SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT IN THE CASE OF DORNAN VERSUS SANCHEZ
(House of Representatives - September 30, 1997)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H8253-H8262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT IN THE CASE OF DORNAN VERSUS SANCHEZ

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 244) demanding that the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the Central District of California file criminal 
charges against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to comply with 
a valid subpoena under the Federal Contested Elections Act, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 244

       Whereas the contested election case of Dornan v. Sanchez is 
     pending before the Committee;
       Whereas the Federal Contested Elections Act (2 U.S.C. 381 
     et seq.) (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 
     ``Act'') provides for the issuance of subpoenas, and on March 
     17, 1997, United States District Court Judge Gary L. Taylor 
     issued such a subpoena at the request of the Contestant for 
     the deposition and records of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional;
       Whereas on April 16 1997, the Committee voted to modify the 
     subpoena by limiting production of documents to the 46th 
     Congressional District (among other modifications), and as 
     perfected by the Committee, the subpoena required Hermandad 
     Mexicana Nacional to produce documents and appear for a 
     deposition no later than May 1, 1997;
       Whereas Hermandad Mexicana Nacional failed to produce 
     documents or appear for the deposition by May 1, 1997, and 
     still has not complied with the subpoena;
       Whereas Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, by willfully failing 
     to comply with the lawfully issued subpoena, is in violation 
     of section 11 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 390), which provides for 
     criminal penalties;
       Whereas on May 13, 1997, the Contestant wrote to the United 
     States Attorney for the Central Distract of California, Nora 
     M. Manella, requesting that action be taken to enforce the 
     law with respect to Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, and on June 
     23, 1997, the Committee wrote to the Department of Justice 
     inquiring as to the status of this request for criminal 
     prosecution, and the Department responded on July 25, 1997, 
     that the criminal referral remain ``under review'';
       Whereas the United States Attorney's failure to enforce 
     criminal penalties for the violation of the Act encourages 
     disrespect for the law and hinders the Constitutionally 
     mandated process of determining the facts in the contested 
     election case, including the discovery of any election fraud 
     that may have influenced the outcome of the election; and
       Whereas on September 23, 1997, the United States District 
     Court for the Central District of California ruled that the 
     deposition subpoena provisions of the Act are constitutional: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives demands that 
     the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central 
     District of California carry out its responsibility by 
     filing, pursuant to its determination that it is appropriate 
     according to the law and the facts, criminal charges against 
     Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to comply with a 
     valid subpoena issued under the Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to House Resolution 
253, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it was contended earlier that this resolution really 
does not make the Department of Justice do anything.
  Of course we cannot, but what we can do is express the will of the 
House in terms of the direction that the Department of Justice should 
go, and as a matter of fact we pass concurrent resolutions all the 
time, and as a matter of fact, we have passed some recently.
  For example, in the instance of the burning of churches in the South, 
the concurrent resolution stated that Congress hoped that the 
Department of Justice would pursue with all vigor the criminals and 
prosecute them. The resolution did not mean that the Department of 
Justice was going to do it, but we felt strong enough that the House 
wanted to tell the Department of Justice what we thought they should 
do.
  What we are talking about in terms of asking the Department of 
Justice to look at is a direct violation of the law. The Contested 
Elections Act says that if someone does not honor a subpoena, they are 
deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and we want the Department of 
Justice to enforce the law.
  But probably in the greater sense, this is actually the story of 
victims. There are two major groups of victims. Directly the first 
group of victims are those documented aliens who placed their trust in 
becoming citizens in the hands of an organization who betrayed their 
trust. Indirectly, there are victims, and those are the citizens who 
voted and trusted the authorities, us, to make sure their votes were 
not diluted unfairly and contrary to law. The group that betrayed the 
trust of documented aliens were people who were using government money, 
both Federal and State, purportedly to assist documented aliens to 
become citizens.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts said that perhaps Hermandad should 
be looked at as a victim rather than the individuals that I mentioned 
who are actually the real victims. Let us take a closer look at 
Hermandad. Tens of millions of dollars, taxpayer money, runs through 
this organization. They have broken both Federal and State law.
  According to a Los Angeles Times article in February of this year, 
Hermandad offered a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro to the winner of a lottery as 
an inducement to register to vote. The winner of the lottery who 
registered to vote through Hermandad was not a United States citizen. 
Although Hermandad is a tax-exempt organization that is prohibited from 
participating in partisan politics, subpoena records show that 
Hermandad ran endorsements for political candidates in its newspapers. 
It also, through its State-funded computers, tracked over $700,000 in 
campaign contributions,

[[Page H8254]]

sorted Members by election precinct, and logged potential voters' 
political views.
  A series of articles in the Los Angeles Times in April and May 
tracked the sordid financial record and the attempt to hide from the 
Government through stonewalling of the audits the misuse of money. 
Eventually an independent audit of Hermandad was carried out and it 
found that the group misspent or could not account for more than a half 
a million dollars of taxpayers' money.
  An audit found that in addition to workers not being paid for months, 
Hermandad owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal taxes and 
State employment benefits and they even stiffed Santa Anna Hospital 
Medical Center because they failed to repay a $27,000 loan. In fact, 
the California State Attorney General has recommended that Hermandad's 
nonprofit status be revoked for the failure to file necessary financial 
statements with the State.
  In addition, the records subpoenaed by the Orange County district 
attorney and evaluated by the Los Angeles region of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, prior to Washington shutting down that 
operation, discovered more than 300 people who voted who should not 
have voted according to the law of the State of California.
  There is a voter registration card used by people who register in the 
State of California. It starts off on the very top row, ``Are you a 
citizen?'' Two boxes, yes, no.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out that on the form that people sign it 
says, ``Are you a U.S. citizen? Check yes or check no.'' If one checks 
no, it says, ``If no, don't fill out this form.'' There is no argument 
about when they were going to become a citizen. If they were going to 
become a citizen prior to the election, it says ``If you're not a 
citizen, don't fill out this form. If you don't fill out this form, you 
aren't a registered voter. But if you fill out this form and you're not 
a citizen, you're in violation of the law.''
  Over here it says, ``Warning, it is a felony if you sign this 
statement even though you know it is untrue. Voter declaration: Read 
and sign below, I am a U.S. Citizen.''
  So we are talking about people who violated the law, but I think the 
individuals who cast those votes illegally were the victims. They were 
the victims because they were induced to do so by Hermandad.
  The gentlewoman from New York said, ``You know, there is no reason 
for us to try to pursue this resolution to get the Department of 
Justice to do something. Maybe we could clean it up with a simple phone 
call.''
  Several Members said, in fact, the gentleman from Maryland said, 
``Why don't we just write them a letter?" Perhaps the gentleman, 
notwithstanding the fact he is on the task force, is not familiar with 
the record, and I would ask that we place in the record a chronology, 
beginning on March 19 when we attempted to get Hermandad to simply 
follow the law; that is, to respond to a subpoena.
  The record runs through March, April, and May. We finally wrote to 
the Department of Justice and said, ``Please respond.'' Twice we wrote 
and said, ``Please respond.'' We got back, ``We are looking at it''.
  Into July, into August, and now into September, when there is a clear 
violation of the statute, there was no willingness to require Hermandad 
to produce documents. So we are here on the floor tonight to see if the 
House has sufficient resolve to simply tell the Department of Justice 
to carry out the law so that the task force can examine the other 
records that Hermandad has.
  As I pointed out under the rule, the subpoena of the Orange County DA 
did not cover all of the records of Hermandad because it covered a 
specific assigned subpoena in particular rooms. The civil subpoena, to 
which Hermandad has refused to respond, would provide additional 
documents.
  This organization is not a mom-and-pop struggling local operation. 
For half a century they have laundered Federal funds. They have now 
been exposed, and we still cannot get these people to respond to the 
law that is, ``Could we please take a look at what they did in creating 
a group of victims who were preyed on and probably in the worst 
possible way?'' These people placed their trust in an organization 
backed by taxpayers' dollars to make them U.S. citizens, and in fact 
they were used illegally for political purposes.
  The House of Representatives should tell the Department of Justice to 
enforce the law.

