[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H453-H464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST AGAINST LORETTA SANCHEZ
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House
Oversight, I call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 355) and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 355
Whereas credible allegations by contestant Robert Dornan of
election fraud in the 46th Congressional District of
California were received by the House of Representatives and
an investigation has been conducted under the authority of
the Federal Contested Election Act;
Whereas that investigation was repeatedly hindered and
delayed by the lack of cooperation by the Department of
Justice, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and key
witnesses;
Whereas the delay and lack of cooperation included the
following:
(1) The refusal of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to provide any information to the Committee on House
Oversight until the Service was subpoenaed and the failure 8
months after the subpoenas to provide the accurate
information needed by the Committee.
(2) The refusal of key witnesses to provide evidence under
the provisions of the Federal Contested Election Act.
(3) The refusal of the Department of Justice, in complete
disregard of a resolution passed by the House of
Representatives, to enforce the Federal Contested Election
Act by prosecuting any of the 11 witnesses who refused to
comply with the provisions of such Act which require
production of evidence on a timely basis;
Whereas despite the lack of full cooperation from witnesses
and government agencies, the investigation of the election
contest in the 46th Congressional District of California has
resulted in evidence that over 700 illegal votes were cast in
that election, including votes cast by persons who were not
citizens of the United States;
Whereas the evidence of illegal voting comes from the
following sources:
(1) The Registrar of Voters of Orange County has indicated
that 124 absentee ballots were cast illegally in the November
1996 General Election.
(2) The Committee on House Oversight's comparison of
Immigration and Naturalization Service records and Orange
County voter registration records provide evidence that more
than 600 additional votes were illegally cast in that
election;
Whereas the number of votes shown to be illegal by clear
and convincing evidence is less than the post-recount 979
vote margin by which the election was decided;
Whereas it is critical that the incidence of illegal voting
be reduced and eliminated in future elections and that the
ability of investigators in future election contests to
detect and punish voter fraud be enhanced;
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should continue
its investigation of illegal voting practices and recommend
to the House of Representatives legislative measures to
reduce voter fraud and improve the integrity of the voting
process; and
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations should closely examine the operations of the
Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to ensure that proper steps are being taken to
enforce the laws of the United States and accurately provide
information on the citizenship status of individuals, as
required by Federal law: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the election contest of Robert Dornan,
contestant, against Loretta Sanchez, contestee, relating to
the office of Representative from the 46th Congressional
District of California, is dismissed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The reported resolution
constitutes a question of the privileges of the House and may be called
up at any time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us dismisses the contested
election in California's 46th District. That is clearly the substance.
The real story is that in the process of examining this particular
contested election, it is clear that voter rolls across the country are
suspect.
We all know that elections are fundamental to our democracy. Free and
fair elections are essential in selecting our Representatives in this
Republic. The belief on the part of people who cast their ballot that
their ballot may be negated by someone who should not have been able to
vote in an election erodes the fundamental basis of our democracy and
our Republic.
There have been attempts in this process to argue that our concern
about making sure that only those people who are eligible to be
registered and, therefore, eligible to vote, was not the focus of our
concern. Their arguments have been that, quite frankly, what we are
doing is ``racist;'' that we are on a ``witch hunt.''
It is extremely difficult to understand why someone would not want to
make sure that voter rolls are accurate. It is without contention, Mr.
Speaker, that in those areas involving people who wish to become
naturalized citizens that there are enormous problems today. We
discovered just this week that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has hired one of the big five accounting firms to examine the
way in which their process operates.
We have been accused of racism because we thought we needed some
firmer identification than is currently available from the INS. The INS
now admits that they are going to look at a proposal which requires
digitized photographs and fingerprints at the beginning of the process,
in the middle of the process, and at the end of the process.
It just seems to me that if that system is admittedly flawed, and
that people have become citizens who should not have become citizens,
or, even more regrettably, those private organizations who
participated, ostensibly, in bringing this citizenship about, utilized
the opportunity to interact with these nascent citizens in a way that
put them on voter rolls illegally, has got to be investigated until it
is resolved.
Included in the Coopers & Lybrand report is the suggestion that these
private operations should be shut down. In the particular contested
election in front of us, one of those private organizations, Hermandad
Nacional, had 60 percent of the people it registered flawed. That kind
of a ratio either indicates sloppiness or an unwillingness to follow
the rules. Which clearly indicates we should not use these private
organizations. Now, whichever instance it is, it simply means voter
rolls are flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, (Mr.
Vern Ehlers), the chairman of the task force, to give my colleagues an
understanding of the details of this particular examination of an
election beyond the normal examination of contested elections
historically. And thank goodness we are finally looking at the problems
behind the surface.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding me this time. I am pleased to come to the House and report on
the results of a very thorough investigation of the Dornan-Sanchez
contested election race.
I was given the following charge by the chairman of the committee,
when I
[[Page H454]]
took this task: I was asked to chair this task force because of my
reputation for integrity and honesty, and he emphasized in the initial
assignment that he wanted me to be fair, honest, factual and thorough.
This charge was reinforced by the Republican leadership of the House
several times during the course of this investigation when certain
issues came up, and once again I was always encouraged to be fair,
honest, factual and thorough in the investigation. And I have certainly
attempted to do that because that is the way I want it to be.
It is regrettable that many false charges were made by the minority
party, even on the floor of the House, during the course of this
investigation. Because I felt it improper for anyone involved in the
investigation to comment, I restrained my comments at that time.
Initially, there were several charges made in the contest documents
filed by former Representative Dornan. As we examined these, we found
that many of them simply could not be substantiated. But what we did
find was that charges of illegal voting, specifically of fraudulent
voting by noncitizens, could be substantiated and, in fact, were true.
The initial examination by the registrar of voters of Orange County
discovered 124 absentee ballots which were invalid, and so that reduced
the 979 vote margin by 124. The California Secretary of State did an
independent investigation of the election, along with the Los Angeles
office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and identified in
their first pass 305 noncitizens who had registered to vote and had
voted.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the gentleman's
statement, but I want to ask him a question to clarify what he just
said.
When the gentleman indicated that reduced the margin by 124, am I
correct that in order to do that, we would have to assume that all of
those votes were cast for the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez)?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for calling that to my
attention. I did not mean to imply that. Reducing the margin gets into
another issue, but my point is that the reports from the Registrar of
Voters and the Secretary of State certainly indicated substantial
problems with the election.
Unfortunately, the national headquarters of the INS stopped the
process by telling the Los Angeles office they were no longer allowed
to cooperate with the California Secretary of State. At that point, the
House Oversight Committee asked the INS to cooperate, and again we were
told no. All this resulted in approximately a 3-month delay, until the
committee issued subpoenas and the INS then responded to the subpoenas.
The delay was most unfortunate because we wanted to wrap up the
investigation quickly.
Another delay occurred with the subpoenas issued by former
Congressman Dornan in an attempt to engage in the discovery process and
get more information. All of those subpoenas were ignored by the
recipients and no progress was made on that point.
Furthermore, the request by the House to the Department of Justice to
enforce the subpoenas resulted in no action and, again, we incurred
approximately a 3-month delay.
Finally, the Congress itself issued subpoenas to a few crucial
witnesses and organizations, and after considerable work on our part
and their part, they responded and we did get some information,
although it is still in question as to how thorough that was.
I give this only by background to illustrate some of the difficulties
encountered by the task force in attempting to ascertain the truth and,
as I said, to be fair, honest, factual, and thorough.
Let me give a very brief report of the process and of the discoveries
we made. This chart looks very complex because it is, and it is very
hard to read because there is a lot of information on one sheet. I will
not go through it in detail; I simply want to illustrate that the
process started by getting a computer tape of the Orange County voter
registration list, computer tapes of the INS database, and running
comparisons. And that is what we started from.
