Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and first wish to thank the gentleman from Springfield for his remarks. It is a personal honor that I rise today to bring this legislation forward honoring our former colleague and distinguished Ohioan, Tony Hall, to the floor. H.R. 5335 designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse. For over 40 years, Tony Hall has dedicated his life to helping others and serving this Nation. When Tony graduated from Denison University in 1965 as a Little All American running back, he began his public service by joining the Peace Corps, where he spent 1966 and 1967 teaching English in Thailand. And I noted at the markup we had in our full committee that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member of the full committee, also engaged in such public service. Upon his return to his native Dayton, Tony was drawn to a career in public service, and at the age of 26 put himself up as a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives, an election he won despite facing an experienced opponent. Tony ably served in the Ohio House from 1968 to 1972 before being elected to and serving in the Ohio Senate from 1972 to 1978. In 1978, Tony was elected for his first of 12 terms in this body. During his tenure here, Tony was a tireless and outspoken advocate for combating world hunger, protecting human rights, and promoting humanitarian causes, including basic education, adult literacy, immunization, and other child survival programs and sustainable agriculture in other countries. He served as the distinguished chairman of the House Select Committee on Hunger from 1989 until it was abolished in 1993. In protest of this decision, Tony engaged in a hunger strike that lasted 22 days, only ending after the creation of the Congressional Hunger Center, which he chaired from its inception until he left the Congress. Tony also served with distinction on the Committee on Rules, in addition to numerous other committees and caucus assignments. In 2002, Tony resigned his seat to accept a Presidential appointment as United States Ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Agencies. This is an appropriate honor to a dedicated public assistant. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my fellow Ohioan on a distinguished career thus far, and I am sure we all wish him great success as he moves on to a new position from which he can continue his work to help others. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) indicated, it is indeed, I think, a fitting tribute, in a sometimes fractious and partisan body, that every member of the Ohio delegation, whether Republican or Democrat, is a cosponsor of this legislation. It is my honor to be a cosponsor. I urge my colleagues to adopt this matter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Springfield, Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the author of the legislation

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time only to thank not only my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), but also my colleague, the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for being here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I think all Members would recognize that the mark of a Member is that it is easy to be elected if you are a Republican from a safe Republican seat; it is easy to be elected as a Democrat if you come from a safe Democratic seat. But Tony Hall's seat was marginally Republican, and the people continued to elect him and reelect him because of his outstanding work not only for his community but the Nation and the world.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5427, H.R. 5335, H.R. 5083, and H.R. 2672, the matters just considered by the House.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5427) to designate the Federal building located at Fifth and Richardson Avenues in Roswell, New Mexico, as the ``Joe Skeen Federal Building''.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the teams and players of the Negro baseball leagues for their achievements, dedication, sacrifices and contributions to baseball and to the Nation. I want to commend the distinguished sponsors of this resolution, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for introducing this important resolution. Until the mid-20th century when Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby, and parenthetically I would say Larry Doby of the Cleveland Indians, broke the color barrier, African Americans were excluded from playing major league baseball. Despite this, the desire that some African Americans had to play baseball professionally could not be repressed. African Americans began organizing their own professional baseball teams. In 1885, the Cuban Giants from New York became the first professional African American baseball team. In 1920, Rube Foster, known as the ``Father of Negro Baseball,'' organized the Negro National League by adopting an organized league structure. Between 1920 and 1960, six separate baseball leagues known collectively as the Negro Baseball League were formed. The Negro Leagues maintained the high level of professional skill and, some believe, became centerpieces for economic development in many African American communities. Teams such as the Pittsburgh Crawfords, which played in Pittsburgh's Hill District, reflected this high level of skill. The Crawfords won the 1935 Negro National League with future Hall of Famers James ``Cool