             Hermandad Mexicana Nacional Subpoena Timeline

       March 19: HMN Custodian of Records served with Dornan 
     subpoena.
       March 21: HMN files Motion to Quash Subpoena with CHO.
       April 6: CHO votes to modify Dornan subpoena to require 
     protective order and limit the scope of HMN subpoena and 
     authorize letter ordering response by May 1.
       April 18: CHO issues modifications to subpoenas issued by 
     Dornan on HMN and issues order to comply by May 1.
       May 13: Hart files criminal complaint against HMN with U.S. 
     Attorney Nora Manella.
       May 1: HMN fails to comply with Dornan subpoena deadline.
       June 2: Hart writes to Manella asking for a response to the 
     May 13 request for HMN prosecution.
       June 9: Hart writes to Manella asking for a response to the 
     May 13 request for HMN prosecution.
       June 17: Hart writes to House Oversight (CHO) asking for 
     assistance in soliciting a response from U.S. Attorney 
     regarding criminal complaint.
       June 23: CHO writes to DOJ Deputy Attorney General 
     requesting advisement on the status of the HMN criminal 
     complaint.
       June 30: CHO writes to DOJ Deputy Attorney General again 
     requesting advisement on the status of the HMN criminal 
     complaint.
       July 2: Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro writes to 
     Hart requesting that Hart return to Judge Taylor to seek 
     contempt order. Shapiro says that until such action is taken, 
     his office will not file criminal action.
       July 3: Hart writes to Assistant U.S. Attorney Shapiro to 
     explain that Judge Taylor has deferred all enforcement 
     responsibilities to CHO and that CHO has ordered HMN to 
     comply with Dornan's subpoena (April 18 letter from CHO to 
     HMN).
       July 8: Assistant U.S. Attorney Shapiro writes to Hart 
     requesting documents and supporting authority regarding 
     subpoena enforcement.
       July 16: Hart responds to Shapiro request citing Taylor's 
     Minute Order of April 16, 1997 which states that the House 
     has jurisdiction over the subpoenas issued by Dornan.
       July 21: Shapiro writes to Hart explaining that ``the 
     proper authority to resolve discovery dispute and enforce 
     these subpoenas is the House of Representatives.'' Shapiro 
     also questions the authority of the House to demand that the 
     U.S. Attorney act.
       July 25: Hart writes to CHO requesting that the Committee 
     issue an order directing the U.S. Attorney to investigate and 
     prosecute HMN.
       July 25: Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois writes to 
     CHO explaining that the HMN complaint is a matter ``still 
     under review''. He also states that ``further action by the 
     Congress may be necessary before their (U.S. Attorney for the 
     Central District) enforcement becomes ripe for judicial 
     attention.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The final speaker on the rule lamented the inclusion of race in this 
debate. In the crime statutes we have something called RICO, and it is 
used when there is a repeated pattern of activity in an organization 
that leads one to the conclusion that it is involved continuously in 
criminal activity. Let us take a look at the record here and why some 
people, some Hispanics and some non-Hispanics, could come to the 
conclusion that race might be part of this debate.
  In 1980 in New Jersey, the Republican Party brought people to the 
polls in uniforms to intimidate minority and Hispanic voters from 
voting. They filed a consent decree not to do it any more. In 1992, the 
Republican Party of California paid $400,000 for the very same 
activities. Today on the floor, earlier when we were speaking of the 
generic, trying to get an accurate census count, a count that a Bush 
census director said made sense, that the National Academy of Sciences 
said made sense, that the General Accounting Office said made sense, 
and that would undercount minorities if it was not used, was blocked by 
the Republican majority.

                              {time}  2245

  Once again, keeping minority voters out of the political process. And 
guess where we are tonight? We are on the Sanchez hunt.
  Now, this has not that much to do with Sanchez; this is a little 
diversion. As the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], in his 
normal manner so aptly represented to this Congress, we started off 
with what was almost a bill