The rest of the work primarily was going through the results of the
computer match because we wanted to determine to the maximum extent
possible what names had to be eliminated because they had proof of
citizenship at time of registration to vote. So most of the work,
contrary to what one might expect from a Republican majority task
force, was not devoted to finding additional noncitizen voters but
rather to prove that we could verify and document the results presented
here.
{time} 1100
Let me report now on what we discovered in terms of number of votes.
After doing the computer check, eliminating obvious mismatches, we had
an original number of 7,841 suspect votes. Upon further examination,
going through not just the INS computer tapes but also through the INS
written records and trying to clear up the many discrepancies we
encountered, we discovered that 5,303 of the 7,841 actually were
citizens and were legitimate registrants. So we subtracted that from
the 7,841 and that indicated we still had 2,538 suspect registrants.
Then, checking the voter records carefully, we determined that 1,718 of
them, even though they had registered illegally, did not vote and so,
therefore, had no impact on the election.
But it does illustrate the point that the chairman of the committee
made a moment ago, this is definitely a matter of concern. Altogether,
we have approximately 2,500 illegal registrants discovered in our
process; and that has to be taken care of as a separate issue, through
further legislation. That indicated that there were still 820 suspect
registrants who did vote in the November 1996 election.
At that point we went into extensive examination of the data to try
to document in the best possible way those that we could be certain
were illegal noncitizens who voted, and the number that emerged was
624. We had circumstantial evidence that an additional 196 had voted
but were unable to document it to my and our satisfaction; and,
therefore, we decided not to include those in the total of questionable
votes.
If we add to the 624 illegal noncitizen voters that we have
identified the 124 absentee ballots that had previously been disallowed
by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, then we discover 748 illegal
votes. And that is the total that we had emerge as the number of
illegal votes cast in that election. If one were to include those votes
with circumstantial evidence of illegality, there would be 944.
Let me remind my colleagues again, the margin of victory was 979. Let
me also remind my colleagues, the three options open to the committee
and the task force were, number one, to dismiss the election, simply
saying there is not sufficient proof to change the result of the
election; number two, to say the evidence was so overwhelming in favor
of the contestant that we had to overthrow the election and seat Mr.
Dornan; and number three, to simply say, we cannot tell the result of
the election, no one can tell the result of the election, and we vacate
the seat and the State must call a new election.
It is our recommendation to the committee, and its recommended to the
Congress, that we dismiss the election in view of the fact that the
number of illegal votes we identified is less than the margin of
victory that was previously determined.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time,
and I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick), a member of the committee.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished leader of the
task force as we did our work. We appreciate his standing in and for
all the work that he put into this committee and into the final report.
Mr. Speaker, we discussed this issue now for 13 months and $2 million
of the taxpayers' money. I am happy that we finally came to a
concluding approval that the case should be dismissed. We said that
over and over again on this side of the aisle for the last 13 months.
And we believe then, as we believe now, that there was no case against
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), as has been documented
by the Orange County grand jury, citizens
[[Page H455]]
in that district, as has been documented now by the Republican
secretary of state.
Mr. Speaker, there has been much time spent on this issue. Ms.
Sanchez and some of our Members have been threatened. I myself received
a threat on last Monday that my brains would be blown out because of my
stance on this very important issue. What is at stake here is, Mr.
Speaker, the Voting Rights Act: Should American citizens, and we mean
citizens of America, be allowed to participate in the voting process
that this country has. I believe that we should.
The 1965 civil rights law and the 1964 Voting Rights Act said that we
ought to allow American citizens to participate. Was there fraud in
this election? The Orange County grand jury said no. The Republican
secretary of state said no. And more than that, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) won with over 900 votes, a solid victory.
It is unfortunate that we had to spend this time. I want to remind my
colleagues that in 1964, when Rosa Parks, who was my constituent, by
the way, refused to give up her seat, she did so because she believed
that America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, she
believed that civil rights ought to be afforded all American citizens
and that those same citizens ought to be allowed the privilege to vote.
I fully support the registration of all citizens. I think that any
impairment or any attack on the Voting Rights Act is despicable and we
must fight against it. I believe that as we move to the new millennium
in this country that we take all American citizens with us. Those that
are disenfranchised, we ought to bring them also into the American
dream.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this Congress for the first year and now
in my second year, I am delighted to have served on the House Oversight
in this hearing process. It certainly has grown me up and taught me
that as we work for the American citizens we can speak out and speak
up, that when we do right by the people who elected us, we have a
better America for all of its citizens.
I am convinced that the Voting Rights Act is a very real part of
that. I will fight vehemently any proposals that would weaken that
Voting Rights Act for all American citizens.
I rise in support of the wisdom of Congress in dismissing the
challenge by former Congressman Robert K. Dornan and ending, once and
for all, the election that was certified by the people of the 46th
Congressional District of California and by California's Republican
Secretary of State. Although I voted for the legislation as a member of
the House Oversight Committee, I voted for it with some trepidation and
concern. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the
members of the Task Force for their hard work and diligence, especially
the gentleman from the State of Maryland, Steny Hoyer. Congressman
Hoyer's tireless efforts toward justice for the people of the 46th
Congressional District, none of whom, I might add, will be able to vote
for him in the fall, speaks to the highest aspirations and goals of
public service. I am proud and privileged to serve with Congressman
Hoyer and Congressman Sam Gejdensen, my Democratic colleagues on the
House Oversight Committee.
The legacy of the protection of voting rights for minorities in the
United States was a hard-fought battle that saw its culmination in the
adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite entreaties to the
contrary, there has been no demonstration from the Majority that any
changes to our current registration laws--proof or documentation of
citizenship to register to vote, or to allow states to require Social
Security numbers on voting registration applications--are needed or
necessary to ensure the accuracy and validity of our nation's
elections. A grand jury in California, and the Republican Secretary of
State, concluded that no fraud occurred in this election of a
Democratic member of Congress. After 13 months and $2 million in
taxpayer's dollars in wasted funds, we have concluded 748 people may
have--I emphasize, may have--voted improperly. Of this total, 124 of
these ``suspect'' voters were elderly and disabled people who submitted
absentee ballots. In California, ten million people voted. This
resulted in one contested election, and of that, 748 votes may have
been improperly cast. While this is not perfect, a 99.99 percentage for
voting accuracy is certainly a pretty good electoral record.
We all want open, honest and fair elections and registration
processes. What should not happen, as a result of this decision by the
House Oversight Committee, is the further disenfranchisement of voters
by even more restrictive registration requirements. As we all know,
this would only be the beginning of the recurrence of poll watchers,
literacy tests, and poll taxes--other relics of a bygone era that died
with the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These, and other
further and unwarranted voting rights restrictions, hinder the progress
and freedom of not just minorities, but of all Americans. Tomorrow will
mark the anniversary of the founding of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC), an organization founded by the late
Martin Luther King, Jr. As we all know, it was the courage, bravery and
dedication of a current resident of my Congressional District, Rosa
Parks, whose single-minded refusal to negotiate her principles, led in
no short measure to the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the
1965 Voting Rights Act. Thirty-three years later, I am afraid that we
are witnessing the beginning of the end of that hard fought battle.
I am also concerned about this legislation's precedence for tort law.
While I am not an attorney, it was my belief that one of the principles
in law is that the loser pays. It befuddles and confuses me as to why
the legal bills of the loser, former Representative Robert K. Dornan,
are being reimbursed along with those of the winner, Representative
Loretta Sanchez. It is unfortunate that Congressman Hoyer's attempt to
eliminate this patently unfair provision was not approved by the
Committee.
