honor has
been desecrated by any person who casts an illegal ballot in this or
any other election. This is why we must complete this investigation. We
must, in order to restore the honor of our system, determine the extent
of the corruption.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, the gentlewoman said she is lucky to be
from a State that does not see voter fraud. I am unlucky to be from a
State that has seen the Republican Party be part of voter suppression
and intimidation that ended up in the Federal court decision that is
still continuing in elections in New Jersey.
The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is unlucky to be from a
State where the Republican Party paid $600,000 to settle two voter
intimidation lawsuits stemming from actions in 1988 and 1989 in which
the Orange County Republican Party placed security guards and signs at
the voting polls designed to scare Latino voters from voting. That is
the fact.
So when the gentleman before mentioned about transparency,
transparency is that the history on the records, in the Federal court,
has condemned their party for what they have done to my people. That is
the reality of that transparency.
I just listened to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], who I
have a personal respect for, but I listened to what he had to say. His
facts and his figures, we have gone from 500,000 questionable voters to
1,000, in his final number there. What an incredible amount.
And when we look at it, he keeps referring to Orange County voters.
He fails to mention that there are six congressional districts in
Orange County. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is not the
only congressional district in Orange County. They all fail to mention
all of the Republic candidates that won, and they do not question their
elections at the same time in which they allegedly received these
votes.
The fact of the matter is that for those Members who get upset about
our concerns that what they are doing is clearly based on the question
and to a large degree on ethnicity, I cannot wait for the names to be
revealed. I want to say how many Thomases, how many Ehlers, how many
Smiths are on that list.
I can guarantee Members that when we see the list, when it finally
shows the light of day, everything that we have said there will be very
clear. That is why their party has been sanctioned, that is why the
Federal courts have made them pay money, and that is why they are
pursuing this case in the manner in which they have. They have gone
from a half a million to a thousand, and they cannot even prove that
will overturn the election.
Yes, they have seated her, but they have bled her every day that she
has been here, and we as a community will not tolerate it.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering, what
triggered the Republican Party to initiate this broad-scale
investigation, spending thousands of dollars? I thought, is it their
conservative nature? If so, they have contradicted that with spending
thousands of dollars for this cause in which they have no ending. This
is an unending cause.
And I thought, are they trying to protect the sanctity of the
Republican Party? I have no answer to that one.
Is it their dogged determination to bestow some honor to a verbose
candidate who lost in a district that he had been winning in for quite
a long time, with some nontraditional voters going against him?
It was time for him. It was his time. When my time comes, I am going
to take it like a woman. If I lose, I am going to take it like a woman.
I am not coming to Members asking them to investigate somebody because
Carrie Meek lost. I am strong. I do not have to come to them. They
would make me to be some kind of icon, with all these kinds of verbose
statements about me, making me so grand, like I am some Oracle at
Delphi. That does not happen here. What happens here is we work hard.
If we win, the people, if they want us there, they will send us back.
Members can contest these little votes if they want to, but I will
tell the Members what image they are sending to this country. The image
and the message they are sending is Hispanic, woman, ethnicity. I do
not care how Members do it, how they cloak it in their numbers, that is
the image that they are sending throughout this country. Think about
it: Hispanic, woman, someone who cannot take a beating. That is the
message they are sending.
I say to the Members, they had better clean this act up, because
every woman in this country is watching them. I did not come here
because I am a Democrat, I came up here because I think the gentlewoman
from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, has been given a short shrift.
She has been given a short shrift, I do not care what party she is,
even if she is in Ross Perot's party.
I am saying, clean this stuff up. Stop worrying about it and let this
woman take her seat.
{time} 2230
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, on January 7 of this year, I was honored
to enter this body as an incoming Member with over 70 new Members on
both sides of the aisle, including the
[[Page H10100]]
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. A number of the incoming
freshmen won by very small numbers of votes, many fewer votes than the
number that Loretta Sanchez won by. Yet after one year and almost a
half a million dollars of taxpayers' money being spent on an
investigation, we have nothing to show for it of any concrete evidence,
just a lot of hyperbole at this point.
The question that I have for the other side of the aisle is that if,
in fact, there are 1000 people who chose to vote who should not have
voted in this election, they did not just vote for a Congresswoman or
vote for the Congressman at that time. They voted for local officials.