[[Page H8255]]

of attainder, demanding that the Justice Department prosecute these 
people. We are now sending the Justice Department a resolution, hoping 
that if they choose and see it to be correct, that they move forward.
  Where are we and why are we here? The Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] defeated a Democratic rival by 10 
votes less than the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Sanchez] has won 
her race.
  The chairman of this committee is very concerned about leaks from the 
committee, and sometimes papers do get out here. I am not sure who lets 
those leaks out, but I have here from the Orange County Register, Mr. 
Dornan says, ``The seat will be vacated, there will be a new 
election.'' Dornan said his sources on the committee staff told him; 
goes on and on, and finally says that they will throw out the results 
of the election and give him the seat.
  Now, let us go back to where we started. Mrs. Sanchez won the 
election. Mr. Dornan came forward with complaints. He found there was 
one household that had 18 voters in it, all with different last names. 
Another one had 8 voters in it with different last names, and then 
there was someone who voted from their place of work, and they were 
investigated. We found 18 U.S. Marines, 8 nuns, and a zookeeper. That 
is what Mr. Dornan's charges came to.
  Now, in all of the races that we have had since the 1969 Act, we have 
not tried to find the INS as the arbiter of the results of the 
election, and there is a reason for that. If we ask the INS if we can 
use their data to figure out who should be on the voter list, they tell 
us we cannot do that because one's name ends up in the INS for lots of 
reasons. If one tries to get an aunt or an uncle over here, one's name 
ends up in the INS. Their documents maybe should be more perfect, but 
they will tell us, in every transmittal, that one cannot use these to 
figure out who votes and who does not vote and whether they should 
vote.
  We have now had 14 requests to the INS. We have had piles of names, 
as much as 500,000, in a district where just over 100,000 voted; we 
have had submission after submission, trying to keep enough smoke in 
the air so Mr. Dornan's prediction can be carried out.
  The standard for Members of this House ought to be pretty basic, and 
that is, if one wins by as many votes as the Speaker did, then one 
ought to be seated and one ought to be left alone. If there is 
skullduggery in this election and one cannot prove it after 10 months, 
after 11 months, do we keep this process going in an attempt to exhaust 
Mrs. Sanchez until the next election?
  My friends, what is clear here is there are people who see illegal 
aliens under every couch. They see them running across the border to 
vote in masses in districts across this country. They have nothing else 
to do but leave their homes in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America 
and come up here and vote. We do not have any evidence of it, but there 
are lots of suspicions.
  Today we have a simple matter, but it is a symbol of a case that has 
been carried on too long and ought to come to completion. Reject this 
as a symbol of our rejection of a process that has been unfair to Mrs. 
Sanchez, to her constituents, and to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], who is the chairman of the task 
force, a gentleman with unimpeachable integrity, a gentleman that 
brings pride on the House of Representatives.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of misinformation this 
evening. My purpose here is to simply try to lay out some facts and 
some information about the process that is used.
  First of all, recognize that nothing is more sacred to the democratic 
process than to ensure that each legitimate voter be allowed to vote 
and that their votes be counted. Furthermore, that the voter be assured 
that no illegal votes be allowed to be cast or to be counted.
  The principle of one person, one vote, or one citizen, one vote is 
extremely important in our system of government. So important, in fact, 
that the founders of our Nation decided to put it in the Constitution 
and ensure that the elections of the House were valid, and gave to the 
House itself the power, as we read in section 5 of Article I, near the 
beginning of the Constitution, that ``Each House shall be the judge of 
the elections, returns and qualifications of its own Members.''
  Now, any contestant or any loser in an election may file a petition 
for a contested election. The committee does not choose to file these; 
the House does not. All of this discussion about picking on a 
particular person because the attributes of that person is simply 
false. The House has no control over which elections are contested. The 
losers of the election make that decision, and I am sure in this 
particular case we recognize that the person who filed the contest is 
not someone who would take advice from the House, the committee or 
anyone else.
  Now, how does the House proceed? It has proceeded in various ways 
throughout the years the House has been in operation. Many, many 
contests have been filed over the years since 1789. All were filed 
under the constitutional provision. Some have been filed under statutes 
that were in effect at the time that the cases were filed, but there 
have been years when no statute was in effect, they were simply filed 
under the Constitution.
  Our current law guiding this is the Contested Election Act passed in 
1969. Under that, the duties and responsibilities of contested 
elections are assigned to the Committee on House Oversight, which then 
appoints task forces to investigate. I was appointed to the task force 
for this election. I did not seek that appointment. I did not want that 
appointment. It was almost as bad as being appointed chair of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  It is a difficult task. It is particularly difficult for me to stand 
here and hear charges of racism, sexism and other charges when they are 
simply not true, and being unable to respond because of the nature of 
the case. There are many issues that are confidential. There are 
privacy statutes that have to be obeyed. Eventually, perhaps some of 
the details can be given, as we do in ethics cases, but I would urge 
those present and those listening in their offices not to judge the 
content of the case and the procedures by the comments that we have 
heard from some on the floor this evening.
  Since 1789, the standard method of obtaining information in the case 
of a contested election has been the use of the subpoena. Even before 
statutes were written, the subpoena was used. There have been many 
contested elections over the years, and many thousands of subpoenas 
that have been issued in these cases. Currently they are issued within 
the confines of the Contested Election Act.
  In this particular case, 51 subpoenas were requested by Mr. Dornan. 
The committee has the power, under the Contested Election Act, to 
review those subpoenas. We quashed 15 of them; 9 were withdrawn by the 
contestant. Six have been responded to; there was no response to 6; 13 
have been ignored.

  How can we enforce response? That is the question that faces the 
committee. If a subpoena is filed in a court, the court can use 
contempt proceedings. That power is not given us in the Contested 
Election Act. We must depend on the U.S. Attorney to bring actions in 
these cases.
  The timetable in this case is that on March 19, a subpoena was issued 
on Hermandad Mexicana Nacional by Mr. Dornan. On April 16, the 
committee modified that. May 1, the response is due, no response is 
received. May 13, Mr. Dornan's attorney filed a criminal complaint with 
the U.S. Attorney. Nothing was done. June 2, the attorney once again 
asked for action. Nothing was done. June 23, the committee sent a 
letter to the U.S. Attorney. No response. June 30, another letter was 
sent, and we finally got a response saying, ``We are looking at it.'' 
We are now in September, and we are still trying to get enforcement on 
the action on the subpoena that was issued under the law which was 
passed by the House of Representatives.
  What can we do? What is the next step? We thought the next step was 
for