I fully support the full and unfettered access to registration and
voting for all U.S. citizens. I will continue to fight against any
further erosion of the Voting Rights Act, and encourage my colleagues
in Congress to do the same. Access to voting denied to a single senior
citizen casting an absentee ballot, to a newly-naturalized citizen, or
someone who has voted in the last several elections, based on a
peremptory analysis of one's race, creed or ethnicity, is access to
voting denied to us all.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney), a member of the contested election task force.
Mr. NEY. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me go over a few, I think, important points of what
occurred through the task force. I want to commend the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his integrity and thoroughness on the issue,
and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman, and
all members of the task force for going through the entire process.
But the task force found evidence of over 700 illegal voters. Now 124
of those were illegal absentees, according to the Orange County
Registrar, because of the procedure. But also in the area of
noncitizens, 600 noncitizens, based on matching of INS and voter lists,
in fact voted in this election. Now that is two-thirds of the entire
total margin of victory.
I know we cannot say who they would have voted for. I fully realize
that. I do not know who those people would have voted for. But I think
it has got to be pointed out that in fact these 600 voters existed in
this election.
Now as far as the evidence of over 1,700 more illegal registrations,
there is evidence that there were 1,700 more. They did not vote but
they could have in any election throughout California or anywhere else;
if in fact illegal voters exist, they can vote.
Now the task force, I think this is important, confirmed that 60
percent of Hermandad's registration was illegal. That bothers me
because Hermandad Nacional Mexicana registered 1,160 persons. Sixty
percent were not properly registered, they were illegal. And that means
that taxpayers across this country also, because there were taxpayers'
dollars involved with this group, paid for that. Now I do not think
that is a good use of any taxpayers' dollars across this country. I
think the conclusion is the system for detouring voter fraud is flawed.
I just want to say something about the attack on voters' rights. This
is not an attack on voters' rights. This is standing up as the United
States House of Representatives, in a United States congressional
election, and supporting voters rights. All we ask is that those voters
be citizens. And under the California law, they were not citizens.
So the final conclusion of this task force, I think, points out that
it is not about who won or lost, but it is about the American people,
who become very, very apathetic in voting across the country. And
American people know that the United States House looked
[[Page H456]]
into illegal voters and that after this we follow up together on a
bipartisan basis to ensure that the best elections are held in any
State and in any district across the country.
The bottom line of this is that there has been a lot of things said
and people's emotions. If we listen to our voice mail, threats run both
sides I guess. But I think that the significant point to this is that
at the end of the day, when Bob Dornan came to us and said that there
were illegal voters, Bob Dornan was right, there were illegal voters,
600 noncitizens in that election.
But the other thing that Bob Dornan did with his tenacity, and I know
nobody likes these types of hearings, it is not pleasant for anybody,
but it does point out that in fact we have flawed elections in the
country, elections, the election process, that we have to correct if we
expect voters to have confidence in the United States congressional
elections or in elections all the way down through the courthouse level
across this country.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I want to say just to clarify as this debate proceeds, our side
believes, based upon what we have been able to count, we categorically
deny that there is substantial proof that there is anywhere near the
number of 600, 500, 400, 300, 200 confirmed noncitizen voters in this
election.
Now, the majority has not shown us their analysis yet, so we cannot
analyze their figures. But ours show that their figures are wildly
inflated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this has got to be a bittersweet moment for the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The women Members of
Congress rejoiced when a new woman joined us in 1996, bringing the
number of Hispanic women finally to four. But my colleague was forced
to win her seat twice; first at the polls, and then from a baseless
challenge in the Congress itself.
Her ordeal has been unworthy of a body that promises democracy and
fair representation. But she has shown herself to be a fighter
extraordinaire. The attempt to steal her seat has raised her status
from simply one more excellent new Member to one of heroic proportions
throughout this country.
The best way to make this one right is for every Member of this House
to congratulate her and wish her well. Loretta, you won, not once but
twice.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the time on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 14\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Maryland has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have two or three people coming. We moved
pretty quickly here, and we are waiting for somebody to yield to.
Would the gentleman like to take one speaker, then we will take one?
Mr. THOMAS. My understanding from the Speaker is that you have 10
minutes more than we do. And it is usually customary in debate to try
to even the time up. You have 25 minutes. We have 14.
Mr. HOYER. If you have one more short speaker, if you will take that,
then we will take a long stretch of time to do exactly that.
Mr. THOMAS. I tell the gentleman that I have a number of speakers
that want to speak a long time. The outrage of what went on requires a
lot of time consumption.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), distinguished ranking member.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I come to
the floor today. This last 14 months need not have occurred. What was
clear from the very beginning was that the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Sanchez) had won her seat in Congress, she had won it by a
substantial majority, a majority that exceeded the majority of the
Speaker of the House in a previous election. The process we went over
which lasted these months was completely irregular.
{time} 1115
It was partisan, it was an attempt to create a crisis where none
existed, and frankly, it is the wrong message to send to the American
people. In a country that has virtually half its citizens not
registered and only half of them showing up to the polls, with the
percentage of people voting and registering on a continuous decrease,
this is a wrong message to send to America.
It is clear from the very beginning, from the court action taken in
this case, that this was a legitimate victory; and the only reason we
may be here today is over a battle of several elections ago in a case
in Indiana, nothing to do with the gentlewoman from California. Had the
majority adhered to the law, we would have dismissed this motion in its
first days.
Our previous colleague, Mr. Dornan, maybe properly thought, but when
he looked at several homes in the district and found 18 people with
different names in one house, that there was something irregular. One
house turned out to be an establishment for a religious order; the
other was a military facility or house where military individuals lived
together quite legally, all registered legally. And if polling
information tells us anything, the Marines probably voted for Mr.
Dornan, and he might have even gotten a small portion of the religious
order as well.
We need to end this process today, and I will vote for this
resolution, although there is much in this resolution that is
inaccurate, and it seems to be a rationalization in the last 14 months.
My daughter happens to be here today, and I was waiting until she got
here with a class from this community of new immigrants to America. My
parents came to this country in 1949, and by 1950-1951 we were living
in the State of Connecticut. My parents broke no laws. When my mother
saw a uniformed officer, she would tremble because of her experiences
under the Nazis and Stalin.
To have a major political party in this country have a record where
it put ballot security police only in areas of immigrants is an outrage
to what this country stands for. We ought to be encouraging new
immigrants to participate in this system, not trying to intimidate them
from that participation.
The laws we have in this country need to focus on fraud. The grand
jury found none. Where there are humans, there are mistakes, but this
was a clean and fair election, and what we do here today is right, but
it is late. Let us move forward and free this district and give the
honor and respect to our colleague she deserves.
I would like to particularly mention the great work the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has done in this case, and appreciate his
efforts in this one and a previous election.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased that the primary argument being made is
once again name calling and guilt by association. In the minority's own
views that were filed today, they say there may have been mistakes,
problems or even illegalities in the election in the 46th district. Our
job was to get to the bottom of that. I am just sorry that there was an
attempt to argue something entirely different than what this was about,
and apparently it continues on the floor even today. It simply will not
wash.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, when the integrity
of our election process is in question, it is certainly something that
should be investigated when we have made it more easy for illegal
aliens to register to vote with this motor voter program that was put
in place several years ago. Of course, we want to make sure that the
people who are voting in elections are legally entitled to vote;
otherwise we are diminishing the rights of our own people.
This is a case that should have been investigated. Something smelled
about that election from day one. Hermandad has received a great
number, a great amount of Federal funding. Hermandad, an organization
that was deeply involved in Loretta Sanchez's campaign, received
Federal funds, and they ended up registering to vote people who are not
entitled to vote. Sixty percent of the people in that, who are
[[Page H457]]
registered by that organization, were not legal voters.