Papa'' Bell, Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, Judy Johnson and the legendary Satchel Paige. Again, Mr. Speaker, parenthetically, there is a book I had the pleasure of reading last year called Crooked River Burning, which, sadly, is about some of the sadder days in Cleveland, Ohio, but it is the story of a young Polish fellow who grew up on the west side of Cleveland and follows his life. But it begins in 1948 when he sneaks out of his uncle's house to go down to Municipal Stadium and sees the debut of Satchel Paige and the Cleveland Indians uniform, and over 70,000 people were in attendance on that evening. Starting in 1935, the black teams began all-star game competition. The game was known as the East-West Game and was played each summer in Chicago's Comiskey Park. The Negro Leagues also had their own world series, but according to the Negro League Baseball Players Association, the East-West Game was considered more important than the world series and annually attracted between 20,000 and 50,000 fans. In 1945, major league baseball started signing players from the Negro Baseball Leagues to its minor leagues for the first time since 1919. By 1950, five major league teams had black players; by 1953, seven clubs had 20 players; and by 1957, 14 clubs had 36 players. As players in the Negro Baseball Leagues signed to play with the major leagues and attendance at Negro League games dropped, the Negro Baseball Leagues folded in 1960. Events such as the 1991 opening of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, reflect the recognition that the Negro Baseball Leagues and its players deserve. As this resolution notes, the Negro Baseball Leagues helped teach the country to judge others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character and the measure of their skills and abilities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, gender roles also fell in the Negro leagues, because three women played in them. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the author of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 337.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for sponsoring this important resolution and working so hard to bring it to the floor. This resolution pays tribute to the contributions of many fine athletes who did not get the recognition they deserved during their playing careers or, in many cases, during their lifetimes, because segregation required them to play out of the limelight. Nevertheless, the players in the Negro Leagues were among some of the most accomplished who ever played our national pastime. Some went on to make their marks in the newly integrated major leagues. But all of them contributed to baseball history and helped pave the way for today's stars. I urge passage of the resolution.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 337) recognizing the teams and players of the Negro Baseball Leagues for their achievements, dedication, sacrifices, and contributions to baseball and the Nation.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Chief Warrant Officer Charles I. Stanley was laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. It had been 33 years since the Army helicopter he was piloting crashed in bad weather in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. A search and rescue mission to find Stanley and six others on the helicopter following the crash had been unsuccessful. For more than three decades, Stanley's family was unsure of his fate, and wondered if he would always be classified as MIA and if their grief would have no end. Finally, in November of 2000, several years after a crash site was identified, Stanley's remains were positively verified through DNA analysis. His burial at Arlington National Cemetery, our nation's most hallowed ground, took place last week and finally gave his beloved family some closure after decades of uncertainty. Stanley grew up in Highland Heights, OH. He was a graduate of Mayfield High School and attended Ohio State University before enlisting in the Army in 1968. He was just 23 years old at the time of his death. Stanley is survived by a brother, Ronald Stanley of Highland Heights, a sister, Carol Subel, a Chagrin Falls resident, and many other family members. Sadly, Stanley's mother and father both passed before learning of their son's fate. At Stanley's funeral last week, about 50 family members, friends and Vietnam veterans gathered at Arlington to pay their last respect and to give this military hero a long overdue farewell. There was a chapel service at Fort Myers and then a graveside burial at Arlington, complete with a three-gun volley, a flag presentation and the performance of Taps by a lone bugler. On behalf of the 19th Congressional District of Ohio, I extend my condolences to Stanley's family. I am pleased that you finally were able to give your brother the burial that befits him as a war hero, and that you have gained some closure in this painful chapter of your lives. Please know that Charles Stanley's heroic service and sacrifice for our nation are appreciated and will never be forgotten.