[[Page H8256]]

the House to send a letter to the Department of Justice by way of the 
resolution that is before us right now. That is the next logical step. 
If the Department of Justice chooses not to respond again, the only 
next step is that we issue a committee subpoena, but I am sure that the 
recipients of the subpoenas would prefer dealing with a U.S. Attorney 
rather than dealing with facing contempt of the House of 
Representatives.
  We simply cannot allow individuals to thumb their nose at the House 
of Representatives and say, we do not want to answer your subpoena, so 
we are not going to. It is a legal subpoena issued by a U.S. District 
Court judge, and it is very important that these subpoenas be responded 
to. Our task force needs the information. We have obtained some 
information from the INS through a committee subpoena. That is all we 
have available at the moment, but we need the information that will be 
provided by these various subpoenas, and once we have that information, 
we hope we can bring this case to a rapid conclusion.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, should Hermandad Mexicana Nacional comply 
with the legal subpoena? Yes. But should the Republicans on the 
Committee on House Oversight have given Bob Dornan the power to issue 
that subpoena in the first place? Absolutely not.
  Case in point: Scott Moxley, a reporter in Orange County and a former 
Federal Election Commission employee, had the temerity to write some 
disfavorable articles about Mr. Dornan. In response, Mr. Dornan issued 
a subpoena against him. In addition to this, according to published 
reports in Roll Call and in papers filed with the Committee on House 
Oversight, Mr. Dornan went to Scott Moxley's editor to try to get him 
fired, called the FEC in an attempt to dig up some dirt on him, which 
he was not able to do, and even resorted to harassing Mr. Moxley's 
father.
  So forgive me if we have a little trouble with a process that gives 
Bob Dornan subpoena power over anybody.
  Of all of the cases in which this Congress could step in and demand 
that legal action be taken, of all of the unacceptable outrages and 
defiance of our laws that take place in this country every day, that 
the majority party would choose Mr. Dornan's subpoena to take this 
extraordinary step is beyond me. Does this represent their view of the 
priorities of the American people?
  It was the Reagan administration that successfully challenged 
Congress' attempts to tell the U.S. Attorney what to do, and that is 
why my colleagues on the other side amended it earlier. To insist on 
enforcing a particular course of action is to interfere and compromise 
an apolitical investigation of the facts.
  We cannot send a message that condones this process, that gives 
credence to granting Bob Dornan subpoena power, or that singles out 
enforcement of this one subpoena as a law enforcement priority for this 
country.

                              {time}  2300

  Yes, let us talk about the Constitution that we have heard about here 
tonight. Let me tell the Members why, as one American of Hispanic 
descent, we are convinced that they are after us.
  Republicans have taken an unprecedented action to overturn the 
election of Congresswoman Sanchez. They have given unprecedented 
subpoena powers under this statute to Mr. Dornan, which he has abused. 
They have undertaken to violate the privacy rights of the families of 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr.  Bonilla] and my family and hundreds of 
thousands of others who have filed papers with the INS, expecting and 
demanding every right to protect their privacy rights in this country. 
And we start there. Is the IRS next? Is there an HIV registry next? 
Where is it that they will go to?
  They have changed the standard of proof from one in which Mr. Dornan 
must prove his case to one where Congresswoman Sanchez must defend her 
duly certified election. Under this standard, the mere allegation of 
fraud takes the place of proving any fraud.
  So imagine now that as a Member of Congress, you win with 1,000 
votes. Under the standard being set by the committee, the mere 
allegation of fraud, which is what is going to happen in every 
election, will be sufficient to overturn your election. What must women 
and Hispanic Americans be thinking about when their votes are on the 
verge of being nullified by Republicans in this House? If there is no 
justice in this case, there will be no peace in this House.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], to shed some facts on the subject.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, having been a former prosecutor and 
practiced law in the private sector, I thought I was somewhat familiar 
with various defenses that were raised in criminal prosecution and in 
civil proceedings, but during the past year, listening to the Reagan 
administration and listening to the other side tonight, there is a 
whole new universe of defenses that defense attorneys are not even 
aware of. We hear them daily from the White House: That law does not 
apply to me. That is an old law. That law has not been used very much. 
I am not a person under that law. This building is not a building.
  We hear another one tonight. Despite the fact that the United States 
criminal and civil codes are replete with measures insuring that 
subpoenas, as duly and important court documents, can be enforced and 
are enforced, despite the fact that people can and are held daily in 
contempt for failure to respond to subpoenas, we have the preposterous 
statement on the other side just a short while ago that people in this 
country have an absolute civil liberties constitutional right to refuse 
to honor subpoenas.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stand for the rule of law. It begins now.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker either did not hear clearly the 
comments that were made, or has misrepresented them. I choose the 
former as the alternative.
  What I said was that an American citizen has the right to go to court 
to question the constitutionality under which someone is asking that 
citizen to do something. In this case, that citizen has done so. The 
court just 8 days ago, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr], decided that they did have the constitutional right, and 8 days 
later, we demand that the U.S. Attorney take action, without giving the 
U.S. Attorney the opportunity to do so.
  I think that is a precipitous and uncalled for action of this body 
sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. That is what I said, I say 
to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is time 
for this charade to end. Three hundred thousand dollars of the 
taxpayers' money has been spent, 10 months have gone by, and despite an 
incredibly long discovery phase, this committee has yet failed to 
produce any evidence to resolve this so-called contested election.
  Despite unprecedented carte blanche investigative power given to the 
Committee on House Oversight and despite Bob Dornan's escapades, 
whether they be on this floor or on the Rush Limbaugh show, the vote 
count remains the same. Nevertheless, before us there is another puff 
of smoke just to prolong this investigation. This time it is a 
resolution that does nothing. It has no weight of law. We have all 
agreed to that. In fact, it is just another chapter in what is a never-
ending saga designed to drain and assail the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, a woman whose election was certified 
by the California Secretary of State on December 9 of last year.
  Mr. Speaker, someone watching this debate tonight could easily 
conclude that our Republican friends are going after this seat because 
it is held by a Latino woman in a district with a sizeable Hispanic 
population. Kick up

[[Page H8257]]