They voted for a State rep. They voted for a State Senator. They voted
for local ballot initiatives.
Why is it that the only question, the only challenge, the only
investigation is on the only Hispanic woman sitting here, Ms. Sanchez?
What about those other seats? What about challenging those other kinds
of races? We do not hear anything about that. We hear only about
harassment of a woman who is serving her district well. It is time to
stop it.
Ms. FURSE. Could the Chair inform us of the amount of time on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kingston]. The gentlewoman from Oregon
[Ms. Furse] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Thomas] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked unanimous consent to
address the House out of order for two minutes, and it was objected to
by the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Let me just say this, sitting here with some interest, you have 1000
votes here that are on a chart, and you are assuming that Loretta
Sanchez got every one of those votes, no names, 1000 votes. From
500,000, you have come to 1000 votes. Is that not remarkable? And there
is nothing on that list, according to what you insinuate, there is
nothing on that but Hispanic voters that voted illegally.
Listen, what we are doing here tonight and what you are doing here
tonight, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.
Let me just say this to you, I was here when the Indiana situation
came about. It might have been wrong. During the last campaign
Republicans campaigned all over this country and they said, the
Democrats have been in charge for 40 years and we are not going to run
this House like the Democrats did. The chairman of the Committee on
Rules stood in this well when he was in the minority and said, when we
get to be in charge, we will not have closed rules and we will not run
this House like the Democrats.
What you are doing here is wrong. You cannot defend it. It is
absolutely wrong and we should be ashamed of this charade that is
taking place in this House. This gentlewoman won fair and square. Every
Member of this House received a certificate from the Secretary of State
congratulating us for being elected to the people's House, the United
States Congress. They sent everybody a certificate. They sent the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] a certificate.
Now you have sent back to California, to this same guy that gave this
certificate to Ms. Sanchez, it says, you have to check on this some
more because we cannot find anything here. Our witch-hunt is over.
It is time to stop this because it is not right.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to assist the
gentleman in his math. The 1000 number were those that achieve a very
high level check through the INS. The chairman failed to mention the
124 that the registrar has already discovered, the 305 that the LA INS
and the Secretary of State have certified and the more than 1000 that
were currently going through with the INS. Frankly, the number is far
beyond the statement I have heard repeated over and over again of a
number which simply is not creditable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend who just spoke,
60 percent of the votes that were counted that were registered by one
organization had been found to be fraudulent by the Secretary of State.
We have not got all the votes. There is not a single Member in this
House who, if that happened to them and one of the organizations
registering and voting people had 60 percent of their voters found to
be fraudulent, would say, let us drop the investigation. Let us leave
it.
Mr. Dornan is having just as tough a time with this delay and the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is. We want to have it over,
but we owe it to the people to finish the investigation.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from California, I would only
say this, there were other elections, there were other people that were
on the same ticket as Mr. Dornan and Ms. Sanchez. And you are not
questioning the validity of those votes that went to those people. They
are not being contested. The numbers are all being taken from Ms.
Sanchez' total votes.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman from Washington State,
nobody wants this investigation to go away or to end. In fact, the
gentlewoman from Washington may not know, there is a district attorney
of Orange County investigating this case. That investigation is before
the grand jury and ought to continue. The Secretary of State has a
responsibility to ensure voter integrity on the rolls. He is continuing
his investigation.
The judge from Ohio said this always happens. It never happens.
Mr. Dornan has said his case is over. He has rested in effect. The
jury is never allowed to get additional evidence, never. What kind of
law do you practice on that side where the jury can say, well, I know
the two parties have rested but we are going to get additional
evidence? It never happens, my friends, never. They can ask to review
existing evidence; that is true. But they cannot go out and seek new
evidence.
Mr. Dornan says this case is through. It is time for the parties to
decide. The fact of the matter is, these figures put forth by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], nobody knows. The gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] put up some figures, 979, that is the most
important figure. That is the majority by which Loretta Sanchez was
elected to this House.
He then gets down to other figures, 6000. That has less, I tell you,
than 500 who possibly could be considered in the 46th district. I do
not even know why that 6000 was on that board, because they are not
involved in the 46th district, all of them, some are.
