Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER. I am opposed to the preamble.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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.)

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.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will finish our time before yielding back.

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. 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.

Mr. HOYER. But I could do that?

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?

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, 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.

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), distinguished ranking member.

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. 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. 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).

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.

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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. The only purpose this bill serves is to undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the National Voter Registration Act, more commonly referred to as the Motor Voter law. H.R. 1428 is exclusionary in nature, and it's motives are questionable. Mr. Speaker, if ever we as legislators wanted to discourage American citizens from voting, this bill would get the job done. There is no argument that persons who are not citizens of this country should not be permitted to vote. However, this bill is not the answer. When immigrants become citizens of the United States, they are very proud and have an earnest desire to contribute to and participate in the greatest democratic nation in the world. Whether it is to join the workforce and contribute to the economy, or to cast a vote and participate in the democratic electoral process, we ought to embrace our new countrymen and women with respect. H.R. 1428 would take away that respect. We would be saying to everybody--even those born in this country--``Prove to us that you are a true American. Prove to us that you are entitled to vote in our Democratic electoral process.'' What's next, Mr. Speaker? Will we have to start carrying our personal papers on our person at all times in the event that we will suddenly prove our nationality when we cross state lines as they did in World War II Europe? This bill is also an affront to the 35 million plus voting aged Americans with disabilities who have benefitted greatly from mail-in registration since, in many instances, these individuals are physically unable to go to a registration site. Americans with disabilities already register to vote at a rate 20% below the rest of the population. If H.R. 1428 were enacted, that number would drop even lower. This bill is flawed in many ways. First, H.R. 1428 says that for persons born prior to 1978, the Social Security Administration would be required to report where that person was born. If a person was born 70 years ago in another country, but has since become a naturalized U.S. citizen, his or her INS records are archived in a federal vault. There would be no way to verify the citizenship of long term, naturalized Americans through this scheme. Second, the bill would provide a 30-day ``appeal'' period, which would allow a person whose citizenship is unverifiable to submit ``supplemental'' materials. At the end of those 30 days, the local or state registrar of that voter will then decide whether to permit the person to vote. This is an incredible affront to the Voting Rights Act. To give a registrar the ability to deny an American citizen their right to vote is a disgrace and an injustice. This is America, Mr. Speaker. This bill was conceived out of paranoia and xenophobia and it would severely threaten the voting rights of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, rather than discourage, we should encourage Americans to participate in the Democratic electoral process and to become fully engaged in the affairs of the country, which is their fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1428.