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4727, the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), reauthorizes and updates the national dam safety program, which was originally passed as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program was created to improve public safety around dams by providing grants to State dam safety agencies to assist them in improving their regulatory programs, funding research to enhance technical expertise as dams are built and rehabilitated, establishing training programs for dam safety inspectors, and creating a national inventory of dams. Since its passage in 1996, the program has worked to provide assistance grants, training, research, and expertise in each of the 48 States that has a dam safety program. Dams serve a number of important functions in today's society. They provide water for recreation, electricity, human and livestock consumption, crop irrigation, and flood control. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the national inventory, there are more than 80,000 dams in the United States. Of these, 10,000 have been classified as high risk, meaning that their failure poses a risk of either loss of life or severe loss of property. While it is widely believed that the Federal Government owns most of America's dams, the reality is far from that. In fact, the Federal Government owns just over 5 percent of the dams in the United States, with the vast majority, some 58 percent, being owned by private individuals. This fact highlights the need for coordinated and adequately funded inspection programs at the State level. This bipartisan legislation will reauthorize this important public works safety program for an additional 4 years, require the creation of a strategic plan, give the Interagency Board greater flexibility to provide assistance to States, allow for the inclusion of State dam safety officials on the Interagency Board, increase the amount of money available for grants and research, and require that the Board consider security when assessing the safety of dams. Mr. Chairman, I support this very important piece of legislation. I want to commend the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), for his diligence and willingness to continue to work with us in a bipartisan manner to produce good legislation, and also the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to pay special note at this time and give thanks to the author of the legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Although a new Member of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has already proven himself to be a leader in important issues of transportation and infrastructure, following in the important footsteps of his father, and this piece of legislation is a good example of that. This is a good piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my statement by making clear that I support our first responders and the vital worth they do in protecting our citizens. I also want to indicate my tremendous respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the fine work he does for Congress and in the Committee on the Judiciary. But I am sad. I am sad because when we were dealing with the supplementary appropriations bill in this Congress, there is a turf battle that has developed. A turf battle that the President of the United States said we should not be having as we establish a Department of Homeland Security. And the Committee on Judiciary sadly continues to come before the Members of our body and say they want to keep a program that the President of the United States says he wants to abolish, has defunded in the budget he sent here in February, and we have a fight over $175 million. And who is better to distribute that money to the first responders across America? Is it a department within the Department of Justice or is it FEMA? The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs is continuing to fund duplicative and overlapping programs. Our subcommittee has held numerous hearings on preparedness and response. The GAO has issued several reports on the issue. The subcommittee's findings and independent studies are consistent in their message to the Congress, we must stop spending money on duplicative and overlapping programs. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully respect every member of the Committee on the Judiciary, but they are wrong. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is right and we need to support his amendment.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, as a first matter of business, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and further ask that he be permitted to yield time from that 30 minutes.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my motion to postpone would postpone the proceedings until a date certain, as a matter of fact, the day we would return from recess. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment in the House of Representatives. Not since 1861, nearly 120 years ago, has the House expelled one of its Members. As we consider the resolution of expulsion today, it seems to me that we should do so with all the care and due regard for both this institution and the individual involved. This institution makes the Nation's laws; therefore, we have the obligation to be more concerned with the rule of law and the observance of law than any other institution in America. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could take credit for those words, but I cannot. Those words were spoken by the Honorable Louis Stokes in 1980, the only other time that the House of Representatives has taken upon this course of action since the American Civil War; and on that particular occasion, which was the expulsion vote of Representative Myers of Pennsylvania, Congressman Stokes rose and made the same motion that I am making here this evening. I would ask Members to pay attention to the similarities between where we find ourselves today and where the Congress found themselves in 1980, the only other time that this happened in this Congress's history, again, since the Civil War. Representative Myers had been convicted by a jury of a felony, of felonies. Representative Traficant has been convicted by a jury of felonies. Representative Myers was pending sentence and had not been sentenced on the date that the resolution was brought to the floor. Congressman Traficant has not been sentenced by the judge in Ohio. The House considered the resolution against Representative Myers on the last day before Congress left town for a 1-month recess in 1980. Tonight, we are 2 days from a 1-month recess in 2002. Representative Myers was caught on videotape accepting $50,000 from an individual who was dressed up as an Arab sheik; he admitted his conduct before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Congressman Traficant, in his case, there is no videotape, there is no audiotape, there are no fingerprints, and he has denied the allegations. In this matter, although there were numerous witnesses that testified in the proceeding in Cleveland, Ohio, in Federal court, I would submit to Members, in my opinion, it boils down to a case of direct testimony in conflict. There are, and those of my colleagues that have practiced law know that there is something that we prosecutors used to do called ``putting lipstick on the pig,'' and you would have one witness that was seminal to your case, but you would call on other witnesses to say oh, I went to the bank, or I picked up the newspaper that morning, or I did this or I did that, seemingly to corroborate the main witness's testimony. I would give an example, because since I have traveled the floor since this matter came about, the one count, although all are serious, and I will tell my colleagues right now, so that there is no confusion about where I come from, that if Congressman Traficant committed these acts, I will vote to expel him, because they are reprehensible. The most serious example that has been given to me as I have talked to other Members on the floor deals with kickbacks, the allegation that a member of his staff was hired and was required to deposit his congressional paycheck and every month take $2,500 in cash and deliver it to the Congressman. Over the course of time, and this fellow's name was Sinclair. Over the course of time that this was alleged to have occurred, it would have been $2,500 a month for the months of his employment; it adds up to $32,500. During the same period of time, the government also indicated that Congressman Traficant had received $13,000 in cash bribes from another individual. That is count 3, not only on the indictment, but also the charges before us this evening. The government introduced witnesses that said that, in fact, Mr. Sinclair went to his bank, deposited his congressional paycheck and took out $2,500 in cash. Mr. Sinclair also came forward and indicated that he brought some burnt envelopes to the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and said that Mr. Traficant, after suspicion was cast upon him, brought him the cash back in the burnt envelopes; and that was introduced as evidence as well. The competing evidence, and why it is conflicting and why it is different than Representative Myers where we have a videotape and audiotape and other matters is that 1,000 documents were submitted to the FBI lab, one of the best in the world, if not the best, and no fingerprints are found on any money, any envelopes, any plastic bags, nothing. Further, I would tell my colleagues that they looked at Congressman Traficant's bank account as well. Over the same time period, over the 2 years, he had deposits of $7,600. If the government's case is to be believed on that point and, again, we are talking about direct evidence; I am not asking anybody to subscribe to my view of the evidence, but about $40,000 is missing. Now, I would note, and I would ask what we used to ask in the law business, Members of Congress to take judicial notice, we know that that $40,000 was not spent at Brooks Brothers. We have an issue where Mr. Sinclair says, this is what happened. Congressman Traficant says, it did not. And that creates the backdrop for why I decided to file this motion, the same motion that was introduced by Louis Stokes in 1980. When this matter came before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and I want to give praise at this moment in time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of that committee, who has the toughest job in the House of Representatives, for his work. And I also want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member, not only because he has the second toughest job, but I just want to, just as a personal, point of personal privilege for a minute, when I filed this motion, I was originally told that there may be some who would seek to file a motion to table so we could not even have this discussion this evening. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) worked very hard to make sure that I had the opportunity to speak tonight and those who wanted to agree with me, and I thank him very much. This sets the backdrop for what I think brings us here this evening, or at least me here this evening, and it is a fellow by the name of Richard Detore. Richard Detore is an individual who was indicted in a superseding indictment to the Congressman. He did not testify at the trial, because he has fifth amendment concerns. He did come against those concerns to testify before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in open session. He testified, and again, we were free to believe or disbelieve, but that is not the point, and we will get there from here, that he was asked by the assistant United States Attorney to tell a story, and the story was that he was in a room here in the Capitol and he overheard a conversation between a fellow by the name of J.J. Cafaro and another individual wherein it was discussed that Congressman Traficant was being bribed in return for favors, and the specific favor had to do with technology, laser technology for landing airplanes, which most of you voted for if you voted for AIR 21. Mr. Detore testified to us, and again he did not appear at trial, that when he declined, and he said, I will tell you anything that I do know; he was originally given a grant of immunity: I will tell you anything that I do know, but that is not true, that did not happen. First, he was threatened with the Internal Revenue Service. Next, it was indicated to him that he would be charged with bank fraud. I want my colleagues to listen to the description of bank fraud because this is very telling. When he got the job with U.S. Aerospace Group, he was promised employment of $240,000 a year. His employer, one of the accusers of the Congressman, gave him a letter saying, you are going to be the new CEO of this company and you are going to make $240,000. He took that letter to the bank to get a mortgage, as I think many of us in this room have done. When the accuser in another count of the Congressman told the story, he said, you know, you can get him, because we never signed his employment agreement. So his using the letter saying we are going to pay him in the future, he did not have a signed employment agreement; he has committed bank fraud. When he did not believe that, and no reasonable human being would, he said they would indict him. He said, you know what? Indict me. And he stands indicted today. Since his testimony, again, not seen by the jury, a juror in Cleveland, Ohio, has come forward to the newspaper; and, Mr. Speaker, I will introduce an article for the Record appearing in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on July 20 written by an excellent journalist by the name of Sabrina Eaton, and the headline is: ``Traficant juror changes his mind; now convinced conviction was wrong,'' and I will include the article in the Record at this time. Traficant Juror Changes His Mind; Now Convinced Conviction Was Wrong (By Sabrina Eaton and John Caniglia) Washington.--A juror who helped convict U.S. Rep. James Traficant says his vote to find the Youngstown congressman guilty of 10 felonies in April was a mistake. He says he changed his mind after watching televised testimony before a House ethics panel this week. ``I know it's after the fact, but now I believe that there's no doubt that the government was out to get him, and if they want you, they'll find enough evidence to make you believe that the Earth is flat,'' said Leo Glaser of Independence, who was juror No. 8 at Traficant's nine-week trial in Cleveland. Glaser, 54, said he was swayed by the testimony of Richard Detore, a Virginia executive accused of bribing Traficant. Detore, who faces trial in October, chose not to testify in Traficant's trial because he could have hurt his own case. But he did give his version to a House ethics panel that later recommended that Traficant be tossed from his job. Detore told the panel he hadn't tried to bribe Traficant and that the chief prosecutor in the case against Traficant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Morford, urged him to fabricate a story to say he overheard Traficant seeking favors from Youngstown businessman John J. Cafaro in exchange for political influence. He said his refusal to lie about Traficant resulted in his own indictment. Morford, who was unable to present his side of the story when Detore testified in Washington, yesterday categorically denied ``any improper conduct'' and said Traficant brought up the same allegations last year in legal motions that were rejected by Judge Lesley Wells. He declined to comment on Glaser's statements. Under federal law, Glaser's change of heart won't change the verdict against Traficant. Although it's unusual for jurors to change their minds after a trial, Case Western University law professor and political scientist Jonathan Entin said Traficant probably won't succeed if he tries to use Glaser's reversal to appeal the verdict, because Detore voluntary refused to testify in Cleveland. Madison Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette, a member of the ethics panel that recommended Traficant's expulsion on Thursday, said that Glaser contacted his office several weeks ago to discuss the case but that ethics committee lawyers barred him from talking to the juror because of his role in deciding Traficant's fate. LaTourette said he'll ask Speaker Dennis Hastert to bring Glaser's concerns to the attention of the House of Representatives before it decides whether to eject Traficant next week. Another ethics committee member, Cleveland Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones, said she wasn't sure how Glaser's statements would affect Traficant's case. ``He's certainly not the first juror to reconsider his decision after a trial,'' Tubbs Jones said. Glaser, who came to public attention when a Cleveland judge dismissed a traffic citation he was issued while