This is something that deserved to be looked into, and I think that
we have not proven or disproven exactly who won or did not win that
election in the 46th.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield
2 minutes to the distinguished chairperson of the Hispanic Caucus, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the voters of the 46th Congressional
District have reason to celebrate. After a year of investigation and
political posturing with a taxpayer price tag of $1 million, the
Republican leadership has been forced to give up its investigation
because it has found nothing to substantiate its claims that the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) was not duly elected by the
voters in her district.
The 46th District can celebrate with pride because, in spite of
Republican attacks and efforts to discredit their vote and their
Congresswoman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), fought
back with dignity and honor to protect their right to elect their
representative while at the same time working diligently and
effectively on their behalf in the halls of Congress.
It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership refuses to accept
the facts and gracefully allow the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez) to serve her district. Instead they have chosen to resort to
tactics unworthy of their leadership position by introducing this
unfairly worded resolution.
Nonetheless, this issue must be dismissed, and I ask my colleagues to
vote aye.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the 46th district of the State of California (Ms.
Sanchez), making it clear that at no time was there any evidence or
allegation that she did anything other than act properly during the
election in the 46th District.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) for this time and for his diligent and effective representation
for the citizens of Orange County. I thank also the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who have each carried a
special burden in this cause. And to all of my colleagues on this side
of the aisle and to a handful on the other, congratulations.
They were right. When others were spreading false and dark and
shameful allegations of criminality and conspiracy, they stood tall for
justice, and their judgment was confirmed by 19 honest citizens on a
grand jury of Orange County.
It was unfortunate to call this process an election contest. It
causes some to think that this is a game. It is serious business
whenever we contemplate throwing out a single ballot in any race,
especially when a voter has never been confronted with the evidence
against them.
It is not over. In the coming days the committee intends to have
these suspects purged from the voting rolls despite overwhelming
evidence that the vast majority were legal voters last November.
I hold here in my hand an official document of the committee.
However, the committee is so ashamed of this political hit piece it
would not even put its own name on it. I say to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), his document contradicts his own task force
chair, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
It is rebutted by 4 sworn statements. It is refuted by the
indisputable fact that the accuser claims he was in possession of an
absentee ballot even before they were distributed by the Republican
registrar of Orange County. And finally, he leaves out the fact that he
was a disgruntled fired employee of a school district and that he made
his accusation against a school board member who refused to order his
reinstatement and who was not an employee of my committee.
A word about racism: We searched the Congressional Record for the
last Congress and found 50 occasions when this House and the other body
debated race-based outcomes. Of course, those references to racial
preferences and reverse discrimination and race-based set-asides were
about affirmative action. Whenever this Congress subpoenas government
records of Americans at the INS, for a narrow slice of time in a small
geographic region the outcome will be race-based.
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, the outcome would unfairly target Dutch
immigrants; in San Francisco, the Chinese immigrants; in Miami, the
Cubans would be unfairly labeled; and in Providence, Rhode Island, it
would be Italians. Racism is persistent and as real today as it was 100
years ago.
As we honor the birth of a great leader, President Lincoln, let us
resolve to understand these issues and to open our minds to do more to
end this bias against any ethnic or racial subgroup.
I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) I heard and understood him
on this issue, and therefore I extend an invitation. If he will permit
me to join him in a school in his district to discuss voter fraud or
anything else, I will host him in my district to do the same.
And to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), he says the
Contested Election Act needs changes. I invite him to sit down with my
staff and to do bipartisan reform.
And to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), his district and
mine have serious problems with water reclamation projects. Half of our
State today is declared an emergency. Could we not begin tomorrow by
working together on this important issue?
And to the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), I know
of his proposal to launch a new effort in America's schools to teach
civics. I challenge him to expand his ideals and ensure that every 17-
year-old spends time learning about registration, the electoral system.
Give them hands-on experience. Let them see what voting is about. We
must do more to reverse the decline in voter participation in this
country of ours.
And finally, I am reminded of 2 Sundays ago when I was the guest of
honor at a Catholic mass in my district. The priest gave a sermon about
rejection, the rejection Jesus felt when he was turned against and the
rejection his Orange County parishioners felt when their votes were
cast in doubt.
Today, Orange County is celebrating the dismissal of this case. I am
going home to tell those parishioners that the faith they placed in
this democracy has been honored, that they have not been rejected by
those who stood tall in their defense, that here, uniquely in this
world, justice will ultimately prevail on behalf of the voters of
Orange County.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, included in that list, I hope, is working together to
make sure that the modernizations in the INS that have been requested,
including digitized photographs and fingerprints, are part of that
order so that we can once and for all guarantee that the voting rolls
are clean.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution
beofre the House to dismiss the election challenge by Congressman
Robert Dornan.
I believe the House is setting a terrible precedent on how to handle
a contested election. Each Member is being asked to vote one way or the
other on this highly important matter, but the vast majority of the
Members have been unable to read, let alone see, the report from the
House Oversight Committee regarding the contested election.
My staff has been trying since last Friday to obtain a copy of the
committee report to review the details of this case. As of this
morning, my staff still has not been able to get a copy.
This is no way to dismiss a contested election. How can I, as a
Member of this body, fairly determine the accuracy of the House
Oversight investigation without having the ability to review its
report.
The Committee has discounted 624 votes. Beyond these votes, the
Committee has listed an additional 196 votes as indicating
circumstantial illegal noncitizen voting.
But the Committee is not adding the 196 additional possible illegal
votes to the total. Why?
[[Page H458]]
We have not been shown adequately why the 196 votes have not been
added to the total. If we add the 124 absentee ballots that have been
disallowed by Orange County and the recent subtraction of another 26
votes by the County due to voting in a non-residence and double
registering, the total illegal votes documented and alleged is now 970.
Ms. Sanchez had been originally designated the winner by 979 votes,
but now we have indication that a possible 970 votes were cast
illegally--providing Ms. Sanchez with a victory by just nine votes.
Are we ready to dismiss an election challenge that has been deemed to
have been won by 9 votes with over 900 potential illegal votes.
I do not believe we have given this election challenge its absolute
fair review and the Committee has not done its job of informing the
Members of the details of its investigation.
County of Orange,
General Services Agency,
Santa Ana, CA, January 17, 1997.
William R. Hart,
Hart, King & Coldren,
Santa Ana, CA.
Dear Mr. Hart: Our office has concluded its review of the
various lists submitted by you on December 17, 1996. Though
it would be inappropriate to discuss individual voter
records, I have provided below summary data which should
clarify and offer perspective on the issues you have raised.
business addresses
Of the 50 addresses submitted representing 122 voters, 8 of
the addresses representing 29 voters were duplicated on your
list. The resulting 42 addresses representing 93 voters were
reviewed by staff. From the review the following was
determined:
39 addresses representing 88 voters were locations which
served as the voters' residence and, therefore, met criteria
for registering to vote.
2 addresses representing 4 voters were locations which were
not the voters' residence. Those records are being forwarded
to the District Attorney for review and appropriate action.
1 address representing 1 voter was improperly entered in
the computer system. The address information has been
corrected. Both addresses were within the same ballot type
for the general election.
registrations indicating the voter was under age
Two records were submitted which appeared to indicate the
voters were not 18 years of age at the time of election.
After reviewing the original and prior affidavits of
registration, staff has determined both individuals are over
18 years of age and the discrepancies were caused by data
entry errors.
absentee voter records
Of the 128 records submitted, 5 records were duplicated on
your list. The resulting 123 records were reviewed by staff.
From that review the following was determined:
59 records appear to have met the basic criteria of
absentee return in person, by certain authorized relatives,
or in emergency by a designated representative.
60 records do not appear to have strictly conformed to the
criteria of EC 3017 but were executed by the voter.
