Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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. 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. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. And we do not know whether he has made that determination yet or not.

Mr. MENENDEZ. And so by placing this in there, we are recognizing that it is the responsibility of the U.S. attorney to determine that it is appropriate pursuant to the law and the facts.

Mr. MENENDEZ. We do not know.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Does it determine that he has made a determination?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Does this indicate that the U.S. attorney has not made a determination that is in accordance with the law and the facts at this time?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules to ask a question. I heard my dear friend and colleague from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] describe what he believes is the reasoning behind this, and I would like to ask the chairman, ``Exactly what is your intent in this language?''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Continuing on my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I just have a simple question; maybe I misstated it. The simple question is, are we saying that we do not know whether or not, or do we know whether the U.S. attorney has made a determination pursuant to the law and the facts that this is appropriate?

Mr. MENENDEZ. OK. So, in essence, what we will be doing if we permit this specific language to amend it is to demand that the U.S. attorney carry out his responsibility even though we recognize that a basis to determine whether or not the laws and the fact in this issue should rise to the level of pursuing a criminal charge has been made.

Mr. MENENDEZ. So it is up in the air as to whether or not he has a determination pursuant to the law and the facts. We do not know whether he has made one.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority on the Committee on House Oversight seems to be willing to go to any length to overturn the election of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. The committee majority is in the process of sharing the Immigration and Naturalization Service records of hundreds of thousands of Orange County residents with the California Secretary of State. These records contain personal information on law-abiding U.S. citizens, many of them targeted by committee investigators simply because they have Hispanic surnames or because they reside in certain neighborhoods, and that is an outrage. Everyone in this House must be concerned if the majority is simply acting as a conduit to circumvent Federal privacy protections. We need to be concerned with the legal issues that are involved for every American in this country, and if Hispanic-Americans have to believe that, in fact, simply because of their Hispanic surname, like I who was born in the United States, will be on some list, that that is the reason that they are going to be able to introduce and get into their privacy records, that has no end, and that cannot be tolerated by this Congress.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bayonne Lions Club, an exceptional organization serving the residents of my district, on their 50th anniversary. This momentous occasion will be celebrated on September 24, 1997, with a cocktail reception at the Chandelier Restaurant in New Jersey. The Bayonne Lions Club has worked for the Bayonne community since 1947 when they were granted a charter from the Lions Club international headquarters in Oak Brook, IL. This charter hangs on the wall of Amici's Restaurant where the club meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. This year's anniversary celebration will not only raise funds for charity, but it will also provide the opportunity to highlight the club's achievements over the last half century. Over the years, the Bayonne Lions Club has sponsored Christmas parties at the St. Joseph's Home in Jersey City, given braille typewriters as gifts to individuals, distributed food baskets, and provided medical care and vital eye surgery to those who needed it. Among the esteemed members of the Bayonne Lions Club was the club's first president, Attorney Jack Feinberg of the law firm of Feinberg, Dee & Feinberg. One of Feinberg's successors, Dr. C.M. Jones, was the first African-American president of any Lions Club charter in the United States. One of the early active club members was businessman C.J. Murphy, who was the first representative of the Bayonne Lions to the Lions International zone and district. Club member, Walter Jones, has held every office in the Bayonne Lions Club and boasts the longest continuous Bayonne Lions Club membership. I would also like to thank Michael O'Connor, the current Bayonne Lions Club president for his hard work and dedication. The members and officers, past and present, of the Bayonne Lion's Club richly deserve this honor and recognition for 50 years of unique contributions and caring dedication to their community. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the outstanding work and exceptional service of the Bayonne Lions Club. It is an honor to have such an outstanding organization working on behalf of the constituents of my district.