[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.

                          ____________________