4 records that the absent voter had not properly executed.
duplicate registrations indicating possible double voting
Of the 114 registration groupings submitted, 17
registration groupings were duplicated on your list. The
resulting 97 registration groupings were reviewed by staff.
From that review the following was determined:
67 registration groups, though appearing to indicate
duplicated records on your list, were actually separate
individuals with similar registration data.
19 registration groupings had duplicate records. However,
after reviewing original documents, information does not
support the conclusion that any of these voters actually
voted twice. The duplicate registrations have been canceled.
11 registration groupings, representing 11 voters, have
been referred to the District Attorney for review for
possible Elections Code violations.
addresses with 6 or more registered voters
Of the 145 addresses submitted with 6 or more registered
voters, two addresses were also submitted and reviewed as
part of the business address list. Staff reviewed the
remaining 143 addresses with the following result.
127 addresses appear to be residences with multiple
families or large family groups.
11 addresses are apartment complexes.
5 addresses are large residential facilities.
affidavits potentially held more than 3 days before submittal to the
registrar of voters
Holding records for more than three days not affect the
voter's eligibility to vote.
``Voted Tape'' and ``Statement of Votes'' do not Match
The ``voted tape'' is a tape of voter history and is not
utilized in the official canvass. The ``voted tape'' is a
computer product which is created from a static file of
active voter registrations as of 29 days prior to the
election and which are still active when the tape is created
after the election and who have voted in the election. As a
result the ``white provisional'' (NVRA Fail Safe) voters and
``new citizen'' voters are not included on the ``voted
tape''. In addition, records canceled between election day
and the creation of the tape will not appear on the ``voted
tape''. Some voted records will not accurately reflect the
method of voting.
The data you submitted was compiled by ``regular'' precinct
and not ``consolidated voting'' precinct. This accounts for
many of the discrepancies in the detail portion of your list.
Due to the nature of the ``voted tape'' and the fact that the
Statement of Votes is compiled by ``consolidated voting''
precinct, this office will address only the summary totals on
your report.
The report submitted indicated 106,255 ballots cast on the
Statement of Votes and 104,270 voters on the ``voted tape''.
Staff has reviewed our ``voted tape'' and has determined
there are 104,447 individual voter records on the ``voted
tape''. Therefore, that shall be the base number used.
``Voted tape'' total.......................................... 104,447
``White provisional'' voters not included on ``voted tape''... 666
``New citizen'' voters not included on ``voted tape''......... 218
Canceled records not included on ``voted tape''............... 464
---------
Total..................................................... 105,795
This leaves a difference between the ``voted tape'' and the
Statement of Votes of 460 records. The 460 records indicate
an average of two data entry errors per ``consolidated
voting'' precinct.
The information you have submitted has been valuable in
providing an additional opportunity for this office to review
various aspects of our operation. Thank you for bringing your
concerns to my attention.
Very truly yours,
Rosalyn Lever,
Registrar of Voters.
{time} 1130
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), one of our deputy whips.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) not only for yielding, but for all
of his work on behalf of not only the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez), but our community, which looks at this case with great, great
interest.
Mr. Speaker, the dismissal of this witch hunt is a victory for
justice and integrity and respect for the electoral process. It is a
victory for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the
people of California's 46th District who elected her. It is also a
victory for the Hispanic American community who stuck together and
fought this battle, despite attacks on our privacy, on our honor, and
on our very citizenship, our citizenship.
They underestimated how much that meant to us, those of us from
families who came here fleeing political persecution, or from nations
without basic rights know and honor the value of our vote. That truth
was on our side, and that truth won out.
Mr. Speaker, 15 months ago, Bob Dornan claimed a vast conspiracy of
voter fraud stole that election from him, but the California Secretary
of State did not find any evidence to proof his charges, a grand jury
in Orange County did not find enough proof to issue a single indictment
in the case. The exhaustive taxpayer-funded $1 million, 14-month
investigation produced no ultimate proof to overturn the election, and
the Republican-dominated oversight committee itself was forced to
recommend dismissing the charges because there was not enough evidence
to back up Mr. Dornan's outrageous charges.
One would think that all of these facts would be enough for
Republicans to admit that Mr. Dornan's claims were simply false.
Instead, in this resolution, Republicans blame various government
agencies and officials, from the INS to the U.S. Justice Department, as
well as various witnesses in the case, for preventing them from getting
the proof they needed.
I have another, more rational explanation for the lack of evidence.
It does not exist. That is the reality, and that is why Hispanic
Americans across the country are today rejoicing in this decision but
not forgetting in November about what some in this House tried to do to
our basic rights.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?
[[Page H459]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn), a former member of the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn)
is recognized for how long?
Mr. THOMAS. One minute, Mr. Speaker, plus the time that people have
been getting after each speaks.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the Committee on
House Oversight because I think that the committee has shown great
courage in considering this challenge to an election.
For decades, we never took a second look at challenges and there was
a deal made between both sides of the House of Representatives, and
nothing was ever done. I think there were among those four decades of
challenges probably some very good and useful basis. However, why I am
particularly thankful to Chairman Thomas and the committee for looking
at this challenge is that it has brought to public view some very
serious problems that exist for people who run elections and for
citizens who should have the right to elect their own representatives
themselves.
Specifically, I am talking about the whole area of motor voter and
the whole area of the requirement that one must be a citizen before he
or she votes. I did work as a party chairman in Washington State for 11
years, and I must say we had the cleanest elections of all of the
States in the Nation during that time. Most of it is due to the success
of our Secretary of State, Ralph Munro, who himself was an early
supporter and initiator of motor voter.
But the problem exists in this sort of scenario, Mr. Speaker. Last
year when I renewed my driver's license, the man behind the counter
asked me to come back there and look at some documents. He showed me a
stack of documents this high that he told me were illegal documents
used by people to get their driver's licenses, upon which they would
get the guaranteed right to vote. Those were people who were not
citizens, then using the national ability of a citizen to vote.
This is a big problem, and to the degree to which this investigation
leads us to analyze and do oversight over the whole motor voter issue
so that citizens will be required to vote, and that people who are not
citizens of our great Nation will not have the authority to put into
positions representatives of our Nation I think is a great achievement
of this investigation, and I look forward to those oversight hearings
that the Committee on House Oversight will have and to our Secretary of
State, Ralph Munro, for providing testimony, as he has agreed to do and
looks forward to doing.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we consider today an issue that is perhaps the most
fundamental issue that can come before the House: Who shall be elected
representative of a congressional district. It is a decision that the
Constitution of the United States places in the hands of two entities.
First instance, the voters of our districts, the people, and then
secondly, the Members of this House to judge whether that election was
conducted properly.
It is, therefore, a matter of great importance that should be
approached with caution, serious consideration, thorough and fair
analysis, and nonpartisanship. It is with regret, frankly, that I stand
before my colleagues today to say that while I believe the decision the
majority is recommending is correct and appropriate, the process that
preceded that decision is not one I hope that future Congresses will
replicate.
The procedures set forth in the Federal Contested Election Act, under
which this contested election was supposed to be considered, are quite
clear and have been used under Democratic and Republican majorities.
The procedures that the task force and the committee undertook in this
election contest were not consistent with the act, in my opinion, and
were not fair, and were certainly not bipartisan.
From the beginning of this contest, I repeatedly sought a bipartisan
process whereby we could agree on the procedures and the issues before
us. I was disappointed that throughout the last 14 months, those
efforts were continually and consistently rebuffed. So closed has this
process been that as I stand before my colleagues today, I have only
just received a copy of the majority's report. In fact, contrary to
assertions and commitments that were made to me, I have never been
given the majority's analysis of the votes in question to this very
day. I, nor any other Member on this floor, with the possible exception
of the two Republican task force members and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), have seen the analysis on which the numbers
that we have heard earlier today are based.