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago the people of the 46th District of California spoke. They decided to elect the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] as their Representative in Congress, an election certified by the Republican California Secretary of State. Mr. Dornan and some Republicans do not like that. But in our system, they are not the ones that get to make that decision. The only people who get to make that decision are the people of California's 46th District. Questions are not enough to overturn the election. Allegations are not enough. Innuendo is not enough. Confusion is not enough. But for 10 months, that is all we have gotten. Several hundred thousand taxpayer dollars have been used for a witch hunt to go through INS records and question the legality of voters simply on the basis of having an Hispanic surname. Should Hispanic-Americans assume that they will first be considered illegal voters until they can disprove it? Is the assumption that all Hispanic voters must have voted for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]? The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that almost halfway to the next election there is, and I quote, ``no evidence that Sanchez benefited from fraudulent votes.'' The L.A. Times is right, what we have is not evidence, it is an assault on every Hispanic-American.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Speaker. I ask my colleagues to join us in preserving the dignity of the House, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, does the resolution, as it is worded, bar Mr. Dornan in perpetuity?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MENENDEZ. First of all, I appreciate the gentleman's comments as they relate to the overall question of the decorum of the House. I appreciate on that day his assistance, so to speak, to make sure that we did not have a worse set of events. I read that ``resolved'' clause in a different way. It does not say anybody else. It specifically refers to Mr. Dornan. Clearly if the Committee on House Oversight determines that there is to be an election contest, in my view that is a resolution, in which case his rights under the statute or under the rules would be preserved. It is not my intention to prohibit him from an election contest, should the Committee on House Oversight determine in fact that there is an election contest to take place, which it has not determined. It was my intention, and that is why I believe when I say ``is resolved,'' it would be resolved once the committee determines either there is no contest or there is a contest, and then when there is a contest he would, in fact, have the right to be able to pursue his rights as a contestant, not as a former Member. That is the intention and the manner in which we have worded it. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who did not permit the motion to table to take place, to pass, so that we could have this opportunity. Failure to do so would have not allowed a Member to be able to pursue the only vehicle that a Member of this body has to enforce the decorum of the House. I want to ask for Members' further support of this resolution so that we make clear for ourselves and to the American people watching us that profanities, insults, and name-calling are not under any circumstance or for any reason accepted in this House or inside this Chamber ever. Working with the Republican leadership, I changed the resolution I originally introduced in order to depersonalize the language, because when the rules of the House are broken, it is not just personal, it affects the whole institution. Yesterday, nothing less than the integrity of the House was undermined by former Congressman Dornan. In the course of representing my constituents, exercising my rights as an elected representative of the people and a Member of this House to debate on the House floor, and asking a valid parliamentary inquiry that did not name any individual by name, Mr. Dornan verbally assaulted me. He used profane language, accused me of religious bigotry, called my integrity into question, and, by the tone of his voice and the context of his remarks, clearly attempted to lure me off the floor into a physical altercation. By doing so, Mr. Dornan abused his privileges as a former Member of the House of Representatives and conducted himself on the floor in a manner which brings discredit to the House. Now, earlier today some of my colleagues called the event alleged, implying the facts of the case are in doubt. But I would remind my colleagues that there were several witnesses, and many of you have come over on the Republican side of the aisle to tell me that you not only saw, but heard what I have said. And those included on my side of the aisle the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], among others. Even beyond that, the Los Angeles Times reported today that Mr. Dornan admitted to using a profane term, called me an anti-Catholic and a coward, and that conduct alone, to which Mr. Dornan has publicly admitted, publicly admitted, is enough to constitute a gross violation of the House rules. So the event in question, my colleagues, is not alleged, it is publicly admitted to by Mr. Dornan himself. Now, if this were not bad enough, Mr. Dornan further admitted to asking me to step outside the Chamber with him. On that last count we have a difference of opinion. He believes he just wanted to have a civil conversation. But if all he wanted was a civil conversation, why would he have used the insults and profanity preceding that request? In that context, with the tone of voice he used, no reasonable person could interpret Mr. Dornan's remarks as anything other than a lure into a physical fight. Another Member took to the floor earlier today and said we should just realize that ``Dornan is Dornan.'' But that implies that each Member or former Member can set his or her own standard of conduct, depending on their personality or how big a temper they might have. In this House, I believe there is one standard of conduct that applies to all of us. Others praise Mr. Dornan's record of fighting communism, and I do not dispute that. But I, too, have dedicated much of my public life to fighting communism. Members of my family were persecuted by