trying to feed a homeless man during the 1996 holiday season, said he would have voted to acquit Traficant of all charges if Detore had testified at the bribery and racketeering trial. ``It would have give me reasonable doubt,'' said Glaser, a design technician at the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., who has twice run for mayor of Independence. But other jurors said the evidence, with or without Detore's story, buried Traficant. Traficant's employees said he made them give kickbacks from their salaries and do unpaid work on his farm and boat. Local contractors said they gave Traficant bribes in exchange for assistance. Wells is scheduled to sentence Traficant on July 30. ``There was just so much evidence in the case and so many witnesses that the wealth of information against [Traficant] was overwhelming,'' said Jeri Zimmerman, a juror from Mentor. ``I kept saying to myself, `Please, please show me something, anything, that would make me wonder.' but [Traficant] never did. And the witnesses he called hurt him more than helped him.'' Asked about Detore's testimony before the panel, Zimmerman said: ``That's one person. What about the other 50 people that we saw? The government's case was overwhelming.'' Mr. Speaker, that article is based upon his observation of the hearings here in Washington, D.C. Then, another juror came forward on Monday of this week and, in pertinent part, his affidavit indicates: ``I did not believe the testimony of the key government witnesses, and I did not believe that the government proved that James Traficant committed any offense,'' and I will include this affidavit for the Record at this time. Affidavit lorain county, state of ohio Affidavit of Scott D. Grodi Now comes Scott D. Grodi, and being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states the following: 1. I was selected as a juror in the case of United States of America vs. James Traficant in January 2002. I did not know anything about James Traficant at that time. 2. I served on the jury for eleven weeks and was excused by the Judge, without objection from either the government or the defense so that I could take care of family obligations. 3. I listened to the testimony of all government witnesses, all defense witnesses, in addition to hearing closing arguments before being dismissed. 4. When I was dismissed as a juror, I did not believe the testimony of the key government witnesses and I did not believe that the government proved that James Traficant committed any offense. 5. I do not believe today that James Traficant was guilty of the charges brought against him. Further affiant sayeth naught. Scott D. Grodi. Sworn and subscribed before me on this the 24th day of July, 2002 by Scott D. Grodi in Lorain County, Ohio. John P. Kilroy. Next week, Mr. Speaker, the judge in Cleveland will consider justice in the Myers case, whether or not to pronounce sentence and what that sentence should be, but first will have to dispose of some due process procedural motions filed by the respondent, Mr. Traficant, including a motion for a new trial. And I will say I do not know everybody in this House well, but I have been here for 8 years, and I would trust that those Members who know me know I am not a black helicopter guy, I am not a big conspiracy theorist, but Mr. Traficant's argument was, if we believe him, that the Government was out to get him because of other things. And I would say to my friend, and particularly my friends from Massachusetts, I would ask my colleagues if they could have imagined that Joseph Salvati could have been a subject of rogue FBI agents and kept in prison by our Government unlawfully for 35 years. If my colleagues watched the Today Show and they saw the preview of Mr. Traficant's hearing here today, the second story was about a man who had spent 17 years in prison for murder and the prosecuting attorney was in possession of a confession from another individual, but suppressed it and the man spent 17 years in prison. I would just close at this point with another observation from 1980, and this observation says: ``I too am a former assistant U.S. attorney. I think I share the feelings of all the Members that have had a chance to review those videotapes,'' again, those are the Myers videotapes, ``that the conduct of the Member in question certainly was repugnant to all of the standards that I believe the Nation expects from this Congress, but I have to agree with the gentleman,'' Mr. Stokes, ``that we do not have the responsibility to judge each other's character, unfortunately, and I think until this matter is finally resolved in the courts that we should really come back and address ourselves to the issue in a climate that is not as political as the one we find ourselves in today.'' That was the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again for those colleagues who have been involved in the criminal justice system, I would tell them, and I do not disagree with things that have been said by other members of the committee, Mr. Detore, whom I found to be credible, and with all due respect to the gentlewoman from California, I would ask Members to ask other members of the adjudicatory subcommittee whether they found Mr. Detore to be credible or not, but the difference is this. The committee was left with a cold hard 6,000-page transcript. We were not able to see the accusers of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), whether they sweat, whether they reacted under cross-examination. Mr. Detore came in, and