[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.

                          ____________________