enough dust and maybe, just maybe, those voters will not show up at the 
polls again.
  Do not count on it. This attempt to intimidate voters will have a 
backlash the likes of which we have never seen, not just in California, 
but across this Nation, where new immigrants are an emerging political 
force to be reckoned with.
  I say to my Republican friends, it is time to face the facts. This 
election was won fair and square. I say, get over it. The gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, is the Congresswoman from the 
46th District of California, and the attacks that she has weathered 
will only make her stronger. We stand with her. We will help her 
prevail. I say to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, 
all that she is putting up with tonight will be worth it when she 
returns to this body in the next Congress.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is 
the right of a citizens group here. First of all, the resolution, of 
course, is hardly worth all this. The resolution originally demanded 
that the Justice Department do something. It now demands that the 
Justice Department think about doing something and then do whatever it 
thinks. It was amended. I should note that this is, I guess, an example 
of what is meant by a self-executing resolution.
  This resolution has already executed itself. It cut off its head. But 
we still have a headless horseman stumbling around, and it is an 
obnoxious one, because here is the issue. A private citizens group has 
been denounced criminal by persons with constitutional immunity from 
any libel suit on this floor. They have been denounced as criminal 
partly, I guess, because they had a tax problem.
  I guess that is going to be the precedent: somebody is shown not to 
have done right on taxes, and they are a criminal. The word will 
probably echo around here a lot, and make the parliamentarians earn 
their pay.
  But the question is this. This organization has been the subject of a 
very broad subpoena, subpoenaing things that go to everything that is 
done, including political activity. They are trying to resist it. 
Important constitutional law has been made in America, the NAACP 
against Alabama, other organizations. Resistance of subpoenas has been 
important.
  What we now have is a U.S. Attorney entitled to decide that a 
particular subpoena may have been so broad as to fail.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Georgia said, where did you get such 
an idea? I will tell Members where, from William French Smith, Ronald 
Reagan's Attorney General, who told us when this House voted to cite 
Anne Gorsuch for contempt, when the House voted, not just one Member, 
when the House voted, not even an ex-Member, but when the House voted 
to cite Anne Gorsuch with contempt, William French Smith said, we are 
not going to prosecute because we disagree. We think that 
constitutionally there is executive privilege here. That is the 
precedent that held. No one tried to break it.
  Here we have a group of private citizens engaged in political 
organizing who have gotten a subpoena, and they want to litigate it. 
What are the Members saying? Prosecute them, treat them as criminals. 
There is a process going forward now before the district court, and 
they want to appeal it, and they are saying, no, prosecute them.

  My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] said, well, 
we have to get this on. We do not sacrifice the constitutional right of 
association of private citizens because we are in a hurry, not that 
they seem to have been in such a hurry on this. But even if we are, 
citizens have a right to assert their constitutional rights.
  To have the subpoena power in the hands of one individual who has 
clearly issued inappropriate subpoenas to the press, the committee has 
quashed some, this organization, and understand, this is not a subpoena 
specifically about who voted and who did not. It is a very broad 
subpoena issued by Mr. Dornan, and they are trying to figure out a way 
to litigate it, and to demand that they be criminally prosecuted is 
inappropriate.
  To demand that maybe they should be criminally prosecuted if someone 
who has the job of thinking that they should think they should is not 
inappropriate, it is just too silly. It is unfortunately done to 
accommodate a political imperative that should not be taking up all 
this time in the House.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to defend the late 
William French Smith, who cannot be here to defend himself. When the 
Attorney General of the United States determined that it was not 
appropriate to institute on behalf of the Congress of the United States 
enforcement proceedings for a congressional subpoena, he was doing 
something very different than what we are talking about here tonight.
  What we have before us is a subpoena that has been authorized by the 
United States District Court. No such authorization was given in the 
case of the Gorsuch subpoena. That was a subpoena issued by Congress 
without any court involvement.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was a subpoena that 
came from the former Member, Mr. Dornan, as opposed to one solemnly 
voted by the House in the course of an investigation. But the argument 
that it was not authorized by a district court, no, under our 
Constitution this House has the right constitutionally to issue 
contempt citations to try to compel testimony.
  The Attorney General, I did not libel or defame the Attorney General, 
I simply quoted him. Being dead is not relevant. The fact is that the 
Attorney General said, it is wholly a matter of prosecutorial 
discretion whether or not we act on a contempt citation, and one voted 
by the whole House in the course of an investigation certainly has a 
great deal of standing.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are engaged in a 
partisan, political probe against the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez], and this resolution is an attempt to prolong and to 
expand that investigation. Make no mistake, this is not the election of 
the gentlewoman from California in isolation; this is part and parcel 
of a Republican strategy that would in fact deny minorities in this 
country the right to vote.
  Earlier today, the Republican majority denied the Bureau of the 
Census the ability to make a full count of Americans, fearing that such 
sampling methods would enfranchise undercounted urban minorities. This 
is un-American and it is simply wrong. The fact is that this resolution 
does not have the authority to force the Justice Department to do 
anything, and it intrudes on an ongoing legal process.
  The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez won this 
election by 1,000 votes. There were other much closer elections in 
1996, and no others have been subjected to this kind of a witch hunt. 
The sore loser in this case was Bob Dornan, a man who cannot believe 
that he lost, a man whose vendetta against the gentlewoman from 
California is unprecedented, and a man whose behavior is so offensive 
that this Congress actually barred him from the floor of this House.
  The Republican Party has chosen to go after a seat held by a 
Democratic Hispanic woman in a race where Hispanic votes may have 
determined the election. This is a deep insensitivity to the right of 
Latinos and Hispanics in this country to be able to vote. It is clearly 
an attempt by the Republican Party to create enough smoke to steal this 
election. If they cannot do that they hope simply to wear down the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], depleting her time, her 
energy, her financial resources, in order to weaken her for reelection.
  It will not happen. She will be reelected to this body. Do not 
disgrace the people's House tonight. Do not let this body allow for 
this sort of partisan political purpose. Vote down this resolution.

[[Page H8258]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro], let me remind her and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as a result of an initial 
investigation into this matter, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, that is part of their administration, ordered that an arm of 
its citizenship testing program be shut down effective January 6, 1997. 
That is not Republicans, that is Democrats. Democrats decided to shut 
down a citizenship testing program after it was acknowledged and 
verified that there were proven cases of fraud.
  I am not a lawyer. We can put up here the best lawyers and we can 
talk about subpoenas and go on and on, but their administration found 
there was acknowledged and verified fraud. So this is a concern of not 
just Democrats and Republicans and Independents, this is a concern of 
every Member of Congress; there but for the grace of God go you, me, 
any one of us.
  If the administration of their party says on January 6, 1997, yes, 
there is fraud, we have acknowledged it, verified it, and we are going 
to stop citizenship testing programs, does that not concern the 
Members? Does that not tell them that she did not win by 900 votes, as 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] keeps talking about?