It is incomprehensible to me that I come to the well of this House
with absolutely no idea how the majority reached its findings. Although
I am a full member of the task force, I have yet to see the list of
names behind the numbers on the majority's report. I have agreed to
keep that confidential, and I appreciate the chairman's observation
that in fact every name has been kept confidential.
However, because the minority, after a fight, had access to the data
received from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I can make
some judgments about the majority's numbers.
My colleagues cannot read this chart, I understand, any better than
we could read the majority's chart. Why? Because as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) said, it has been a complicated process. But I
point out to my colleagues only that the minority staff, smaller and
with less information, did, in fact, analyze and go through all of the
votes and all of the names that were generated during the course of
this investigation.
The minority staff on the Committee on House Oversight undertook an
extensive and exhaustive analysis of the data from the INS and other
sources. The minority undertook a diligent and exhaustive review of the
records before us.
An enormous database was developed which included information on
Orange County registrants who potentially matched an INS individual,
all naturalization data about the individual that was available,
including electronic and hand written notations, and all relevant
information about the individuals registration date and voting status.
First, the minority had to reduce the massive list to those who
actually voted in the 46th Congressional District, from this database
we were able to discern individuals who had gender conflicts, obvious
first name mismatches, obvious middle name mismatches, and individuals
who were clearly American citizens by virtue of birth, parentage or
naturalization date.
The INS repeatedly warned that their data could not be relied on for
the purpose it was being used. Short of face-to-face interviews, we
will never know for sure that the individual from the INS is indeed the
same individual as the Orange County voter. Yet, given that caveat,
some conclusions about the majority's number can be stated.
I can tell my colleagues that the number of voters who are described
as illegal, noncitizen voters is greatly exaggerated, and that the
majority's own evidence shows this. I want to show my colleagues a
chart where we have analyzed some, not all, about 150, of the 346 or so
that may be voters who are not identified by naturalization date. The
fact of the matter is that we have found that 93 percent of the
signature matches on suspect lists referenced by the, 93 percent, were
in fact U.S. citizens on November 5, 1996.
I can tell my colleagues that rather than stonewalling and being
uncooperative, the INS responded to more than 20 separate committee
requests for either electronic data matches or paper file reviews. The
INS has provided approximately 8,000 worksheets and nearly 3,700
signatures for the committee. I would tangentially inform everybody in
this House, as I have before: This process has never been pursued
before in the history of this Republic; not when the Irish immigrants
moved into Boston, not when the Italian immigrants moved into
Providence; not when the Polish immigrants moved into Chicago; not when
the Jewish population moved into New York; never before in the history
of America. Not once has this process been pursued.
Mr. Speaker, 72 different INS field offices, including five INS
foreign offices, as well as district offices, sub-offices, service
centers, asylum offices and headquarters assisted the committee in
[[Page H460]]
this investigation. I can tell my colleagues that within 7 days of
being subpoenaed by the Committee on House oversight, the INS provided
the committee with its first list of names, over 500,000 from around
the country. There were less than 110,000 people who voted in the
congressional race in the 46th District, yet 500,000 names were
generated by the INS in response to the majority's request.
I can also tell my colleagues that of the 748 votes that the majority
contends are illegal votes by noncitizens, 124 of them concern absentee
ballots. The registrar of elections who did an outstanding job during
the course of the election and during the course of this investigation,
Roz Lever, said that in a less contested election, she would count.
Why? Because the only thing wrong with that citizens' vote was that it
was delivered by the wrong person under the statute. It was an absentee
ballot. It may have been a neighbor rather than a husband that was able
to deliver that ballot, but they were citizens of the United States of
America. Their citizenship was never in doubt. Although the majority
talks about 748 noncitizens voting, they know that number is
exaggerated.
Furthermore, I can tell my colleagues that beyond these absentee
ballots, hundreds, hear me now, hundreds of the so-called illegal,
noncitizen voters are indeed citizens, and have been for a very long
time. While some may not have been citizens when they registered, a
bone of legal contention, and I understand that, they were citizens
when they voted. The massive net that the majority cast over the past
14 months included individuals that had been citizens prior to 1996,
and hear me now, have been citizens of this country for over 20 years
that are in the list that the majority has projected.
Let me make clear, at no time was there any credible evidence to show
anything other than the election of Loretta Sanchez. When Robert
Dornan's initial allegations proved groundless, that should have been
the end of this matter. But the majority wanted to prove a point. They
wanted, for the first time ever to move the Federal contested elections
act beyond a motion to dismiss. When even that effort proved fruitless,
they turned to the INS.
This matter has taken longer than it should have, Mr. Speaker. The
committee has had in its possession the evidence that it needed to
reach today's conclusion for at least 5 months.
If the committee's initial request to the INS had been more focused,
rather than the 500,000 person fishing expedition it was, we could have
finished sooner. If the majority had managed the procedures of this
case in a thoughtful and expeditious manner, rather than letting
motions objecting to Mr. Dornan's overly broad and intrusive sit for
months, we could have finished earlier. If we could have come together
and reviewed the evidence together, rather than duplicating staff and
committee resources, we could have come to this House sooner.
Some people on this floor continue to talk about fraud. The district
attorney had an extensive investigation. Allegations were made on this
floor about individuals and about organizations.
{time} 1145
The grand jury of California refused to indict a single person or
single organization after hearing the evidence. As I said earlier, at
no time was the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) ever, ever
implicated in any wrongdoing. It is right and proper that we sustain
her election today.
The facts have told a different story than were originally projected.
After a yearlong investigation by the DA no crimes have been found. The
DA of Orange County could not convince a grand jury of 19 citizens to
indict anyone. The gentlewoman from California has been found, as we
knew it to be the case, to have won this election. Mr. Speaker, I am
glad this has finally come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I will offer a motion to
recommit so that the only thing in the resolutions is to do what we
should have done in February of last year: Dismiss this complaint that
did not provide credible evidence, as required by precedents for the
last 30 years, to show anything other than the gentlewoman from
California won cleanly, fairly, and obviously the election in the 46th
Congressional District in 1996.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, would you please indicate to me how much
time is remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the Committee on House Oversight.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is one of
the most important responsibilities given to the Congress, and that is
to be a judge of its own Members in contested elections.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about fraud in a contested Federal
election. This important responsibility is not a game of horseshoes
where if we get close, we win. This is about one of the most sacred
responsibilities and opportunity every American has, and that is to
cast an honest and fair and open ballot.
The question today is, did fraud occur? And the answer is yes, fraud
did occur in this. We have information from the county, we have
information from the State, we have information from Federal agencies.
But we just heard the gentleman from Maryland speak at the well who
said that we do not have all the information necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I today protest the closing down of this investigation
of fraud, and I am dismayed by what has taken place by some on the
other side, what they have done. The tactics are, first of all, smear
the investigation. Try to discredit it. Call it partisan. Call it a
witch-hunt. Fail to cooperate. And not just that side of the aisle, but
Federal agencies, INS, the Department of Justice. And then some who
have been involved in this fraud have fled the country so we cannot
talk to them. Does all of this sound familiar?
Finally, the most repugnant part of the tactics of the other side is
to come and disrupt the proceedings of the floor. My concerns is that
we cannot act through intimidation in this process. We cannot act
through obstruction. We cannot act through delay. If we pervert the
electoral process, we destroy faith and confidence in the entire
system.
Mr. Speaker, this election is one of the worst cases of voter fraud
in the history of Federal elections. Again, this is not a game of
horseshoes. This is a fact that we have got to 700 and we have stopped
counting.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has spent millions and millions of dollars
to ensure fair elections in Haiti, in Bosnia, in countless developing
nations and developing democracies across the world. Yet, we cannot
ensure an honest election and fair election in the 46th District and
there are still on the rolls 1,700 illegal voters, according to our
information.