I just want to read one portion of what I was able to see him say in response to the questions put to him by the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and counsel for the committee. He said, ``I have lost faith in my ability to tell my kids to be honest, to be truthful, to be fair to others, and others will be fair to you. This is not where I was born. I don't know what is going on here. This is like having an out-of-body experience in another planet. The amount of treachery, deceit and lies throughout is unbelievable. ``I got a wife laying home with shingles from stress, she can't even move, paralyzed. I have two children crying, upset, a nervous wreck. I have never had situations where I passed out in my entire life. But 2 years of pure hell, and I defy anybody to walk in my shoes. And I could have simply just taken an easy path and just said, okay, I will say what you want me to say.'' I had the chance to see him, and so did the other members of the committee. We were deprived of the opportunity to see any other witness who accused the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) of anything. And so the committee was in a position of substituting our judgment as to whether they were more credible than the Congressman, whether they were more credible than Mr. Detore. We had to accept the judgment of 12 jurors, 350 miles and 6 months away. I made this example in my conference earlier that, again, being a prosecutor, I am familiar with death penalty cases. In a death penalty case if we receive information that something is not right, I think everybody in this Chamber would pick up the phone and call the Governor and say, Governor, we have to give it a couple of days until we check it out because it is irreversible. What we are being asked to do tonight is the equivalent. It is the political death penalty. We cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. If the gentleman gets a new trial next Tuesday, we cannot unexpel him next Wednesday. This is final tonight. All we are asking is for Members to follow what Mr. Stokes and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) asked the body to do in 1980. In closing, I want to thank all of the Members who spoke on behalf of our motion, but I want to highlight the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) in particular. I mentioned that both of these motions are occurring days before a month-long recess; and in that debate in 1980 a Member said, ``I think the conduct engaged in by Mr. Myers is reprehensible and, if we do proceed to a final vote on the issue today, I shall vote to expel him. I deeply believe that this is precisely the wrong time for this House to act. I say that for a very simple reason . . . This is the last week of the session, and almost every Member is doing what I am doing. We are closeted in meetings with our staffs. We are trying to clear the deck to get out of here. We are paying attention not to the Myers case, but we are paying attention to what we have to put into our briefcases to go home . . . I would submit that this is not the correct atmosphere in which to take the historic action which we will be taking today.'' That Member of Congress was the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), again on October 2, 1980. Mr. Speaker, I am not asking Members to do anything tricky, anything that violates their conscience. This is a vote of conscience; and I want to thank everybody in the debate, the chairman, the ranking member and all of the members of the committee, and the staff of the committee was tremendous. I agree with everything that Members said. Not one person on that committee was out to get the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Every Member of that committee listened carefully to the evidence. But I am telling Members, when we have to compare warm bodies who come in and we can see in their eyes and their souls as to whether or not they are credible, and you put that up against a book of 6,000 pages, the book should not win; and the book should not especially win when all we are asking, we are not asking for the appeals process to go through habeas corpus and all of the hoops that may take place, we are leaving on Friday. The first day we come back, if Members want to kick the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) out of Congress, we have not lost anything. We could still do it. The only thing we have done is given, and perhaps we will get questions that the ranking member and the chairman asked, we do not know. Maybe on September 4 we will know. I ask Members to think about it.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make the following observation. Both the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member, I think, said what I have been trying to say. They repeatedly said that we do not know, we do not know this, we do not that. That is the point of laying this over. Secondly, to my good friend from Illinois, with all due respect, I could be fair if this respondent was from Idaho, Iowa or Timbuktu. To the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), my good friend and former colleague who was a prosecutor in Ohio, the rules have changed but justice has not since 1980, I hope. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see that a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee marked up legislation this week to help ease regulatory burdens placed on our nation's financial institutions--including credit unions. As a member of the Financial Services Committee and one of the authors of the Credit Union Membership Access Act, which was signed into law on August 7, 1998, I would like to bring an article recently published in the American Banker to the attention of my colleagues and submit it for the record. It is important to remember that credit unions were created to exist solely for the purpose of offering financial services to folks within their defined field of membership. Unlike other financial institutions that can provide services to the general public, credit unions cannot. Also, as nonprofit entities that are member-owned, credit unions have consistently delivered to their members quality personal services at the lowest possible cost. On April 25, 2002, the Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held its second hearing on regulatory relief. At that time I heard testimony from witnesses representing the credit union community and the issues they face, such as the trend of credit union conversions from federal to state charters. Just as the Credit Union Membership Access Act was much needed at the time of its enactment, I believe that true regulatory relief for insured depository institutions and for our nation's credit unions is now both necessary and appropriate. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker I would like to submit for the record the text of an article from the American Banker website which comes from an interview with Fred Becker, President of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. D.C. Speaks: To Credit Union Advocate, Service Record Says It All (By Nicole Duran) Washington.--Credit unions do a better job of serving their communities than other types of financial institutions and could do even more if they were not hamstrung by regulatory impediments, said Fred Becker, the president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. ``Credit Unions are better at serving everyone than banks,'' Mr. Becker said, referring to an American Banker survey last July that revealed credit unions are on a 10-year run for drawing the loudest applause from customers. Critics accused credit unions and their regulator, the National Credit Union Administration, of not caring enough about low- and moderate-income people when the agency--with support from Mr. Becker's organization and others--pulled the plug on a community reinvestment rule in December before it took effect. The rule, known as the Community Action Plan, would have required credit unions with community charters, to file plans on how they intended to serve all segments of their membership. Mr. Becker said that the statistics show that credit unions already reach out to minorities and underserved individuals. Credit unions approved mortgages for 84% of applicants with household incomes of $40,000 or less, while banks approved 62% and thrifts 72%, said Mr. Becker, citing 2000 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Also, credit unions lent to 70% of the minorities in that income bracket who applied for mortgages, while banks granted 56% of similar applications and thrifts 63%, he said. There is a fundamental misunderstanding among critics-- namely the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the Woodstock Institute, Mr. Becker said. ``Credit unions don't serve the general public,'' he said. ``You can't just walk in and join a credit union. Only recently have they been able to expand their membership fields.'' The critics ``may want to take a different approach in dealing with us and work with us.'' he said. ``Anyone can always do better.'' The sole purpose of the tax-exempt, nonprofit institutions is to serve members, and most offer higher-quality loans at a lower cost than consumers can get at any other type of institution, he said. But Mr. Becker said he envisions credit unions doing even more to reach those who are not well served by mainstream and fringe financial institutions, if Congress will allow it. For example, credit unions could aid small-business owners who find it difficult to have their lending needs met, he said. Credit unions' business-loan portfolios cannot exceed roughly 13% of an institution's total assets. If that limit were raised or lifted, credit unions could fill the void in small-business lending, he said. Mr. Becker also wants lawmakers to allow more credit union participation in the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. Right now only community-chartered credit unions may participate, and each must get individual permission. Credit unions, as an entire class, should be allowed to make SBA-backed loans, he says. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-Ohio, has written a proposal to broaden SBA participation for credit unions, but her attempts to attach it as an amendment to other legislation have so far failed. Credit unions are in a Catch-22, Mr. Becker said--they cannot participant in the program because they do not serve the general public, but they are barred from serving the general public by law. That logic is ``ludicrous,'' he said. Mr. Becker also called for the removal of other restrictions, such as the rule that credit unions cannot cash checks for nonmembers. If that rule were changed, consumers without checking accounts could have a cheaper alternative check-cashing outlets, he said. A House Financial Services subcommittee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a regulatory relief bill that would eliminate the prohibition and grant other items on Mr. Becker's wish list.