                              {time}  2315

  No; we have already identified half of those 900 are corroborated 
that they are false votes.
  Mr. Dornan's request is not without precedence. We can go back to 
Supreme Court decisions. We can go back to McCloskey and McIntyre in 
the 99th Congress. We can back to Roush versus Chambers in the 87th 
Congress in the first session. And we can on and on with cases where we 
have the right and the House committee has the complete ability to 
order a recount in this congressional election if they want to.
  This country prides itself on the fact that we are a democracy and we 
abide by the axiom, one man, one vote. However, I would like to quote a 
well known philosopher. This philosopher said it correctly: It is not 
the voting that is democracy, it is the counting.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. The gentleman seemed to have placed great faith in the 
administration when they set aside Hermandad's activities but somehow 
does not trust the administration everywhere else.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that, Loretta, 
the seat is yours and we are going to do everything possible to make 
sure that justice is done in your case.
  Let me just share with everybody that this is not the first time that 
someone of Hispanic descent has been barred from the House of 
Representatives. About 9 months ago, I came here with my daughter and 
with my niece, and I waited in line in the main entrance to the Capitol 
of the United States. And as I walked through that line to come into 
this House, a security guard from the U.S. Capitol said to me, ``You 
cannot come in here.''
  When I produced an ID, she said it was false. When I told her I was a 
Member of Congress, she said that I was crazy and that I was ludicrous. 
And then I said, ``Ma'am, you really have a problem.'' And her response 
to me was, ``No. The only problem we have is you and your people. Why 
do you not go back where you came from?'' That was said to me as I 
entered in a very well published case right here. So, Loretta, it is 
nothing new. It is nothing new.
  But do you know something everybody said: She is not fit to serve the 
House of Representatives and the people of this Nation, given her 
actions. Do you know what my answer was? What can you expect from her? 
What can you expect from her when she sees Members of Congress each and 
every day on the TV set accuse those immigrants of coming across the 
border in hordes to destroy this Nation? When she sees on TV 
Presidential candidates with a rifle in their arms campaigning in 
Arizona and saying, ``This is what we have for you, Jose,'' and then 
sees the Republican Party seat them at their convention in San Diego? 
What can you expect from a security guard when she sees Members of 
Congress come here and say, those seats should be invalidated that 
Latinos and African Americans were elected to and that we should 
challenge them in court? What do you think she expects when she sees a 
welfare reform bill come before this Congress which says, let us not 
give them any help?
  Loretta, you won. And in this Congress, you will prevail.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. In fact, 
this resolution is not offered in support or in opposition to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] who has been seated from 
California's 46th District. Nor is it offered in support or opposition 
to Mr. Dornan, who is contesting the election in California's 46th 
District. This resolution, in fact, is about the very heart and the 
essence of the democratic electoral process.
  We have heard it said that the United States Constitution, Article I, 
section 5, states that the House shall be the judge of its Members and 
their election. The Committee on House Oversight, on which I am 
privileged to serve, is charged with seeking the facts relating to 
Members being seated in a contested election.
  This resolution is not about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez]. This resolution is not about Mr. Dornan. This resolution is 
not about a Republican or a Democrat serving in California's 46th 
District. This resolution is about determining whether or not the 
election in California's 46th District was conducted in a lawful and 
appropriate manner. This resolution is critical to every Member of this 
Congress and to the American people because this resolution seeks only 
to determine the facts as to who lawfully cast their ballots in a 
contested election.
  This resolution deserves the support of every Member of this Congress 
to maintain the process that is outlined in our Constitution and to 
ensure the very integrity of the system of fair and honest 
representative government. I ask each and every Member to come down 
here and vote for this fair, honest, justice-seeking resolution.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a country that said Hispanic 
Americans could die for their country but not be buried in a public 
cemetery. I grew up in a community where Hispanic schoolchildren were 
punished for speaking their mother's native language on school grounds. 
I grew up in a neighborhood where a distinguished American veteran, a 
physician, was turned against and fought simply because he was 
Hispanic. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, those wrongs were righted years ago.
  That is exactly why tonight I will be not a part of harassing an 
Hispanic American who was duly elected to this Congress and the 
thousands of Hispanic Americans who duly voted for her.
  I must wonder, where are the philosophical conservatives tonight? 
Where are the Republicans who say we should limit the powers of 
government? Where are the Republicans who want to restrict the law 
enforcement powers of the ATF and the FBI? Where are the Republicans 
who say they believe in private property rights? Where are the 
Republicans who say they cherish our constitutional protections against 
unreasonable search and seizure by the Government?
  How can those who believe in limited government want to give Robert 
Dornan, a private citizen, the right to subpoena American citizens' 
private property? If anyone should be offended by Mr. Dornan's subpoena 
power, it should be true philosophical conservatives.
  Enough is enough. It is time to end the persecution of Hispanics now, 
right here in this House tonight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This resolution is to make sure that when those people become 
citizens and cast a vote, it is a vote that counts.

[[Page H8259]]

 The problem is, there are some people out there preying on these 
people, misrepresenting the law, and getting them to register so that 
they commit, unwittingly, a felony. Your feelings should be directed to 
those people who are preying on these innocent people. The innocent 
people are the ones who wind up committing the felony, but they are the 
victims. It is the organizations such as Hermandad that should be 
punished.
  All this resolution seeks to do is to get the Department of Justice 
to make sure that those very people you talked about, I tell the 
gentleman from Texas, when they become citizens can cast a vote and 
have the confidence that that vote will not be diluted by fraud or 
illegality. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching a 
resolution right now that Congress cannot force the Justice Department 
to prosecute. The committee has already received all the relevant 
evidence that Hermandad ever possessed. They have got the information. 
So why are we here tonight?
  It is 10 months after the election. Who are we, this body? We should 
be doing the people's business. We should be doing campaign finance 
reform. We should be finishing the appropriations bills. Instead, we 
are here at 11:30 tonight talking about a woman whom I know well. I 
know Loretta Sanchez. I know her so well, I saw her come to Congress as 
a proud woman to represent her district, to represent her constituents, 
to do the job she was elected to do.
  We are spending 10 months saying this wonderful young woman cannot be 
allowed to do what she was sent here to do. Let us end it. Let us say 
tonight, let her serve. We will have another election in November, the 
following November. Let it happen. We are the body of the people. We 
represent the people. Let Loretta serve.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would like to make the comment that I have been stopped several 
times by the guards questioning whether I was a Member of Congress. I 
may not look like a Member of Congress, the Scotch-Irish descent, but I 
have been stopped many times questioning whether I was a Member of 
Congress.
  We are debating here tonight. It is a positive thing that we debate 
the issues. Oliver Wendell Holmes, a physician, a jurist, and a poet, 
said that the Constitution was made for people with differing opinions. 
We are seeing that to an extent tonight.
  But this is a Nation of laws, not of rhetoric. This is a Nation where 
we have one man, one vote. And we are committed to that.
  A World War II veteran who is committed to his country and always 
optimistic and positive about what America stood for says our lives are 
made up of five things: Humility, I ask that our colleagues tonight 
look at who has humility; commitment to justice; compassion to people; 
faith in the American people; and faith that people will be 
responsible, will be decent, will be honest, and allow themselves to 
have dignity.
  We must allow the process, in my judgment, to work to make sure that 
those people that vote vote honestly, have dignity. The last word he 
used was love, not for self-serving reasons but love for the things 
that America, which is still a great country, stands for.
  I encourage Members to vote for this resolution because it means that 
we are committed to justice in America, one man, one vote, and we want 
people to have responsibility to do the right thing. And if we give 
them that responsibility and show them what we stand for, there will be 
dignity for each and every citizen that their vote counts.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the central problem here is that this so-
called investigation has been improper from its inception.
  Normally a claimant seeking to invalidate an election has the burden 
of proof of fraud or irregularities. He should look at the records of 
people who vote, the records from the board of elections, from birth 
records, from naturalization records, and show his evidence.
  Instead, the claimant has been given individual subpoena power, has 
used that power irresponsibly and to the deprivation of the 
constitutional rights of others. He has issued broad-based, fishing-
expedition subpoenas, some struck down, some not yet.