Communists. They came to this country fleeing persecution, because they knew America was the birthplace of modern democracy. I grew up in awe of this Congress and had no prouder day, save the birth of my children, than when I took my oath of office in this Chamber for the very first time. I have spent much of my public life fighting oppression and intimidation, at home and abroad, using our great institutions as shining examples of freedom and integrity and democracy in action, and I believe my colleagues who have worked with me on both sides of the aisle on these issues know the depth of my sincerity and commitment. That is why it is hard to think of a sadder moment in my public life than when I was accosted on the House floor in the very exercise of democratic debate on behalf of the people I represent, not sad because of what Bob Dornan said to me but because of what Bob Dornan did to this institution we all care about so deeply and to what it stands for. An assault against a Member of this body in the practice of his or her democratic duties is an assault against the whole House, the whole institution, not just one Member; and if we allow it to stand, we have lessened the standards of the whole institution. Not just the honor of a single representative is lessened. In fact, the standards we set here send a message that travels far beyond the halls of this House. How can we talk about family values if we allow this sort of behavior to stand on the House floor? What kind of example does that set for our children, that profanities and threats are the way to solve differences of opinion? I must believe that we are all above that. For the sake of this House, to preserve our standards and our rules of conduct, to set a worthy example for all of our children, I ask all of my colleagues to stand with me today in support of this resolution; to say that we will never tolerate insults, profanity, name-calling or threats in this Chamber, from anyone of either party, former Member or current Member. Should there be a vote to once again table this resolution, it would in essence take away a Member's right to have the rules of the House enforced. When I made parliamentary inquiries and ultimately conferred, this is the only way I am told I get to enforce, or Members get to enforce someday if they are unfortunate to have a circumstance, the decorum of the House. If we table it, no Member can ever get to that point. Our rules only have meaning if we stand behind them and are willing to enforce them. Our standard of behavior is only as good as our willingness to uphold it. This is a vote to decide where we stand on the integrity of this House. A vote for a motion to table or against the ultimate resolution is a vote to turn our backs on the rules of decorum in the conduct of this institution. A vote against a motion to table and for the resolution affirms that only the highest standards of conduct and decorum and respect for democracy are allowed in this Chamber. That is what this House should stand for; that is what I expect my colleagues to join with me in voting for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this resolution be limited to 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and by agreement with the majority leader, Mr. Armey, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a privileged resolution. The form of the resolution is as follows: House Resolution 233 Whereas the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto is subject to the requirements of proper decorum; Whereas concern has arisen that the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto has become the subject of abuse; Whereas Representative Menendez of New Jersey has given notice pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX of his intention to offer a question of the privileges of the House addressing that concern; Whereas these circumstances warrant an immediate affirmation by the House of its unequivocal commitment to the principle that every person who exercises the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto assumes a concomitant responsibility to comport himself in a manner that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House; Therefore be it Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms is instructed to remove former Representative Robert Dornan from the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto and to prevent him from returning to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto until the election contest concerning the forty-sixth district of California is resolved.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I come before the House today to urge my colleagues to do what they know is right. As many of my colleagues personally witnessed, Robert Dornan, a former Member of this House, verbally assaulted me on the House floor yesterday. He used profane language, accused me of religious bigotry, called my integrity into question, and by tone of voice and the context of his remarks clearly attempted to lure me off the floor into a physical altercation. I offered a privileged resolution to make clear that behavior like Mr. Dornan's is never acceptable on the House floor. Now there is some talk that some may seek to table the resolution when it comes to the floor today. With the American people watching us on C-SPAN, what kind of message does that send to the public about this institution? What kind of standards does that set for this House? What kind of example does that set for our children, that profanities and threats are the way to solve differences of opinion? Mr. Speaker, I hope and trust that, as a body, we truly are above that and that my colleagues will vote against any motion to table. Vote for the resolution and for maintaining the highest standard of conduct and decorum in the House.