Let me say that history will record the closing down of this
investigation of fraud and this election with disdain. My grandparents
were all immigrants. The greatest day in their life was when they
became an American citizen. The second greatest day was when they were
able to cast a vote, because they often did not have that opportunity
from where they came.
The integrity of that vote has been disparaged here today. What have
we done to the vote that I and they cherish? If those who close down
this investigation were taking a wrecking ball to the side of this
House of Representatives' chambers, I do not believe they could do more
damage to this institution than what they are doing today.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many speakers that the
majority has left. I may be the only remaining speaker. Right now, we
do not have the other speakers here and we know where they are and they
are aware and they obviously cannot get back.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we have the right to close and we have two
speakers. Is the gentleman from Maryland saying that he is the only one
remaining or there will be additional ones arriving?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am the only remaining speaker
that we can find, because we note two of our speakers who want to
speak, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chairman of the
Hispanic Caucus, both wanted to speak. Both of them are at another
event right now. We are trying to get them here. I am the only speaker
remaining.
[[Page H461]]
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland indicates he is
the only speaker remaining, thus I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the forest almost gets lost for the trees.
Seven hundred forty-eight illegal votes were found by clear and
convincing evidence. Now I, like a number of other Members, sat down
and got debriefed by the committee and that was my question: When the
smoke cleared, were there illegal votes cast? Were there illegal voters
involved? The answer on both counts was yes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas),
chairman of the committee, to ask: Does this accurately represent the
finding of the committee?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, 748 illegal votes were
found by clear and convincing evidence.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that this investigation was not
driven by revelations that Bob Dornan produced. It was driven by the
Los Angeles Times' report by a Hispanic reporter who reported that the
Hermandad office had been raided and that 227 illegal voters, nonlegal
voters, had been identified by authorities. That is what started
driving this investigation, a Hispanic reporter.
Mr. Speaker, let me go to my second point. The Hispanic community is
not against this investigation. At least the Hispanic community that I
know. The Hispanic community that I served with in Vietnam. The
Hispanic community in Southern California that believes in having free
and fair elections.
Mr. Dornan, is a colleague and a friend who I traveled with to
Central America when the democracy of Salvador was in question, the
democracy of Honduras, the proposed democracy in Nicaragua was in
question. I met with him in one of the last meetings with Jose Duarte,
that great democrat of Salvador who brought them to freedom and
democracy, and Bob Dornan said, ``This is one of the great people in
our hemisphere. He is going to bring free elections to this country.''
Bob Dornan did exactly what every one of us would have done. If we
had had a narrow election in which we thought we had won on Election
Day, we were ahead in the votes, the absentee ballots came in when we
were behind. And then we had a story come out and tell us that raids
were being made and over 227 illegal voters had been found, which
Member in this Chamber would not have rightly contested that election?
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) spoke and said there
should have been no contest. The gentleman from Connecticut won one of
his elections by 23 votes. Now, what if he had been told by the major
newspaper in his town that 227 Republicans had been illegally
registered? Would he have pursued that? Let us clear away the political
baloney. Of course he would have pursued it. Of course we had a right
to do this. Of course Mr. Dornan did what every single other Member
would have done.
Now, he did not get the 900-plus votes that was the margin in the
election, according to the committee's report and its analysis. But
that was an incomplete report, in my view, for this reason: It did not
review any of the illegal aliens who voted. It only reviewed people,
the 10,000 or so people who had signed up with the system.
So if they never signed up with the system and if they were
registered by one of these bounty hunters who got 10 bucks for
registering and voting them for the party, like the bounty hunters who
registered and voted the guy who assassinated the Presidential
contender, Mr. Colosio in Tijuana, he was assassinated by a guy who had
been registered twice by the Democrat Party in Los Angeles, of all
places.
So those people who were registered, who were illegal aliens and who
were not citizens, who had not signed up to be naturalized, were not
identified. There is only one way to identify them. And the way to
identify them is very difficult, very hard, very expensive. It costs
about $5 million. We must go door to door and qualify every voter, once
a prima facie proof of fraud has been found of illegal voters. We go
door to door and we start with Adams and go to Ziegler and see if a
person is a legal voter. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of
time. That is the other 90 percent of voters in this district. We did
not do it.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Jones, secretary of state of California said, I
want to do it. He announced he was going to do it in March of 1997, and
he did not do it. He said, and I quote,
Given the current state of the law, my hands are for all
legal purposes tied. I am prevented from undertaking a large-
scale citizenship qualification check of the Orange County
voter file as I initially requested in March of 1997.
So, Mr. Speaker, put me down as feeling that this investigation is
incomplete. I am going to vote ``no'' because I think it is incomplete,
because once we made the prima facia showing of illegal voters we
should have taken the time and taken the expense of $5 million to check
the qualifications of every voter in the district.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but we have had another event
with the President going on. That is why we are having a little
trouble.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do this just to explain to all the Members
that I do not want them to think that I am getting special advantage
from the chairman. Mr. Speaker, am I correct if I called a quorum call
at this time, I would be in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is in the discretion of the Chair, and
the Chair does not have to entertain a call of the House at this time.
Mr. HOYER. But I could do that?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my assumption was that the time was ordered,
the time was allotted, and the time should be consumed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell), someone who has been extremely helpful in getting us to
understand the mathematical theories and the false assumptions that
have underlain previous attempts to examine elections.
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer that today we can put our
animosities behind us and that is the reason why I asked to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it is my view that the gentlewoman
from California ought to have her attorneys' fees paid, because she is
the prevailing party. I believe that in civil litigation, and that
should apply here.
{time} 1200
I also believe that my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has done a very fine job and that it was unfair
to criticize him as much as he has been criticized. He is an honest man
and he did his very best.
The same goes for my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas). What lasts from this, what comes out of this
that might be of permanent value is that we should in the future have a
standard for those cases where we cannot prove ballot-box stuffing, but
where the number of persons who voted, who should not have, exceeds the
margin of the outcome.
That is a case that is ambiguous in existing law. I think it is a
good rule, going forward, that when the number of cases of illegal
voters exceeds the margin, we have to hold a new election. That seems
to me safe.
Lastly I would say that the more important thing even than that
lesson is that we not let the rancor continue. I welcome my colleague
from California as a fellow Californian. I trust that all of us can put
this behind us for the good of our Congress and the good of our Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from California. The rancor
ought to pass from us. I will tell my friend from California that there
would have been far less rancor if this had been a more open process,
and we had felt included in this process.
[[Page H462]]
I think I have the reputation of being a fair Member who can work
with both sides of the aisle. I value that reputation and I value that
mode of operating. But I will tell my friend that there are clearly
some erroneous things that are being said on this floor: 748 illegal
votes. Nobody on this floor knows that there are 748 illegal votes that
were cast in this election. I guarantee it. I guarantee it as someone
who has worked pretty hard on this case, who has read all the
precedents, who has read not the majority report, because I just
received it at 10 minutes of 10:00, but read all of our report, all our
lawyers' reports, and investigated as much as I could with the time I
had available on matches of signatures.
We believe that there is a general issue here, but that, very
frankly, the House has been hurt in the attempt to establish a new
precedent with respect to the level of credible evidence necessary to
get a Member to the time when they have to respond to as prolonged and
expensive contest as this has been.
The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) said that we
were not proceeding on Mr. Dornan's allegations. He was absolutely
correct. It was the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that said
that. We believe that is the case. What we were proceeding on was
information garnered by the committee, not on the contestant's case.
Indeed, the contestant does not have all the information, in my
opinion, that he should have right now. But neither does the contestee.