                              {time}  2330

  Hermandad got such a broad subpoena which invaded the constitutional 
rights of many people. The District Court said the subpoena was okay. 
Hermandad is appealing that decision, but 8 days after the district 
court decision, while it is appealing that decision, they come up with 
this bill of attainder here which we are asked to pass, demanding 
criminal prosecution of this private group which has no role or should 
have no role in this at all.
  Obviously, it is entirely politically motivated, as this entire 
process has been, and the motivation is to short-circuit the 
constitutional process and the constitutional rights of the individuals 
involved and should be voted down.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I tell the gentleman from New York if he wants to know who gave Bob 
Dornan the right to subpoena, the Congressional Record, October 20th, 
1969, on rollcall number 235, the yeas 311, nays 12, the legislation 
that was passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote supported and 
defended by the court most recently and the House.
  The fact that no one has used it, except for this particular time, 
does not mean it has not been there from the beginning. The point needs 
to be made that it is the statute that affords it. That is where it 
comes from. It is part of the Contested Election Act and it was passed 
overwhelmingly bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I hear over and over again that we are 
concerned about the integrity of our election process, and I agree with 
that, not only for the 46th Congressional District but for all over the 
United States.
  This is not the only place where voter fraud has occurred. But I hear 
interjected into the debate the reference to the number of fraudulent 
votes in the 46th District. Then our friend from Texas gets up and 
states that the Hermandad is the crookedest organization around and 
guilty of all kinds of wrongdoing.
  The problem I have with that is an investigating committee trying to 
investigate someone who has already made up his mind lends itself to 
the idea that since they have already made up their mind, their 
investigation is going to conclude with the conclusions they have 
already made.
  Let me say in the same breath that the gentleman speaks about the 
high level of debate that began this debate. He rushes in to chastise 
one of our Members for pulling a race card. What greater race card was 
there pulled when on that side of the aisle they chose as their closing 
speaker someone of Hispanic descent?
  So I ask the question, is this about voter fraud, is it about the 
gentlewoman from California's election, or is it is about intimidating 
Latino voters? I think it is the latter.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have been around this for a long, long 
while, and I can remember when we kept people from voting because we 
had something called the poll tax. And most of us could not afford it, 
especially sharecroppers. And we were sharecroppers, and some of our 
black neighbors could not afford to vote.

[[Page H8260]]