The fact of the matter is, however, as the gentleman from Connecticut
pointed out, nobody knows or will know for whom those folks voted. We
do know this: that over a third of those people are Republicans, about
15 percent are other independents, not affiliated. Only half are
Democrats. It is time to end this case.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has
1\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Thomas] has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has the right to close.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], majority leader, who happens to be
part of the jury that constitutionally is the sole judge of its
Members. When you have the constitutional power to judge, you have the
right to get all the information.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is
recognized for 2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me.
We have 22, I believe, filings of privileges of the House on this
same subject. This, Mr. Speaker, is number one of those 22 that must be
dealt with today under the rules of the House. Twenty-two today, I
think some eight filed that would come due tomorrow, and another eight
or so to do the other.
[[Page H10101]]
I am sure that represents, on behalf of an awful lot of Members doing
all that filing, a statement.
But I have to tell my colleagues, I weary of it. I weary of the
shouting. I weary of the accusing. I weary of the finger pointing. I
weary of the feigning of moral outrage. I weary of the sophomoric
strategy. I think the rest of the House shares that weariness. We have
work we are trying to get done, work that is important to the American
people.
While we are doing that, we have an obligation given to us by the
Constitution of the United States. We are conducting an investigation
about the legality of the votes cast in a congressional race in order
to determine the legality of the seating of a Member of this House as
given to us as a responsibility of the Constitution. We are not going
to do a minimal job on that. We are not going to do a half-hearted job
on that.
We are not going to give it a wink and a nod and bow to the pressures
that are supposed to have been brought to us by somebody having made
the allegation that really in fact has nothing to do with this body,
has nothing to do with the Constitution, has nothing to do with the
question of whether or not American elections will be confined to
participation by American citizens, but it has to do with you
Republicans who are racists, you Republicans who are sexists, et
cetera.
What shallow malarkey. Rise above it. Let us get back to work. This
job will be done in accordance with the responsibilities given to us by
the Constitution of the United States, and it will be done thoroughly,
professionally and completely, until it is the truth of the matter that
is found. And no intimidation, no allegation, no screaming, no
hollering, no accusation, no pointing of fingers is going to stop this
Congress from doing its duty. That is what the Constitution was written
about, people who are willing to do their duty.
That is what will be done.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we, too, are weary on this side of the
aisle. End this witch-hunt. End the malarkey on your side of the aisle,
and let this investigation conclude and let Loretta Sanchez continue
her fine work as representing the 46th District of California.
{time} 2245
Democrats are sending a simple message tonight with these
resolutions: It is enough, the investigation of allegations by Citizen
Dornan, with subpoena power unprecedented in the history of the House
of Representatives. The majority of these allegations have proven to be
without merit. Fraudulent voters, who have turned out to be nuns and
Marines and even some of his own supporters. Enough of this waste of
taxpayers' dollars. Eleven months, a half a million dollars, and we are
still counting. Enough with the attempts by the Republican Party to
intimidate Hispanic-American voters, an 8-year history in southern
California of intimidating Latino voters at the polls.
No investigation like this has been targeted at Italian-Americans,
Irish-Americans, or Jewish-Americans. There were other closer elections
in 1996. They did not result in this kind of an investigation. It is
interesting to note that the surnames of those Members are Fox and
Smith, and not Sanchez.
Today, Democrats are saying to the Republican leadership of this
House, enough is enough. We can say it in Italian, and we can say it in
Spanish and the word is the same, ``basta,'' stop this intimidation.
Stop this investigation of Hispanic-American voters in this country.
Allow the democratic process to go forward.
The people of the 46th district elected the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez. They said no to Bob Dornan. This House
ought to have the courage to say no to Bob Dornan and end this
investigation of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Thomas
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows
Mr. Thomas moves to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the motion
to table offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 194, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
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
McIntosh
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
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--194
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)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
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
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
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
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
[[Page H10102]]
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
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Sanchez
NOT VOTING--21
Bono
Clement
Cox
Cubin
Fawell
Flake
Foglietta
Fowler
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
McKinney
Moakley
Murtha
Riley
Scarborough
Schiff
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Stark
Yates
Young (AK)
{time} 2305
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________