But it is time for us to dismiss this case. It is time for us to go
beyond this and indeed it is time to free the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) from the bondage which has been this case, and
allow her to fully represent the people of the 46th District. She has
been doing so well and I know she will continue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), minority whip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Is the gentleman's intention to yield the additional
minute, if necessary, or is he going to reserve it?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will finish our time before yielding back.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) for his work on this, my colleague from New York and my
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my colleagues who worked on
this issue.
In 1996, the voters of Orange County elected Loretta Sanchez and they
defeated Bob Dornan. That is the way American democracy is supposed to
work. Voters get to choose who they want to represent them in the
Congress.
For the past 15 months Bob Dornan and the Republicans have forgotten
that. They questioned the integrity of thousands of Hispanic voters.
They wasted more than a million dollars of taxpayer money. They ran
after so many false leads, stumbled into so many dead ends, jumped to
so many conclusions, I am surprised they can still stand up today.
In the end, they came up empty. In the 15 months the Republicans
could find no evidence, no evidence that Loretta Sanchez did anything
but win her election fair and square. So the Republicans finally are
giving up. They are giving up because they have no case.
I do not really expect the Republicans will apologize to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), but they ought to. I do not
expect the Republicans will apologize to the thousands of Hispanic
Americans for questioning their right to vote merely on the basis of
their ethnic heritage, but they ought to. And I do not really expect
the Republicans will apologize to the voters of Orange County for
trying to undermine their constitutional rights, but they ought to.
Loretta Sanchez won the 1996 election fair and square. Grudgingly,
the Republicans have to acknowledge that. But now they are trying to
cover up their retreat with an ugly cloud of innuendo and a bill that
will be before us in just a few minutes to discourage minority voters
from casting their ballots at election time.
This campaign of intimidation has got to stop. Republicans must
accept that voters get to choose who they want represented in this
Congress.
Loretta, congratulations on your victory. Your courage is an
inspiration to us all.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We come to the end of a long and somewhat torturous time in this
House. I congratulate the majority for coming to its conclusion. I
think it is an appropriate and correct conclusion.
I regret the rhetoric that is included in the preamble to that
conclusion. I think it is erroneous. I disagree with it. For that
reason, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will make, as I said
earlier, a motion to recommit with instructions. That motion to
recommit will simply provide for the passage of the dismissal of the
complainant's contest. That is what we ought to do. That is what facts
show. It is time that we do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise with humility, and I
rise with a sense of freedom that today we will be able to free Loretta
Sanchez, finally free Loretta Sanchez.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic the picture that is painted by the now
minority in terms of this process. Would that someone who held a valid
election certificate signed by the chief election officer of their
State been allowed to be seated, the Democrats did not seat him. The
Republicans honored the certificate of election.
We do things differently than you do. You name-call. You argue that
there is no fraud in this election and yet, based upon your minority
report, you indicate that there were flaws in the election. You argue
that the INS data is not sufficient for us to prove our point, but you
use the same INS data to say that our point is invalid. You cannot have
it both ways.
I understand you are disappointed that you are no longer the majority
and you can not continue to shut down questionable elections as you did
for 40 years. But what this majority now will do on this case and in
the future is to get to the bottom of problems in elections.
One thing this House can do is thank Mr. Dornan because he looked at
the Contested Election Act and said, it is a catch-22 if people can
stonewall while trying to get to the bottom of it.
It has been said on your side that you need to know the truth. The
truth will set you free. What is wrong with trying to get to the bottom
of what happened in an election? If you try to find out who the honest
voters were, you are automatically a racist. If you try to determine an
accurate count, it is a ``witch-hunt.''
What in the world do you folks do with a recent headline that says
``INS Proposing Citizenship Test Overhaul''? There is a new screening
process to cut fraud and delays.
It was the political people, the political appointees of the
Department of Justice who stonewalled. We are familiar with that tactic
from this administration.
The professionals at INS cooperated initially in California. Had we
gotten that kind of cooperation, we would have brought this to a
conclusion much faster. We did not have a preordained result. We wanted
to get to the bottom of it. We have gotten to the bottom of it as best
we are able. We need to change the laws to fully understand who is on
the rolls, responsibly and properly, and who is not.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise to thank
my colleagues on the other side of the isle for finally having the
courage, after 15 months and over one million of wasted taxpayer
dollars spent, to dismiss the completely unfounded challenge of former
Congressman Dornan to the election of Loretta Sanchez.
This totally partisan investigation singled out Representative
Sanchez and the voters of the 46th District of California for
unparalleled scrutiny and harassment, the likes this body never saw
before.
After hounding Ms. Sanchez and the Hispanic-Americans in her District
for more than a year, with unfounded allegation after allegation, the
majority has finally come to accept what many of us have known from the
very
[[Page H463]]
beginning, which was: That Ms. Sanchez was duly elected by the lawful
voters of her district; and that officials in the State of California
including, the Orange County District Attorney and the California
Secretary of State, certified her election.
So I applaud my Republican colleagues for taking this action today.
While I believe that this resolution is 10 months too late in coming to
the floor, I am grateful that we can finally put this matter to rest
and Ms. Sanchez can get on with doing the job she was elected to do.
Thank you.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the
House Oversight Committee has decided to dismiss the election contest
against our colleague, Loretta Sanchez.
Of course, this action took an unconscionable amount of time--more
than a year has passed since Congresswoman Sanchez was seated in this
House. Of course, this action involved charges that on their face had
no merit but were nonetheless pursued. Of course, it is difficult to
understand the action--except as an attempt to intimidate and distract
a vulnerable new member of this House.
Nonetheless, I am pleased. And I would be glad to put this difficult
chapter behind us--except that the majority is intent on writing a new
chapter today.
The Oversight investigation turned up no evidence of large-scale non-
citizen voting--not in Orange County, and certainly not nationwide. Why
then are we being asked to consider this next piece of legislation? At
best, it is unnecessary--a solution in search of a problem. At worst,
it is an effort to intimidate naturalized American citizens from
exercising our most precious right--the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating
Loretta Sanchez--once again--in her election victory in November 1996.
And I urge them also to join me in opposing the unfair and unworkable
Horn bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all colleagues to vote aye and
I move the previous question on the resolution and on the preamble.
The previous question was ordered.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. HOYER. I am opposed to the preamble.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 355 to
the Committee on House Oversight with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike the preamble.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. THOMAS. As the motion was presented, it is its entirety. Can the
gentleman then be partially for and partially against a motion to
recommit? The gentleman is not opposed to the motion in its present
form?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman qualifies as being opposed to
the resolution because he is opposed to the preamble which is not to be
separately voted on under these circumstances. So therefore he is
opposed to the resolution in its present form and he qualifies at this
point.
The motion is not debatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194,
nays 215, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 15]
YEAS--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
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--215
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
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
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
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
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
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Buyer
Callahan
Clement
Conyers
Crane
Ensign
Eshoo
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson (WI)
Lantos
Miller (FL)
Mink
Peterson (PA)
Riggs
Rodriguez
Scarborough
Schiff
Smith (OR)
Solomon
{time} 1232
Mr. NEUMANN, Mr. NETHERCUTT and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SKAGGS, TAYLOR of Mississippi, KENNEDY of Massachusetts,
[[Page H464]]
and MURTHA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378,
nays 33, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 16]
YEAS--378
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--33
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Burton
Calvert
Chabot
Chenoweth
Crane
Cubin
Doolittle
Gekas
Gutknecht
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Jones
Kingston
Lewis (KY)
McIntosh
Mica
Norwood
Paul
Pombo
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
NOT VOTING--19
Buyer
Callahan
Clement
Edwards
Eshoo
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson (WI)
Lantos
Livingston
Miller (FL)
Mink
Riggs
Schiff
Smith (OR)
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Wise
{time} 1252
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________