  We have talked about numbers here. My good friend from California 
said what we want to make sure is that every vote counts. Votes are not 
counted in the District of California. The gentlewoman from California 
is being harassed. And if we took the 300 votes or 400 votes, throw 
them out, she still won a majority. She is still the winner.
  In politics, that is all that matters, is getting the majority of the 
vote. The gentlewoman is being denied the vote, in my opinion, simply 
because she beat one of the real radical exhibitionists that has ever 
been in this House. Some Members do not like it.
  As for the gentleman that said it was the Democrats, he was the one 
that sent out a press release accusing me of missing votes when my 
sister-in-law had died and I was not even here. So I just wanted to 
make that clear.
  This is a charade that should not be taking place. It does not become 
this House and it does not become us as the most respected governing 
body on the face of the earth, and we should be ashamed of our actions 
that are taking place today.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Ney], not only a member of the committee but a member of the task 
force, the vice chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Tonight I think it would become us, Mr. Speaker, since we are talking 
about what becomes this Chamber, it would become us to stick to the 
facts. The organization Hermandad Mexicana Nacional has, for nearly 5 
months, refused to comply with the subpoena issued by a United States 
District Court judge. The Department of Justice says the matter is 
still under review, despite repeated letters from the Committee on 
House Oversight. That is a fact. The Department of Justice's failure to 
act has encouraged groups to ignore subpoenas, delaying the 
investigations.
  This is no picnic for us, as any Member on either of the side of the 
aisle on this committee knows very well of this delay. It is not 
something we enjoy, it is not something we like, it is not something 
that has a political furtherance.
  The other statement that is made that needs to be addressed is that 
the other side argues that most information requested in the subpoena 
to Hermandad has already been turned over. That is simply not true. Not 
all the information has been turned over. And if it had been, they 
would not be fighting so hard. Another thing is, they had all summer to 
file, but they did not. They filed in August because they wanted to 
delay the entire process.
  It has been a great interesting night. First, Bob Dornan has no 
credibility. Bob Dornan has said things on the floor people do not like 
from that side of the aisle, but all of a sudden Bob Dornan is quoted 
tonight because he is now factual in what he says in the newspaper, 
because it is convenient to quote him tonight.
  This is not about Bob Dornan, this is not about the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez], this is about the election process.
  Politics? Here is the DCCC press release starting in February. Phone 
calls into districts trying to stop this, a legitimate inquiry of the 
U.S. House. There is a little politics there.
  But I think we have seen it all tonight. What is in a name? Did 
Shakespeare say that or was it Hallmark? I am not sure. Somebody says 
that. What is in a name? Well, tonight it is in the Latino name. 
Tonight it is in the Latino name. Because all of a sudden, if one does 
not have a Latino name, something is wrong tonight.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. We have Latino relatives. I do, 
in Fontana, California. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] does. 
We have Latino relatives. My colleagues know it is not true that there 
is a bias to Latinos.
  The words tonight, persecution, insulting, embarrassing, playing the 
race card, all the things that were raised tonight that my colleagues 
know are not true. My colleagues all know it. They know that is not 
accurate. They know it is not true. They know that is not the feelings 
we have.
  We should stick to the facts, because what is not becoming of this 
Chamber is to use those scare tactics to Americans, Mr. Speaker, across 
this country. That does not become the energetic give and take of 
public debate. What becomes us is to stick to the facts, and if we do 
that, we will not have so much disgrace on the floor tonight by 
throwing out side innuendo that my colleagues know is simply not true. 
It is not fair to the American people and it is not fair to any Member 
of any gender, of any ethnic background on the floor tonight.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived 
resolution. I am not an expert on the legal dispute over Mr. Dornan's 
novel use of the power of subpoena. I do not know all of the facts 
surrounding the court cases that have come as a result of these 
subpoenas, but I have served in this House since 1977 and I have some 
sense of when it is appropriate for this House to speak to the judicial 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, as far as I can determine, never in the 208-year history 
of this House has the majority decided to interfere so directly in a 
criminal matter by demanding that specific charges be brought against 
the particular party. In the best of circumstance, what is being done 
tonight would be a bad precedent that would only lead to mischief, but 
it is clear that the interference that is called for tonight in our 
judicial system is based on partisan political motives. And when that 
day comes, it is a sad day for this House of Representatives.
  Make no mistake about it, the purpose is not law enforcement tonight, 
the purpose is to harass and intimidate. That is what this whole 
investigation has been about, arming Bob Dornan with subpoena 
authority. Unprecedented in the work of this committee, invading the 
privacy of thousands of Hispanic-Americans, all because a hardworking 
Hispanic businesswoman had the audacity to upset Bob Dornan in the 46th 
District of California. And Mr. Speaker, it was not even a close 
election.
  Now we read in the newspapers that there is an effort, perhaps, to 
tell Mr. Dornan that the House is going to declare the seat vacant and 
call for a new election. I can only assume that these reports are just 
rumors and that they are wrong.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] won this election by 
almost a thousand votes. If her election can be overturned on 
suspicion, with no facts, none of the facts that were brought have been 
found to be true, but on suspicion that there were noncitizens who 
voted, then who is next? Whenever there is a vote of under a thousand, 
do we go in and ask the INS to pull up all the records of new Americans 
in a district? Who is next? Which House race will we go into next time?
  My colleagues, if this procedure goes on, if there is a move to 
vacate this election, this is no longer the people's House, it is the 
Republican Party's House, and I do not think any of us want any part of 
it.
  Defeat this resolution and send this contest where it belongs. 
Dismiss it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina said in politics all 
that matters is getting the most votes. I personally experienced that 
in a contested election in the Indiana 8th, because the votes in the 
Indiana 8th were counted not by any State.
  I participated in a contested election contest in which the Democrats 
set the rules. Those rules did not exist in any State. They were made 
up. And then when, in following those rules they made up, Democrats 
were not going to win, they quit counting.

                              {time}  2345

  So I guess in politics, for some people all that matters is getting 
the most votes. But with this new majority, it is going to be 
determined by legal votes.
  There has been some argument that we need to do some campaign finance 
reform. I will tell my colleagues, the vote tonight is the first vote 
on campaign finance reform, because I think fundamentally we must start 
with fundamental reform.

[[Page H8261]]

  Far more important than the dollars spent in campaigns is who legally 
gets to vote; and, in this system, only citizens are supposed to 
legally vote. Let us start by enforcing that fact, and then we will 
look at other campaign changes.
  Tonight, a vote for this resolution is a vote to uphold the law. 
Democracy works when it operates under the law. A lot of things have 
been said here. But I want Members, as they vote on this resolution, 
trying to get the Department of Justice to carry out the law, to 
remember that it is irrefutable that the question is not ``Did fraud 
occur in the 46th District of California,'' the question is ``How 
much?''
  That has been the task of the task force. We have been stonewalled by 
people. People have refused to supply information. We have had to 
subpoena the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But I can assure 
my colleagues, no amount of intimidation, no amount of throwing around 
false charges of racism, no attempt to muddy the waters and obscor our 
purpose of determining how many legal votes were cast in that election, 
will deter us from making sure that every honest vote that was cast in 
that election gets its full, accountability, undiluted by fraudulent 
votes. That is our job, and we will do it.
  I ask the House of Representatives tonight to assist us in asking, 
or, if you will, demanding that the Department of Justice enforce the 
law and make these people provide us with the information that will let 
us get to the bottom of how many fraudulent votes were cast in this 
particular district so that we can determine the true winner in 
California's 46th. I ask for a vote on the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in disgust with 
the way a former member is trying to manipulate the House of the people 
to create turmoil, to manipulate the election process and to spend tax 
payer monies--now more than $300,000 and counting--for nothing more 
than the purpose of stealing a seat out from under a duly elected 
Member, Loretta Sanchez.
  Bob Dornan has come to the floor of the House and shown himself not 
to be worthy of being allowed to appear on the floor as a former Member 
of the House.
  He is trying to intimidate the voters of California's 46th 
Congressional District, the media, the INS, and now the Congress. He 
wants Congress to try to intimidate the U.S. attorney to file criminal 
charges against a political enemy of his. That's the meaning of this 
resolution and that's what he wants us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no fraud found in this case 
and there has not been one shred of evidence that this renegade former 
member has been able to produce that illegal aliens have influenced the 
outcome of his defeat. He is defying the 28-year history of the Federal 
Contested Election Act and is using Republicans to carry on a crusade 
to get his seat back.
  He needs to get out of denial that he lost an election and the people 
of Orange County have spoken. This is under-handed politics of the 
worst kind. This is nothing more than intimidation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this distinguished body to end the saga of this 
misguided investigation. The people of California have legally ended 
their relationship with him--he embarrassed them until they had enough 
and now we should say we have had enough of his outrageous tactics and 
put an end to it once and for all. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this travesty as they voted to show Mr. Dornan to the door of the House 
on one occasion and we should do it again today.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time for debate has 
expired.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to raise a point of personal 
privilege since the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] mentioned my 
name and misquoted me?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not in order as a response during 
debate.
  The resolution is considered read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended, and on the preamble.
  The question is on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A quorum is present.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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 219, 
nays 203, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 478]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf

                               NAYS--203

     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)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver

[[Page H8262]]


     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Sanchez
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Houghton
     Oxley
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0005

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________