Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the chairman of the task force.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter.]

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the majority leader for bringing the resolution to the floor. We frankly have had some difficulty in getting a number of people to understand exactly what is going on. It is difficult when we try to follow the rules and the procedures properly; we cannot go out and demagog what we are trying to do. So this is an opportunity for us to once again review the facts, and I appreciate the minority leader providing us with the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader suggested the possible alternative of going door to door. He knows and I know and all of us know that going door to door is wrong. It is just as wrong as offering a resolution which will shut down the process before it is completed. We owe it to those people who know they cast legal votes in this contested election to make sure that all the people who cast illegal votes are determined. Would we have liked to have done it in the first week of the contested election? Of course. Would we like to do it in the time frame that he is indicating? Of course. In fact, we offered an agreement that would have facilities doing just that. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri also knows that we are not turning over the determination of who legally voted in California's 46th to the Secretary of State. He knows that, but that is a useful rhetorical argument. What we thought might help us advance the finding of the facts was to use those people who are involved in this process every day. In fact, that is what their job is. The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of California. Interesting enough, in the first ``whereas'' they cite the Secretary of State having issued a certificate. My assumption is they believe he does a pretty good job of carrying out his role as the chief election officer. We thought we could use him as an assist in making decisions; that is, there already has been a discussion as to who can vote when one becomes a citizen. We believe that the decision should be made under California law, not under some agreement agreed to by a partisan majority or even a unanimous task force, to take from California its legal laws under their election code and substitute an artificial one, which has been done in the past. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri says this is unprecedented. The gentleman is right. What we are trying to do here is reverse past history, and that is do not make a political decision on how we count the votes, but rely on the people who are legally charged in the State to do it. The gentleman from Missouri says we are going to have the Secretary of State determine the citizenship. He knows that is not true. The document we gave him showed that the INS would be involved. In fact, the INS has already been involved in the Western region because the Western region took the names that the Orange County district attorney had subpoenaed and the Los Angeles region of the INS examined them and, working with the Secretary of State, determined that approximately 300 people were not citizens but were on the voting roll. That was done with a sample. Mr. Speaker, what we are suggesting is perhaps they should look at a large sample. That does not mean that we have to agree to what they say, but it would certainly be nice to use people who were professionals and who do that job every day as a resource so that this committee could use that information as it sees fit under the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows me or who knows the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] or the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] knows we would not turn any final decision over to someone else. That decision is ours and we guard it jealously. But what is wrong, for heaven's sake, in using people who are professionals in what they do to help us make a determination? Let us look at the resolution that is in front of us. The first ``whereas'' indicates that the Secretary of State is someone who issued the certificate. I already indicated that if he is held in high esteem by virtue of what he did before there was any hint of fraud or illegal voting in this particular race, what would be wrong with using him to help us come to a conclusion? It is interesting also that in the third whereas they talk about the fact that the task force met early and it has not met recently. As a matter of fact, the task force, I understand from the chairman, is going to meet on Friday. Let us review briefly why the task force has not met. There were people, including the Congresswoman, who refused to comply with the Federal Contested Election Act in terms of the subpoenas that were issued under that act. She believed they were unconstitutional and wanted to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. I supported her right to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, if she thought it was wrong. But I doubt if you folks would, based upon this resolution, wait until she fought that all the way to the Supreme Court. We did have the judge who issued the subpoenas indicate that he certainly thought that the law was valid and subpoenas could be issued. So the committee issued interrogatories. It was the committee that had to move in and begin to act under the committee power. The gentlewoman from Orange County has, in fact, responded to the interrogatory. There are people who have not responded to the interrogatory. We have communications from Nativo Lopez, who said he will not respond to the interrogatory. In all probability we will have to subpoena him to get the information. You folks do not know and apparently you do not want to know what he is going to be forced to say. The Orange County district attorney currently has a criminal investigation of conspiracy against Hermandad and Nativo Lopez is the head of that organization. You do not care what happens there. You want to end it. I think those people who cast their votes legally and who would like to know if their votes were canceled out by illegal votes would not want to. The whereases go on to indicate in the sixth whereas that the INS has complied with the committee's request. As a matter of fact, if you really knew what was going on, you would know that the INS has not complied. They still have names. They turned in 200 just this week additional. They have hundreds more to turn in. They have not given us the complete list. Remember, they only began giving us the lists when the committee subpoenaed the Immigration and naturalization Service to begin providing us with those documents. That was not 9 months ago. We only have begun the process and we have not completed it. When you take a look at the whereas No. 7, indicating that we already have all the records because we placed a subpoena on the evidence that the district attorney gathered, remember, our subpoena was on top of the district attorney's subpoena to protect that material so that we would not lose it. We did not issue the initial subpoena. The district attorney did. it was a limited subpoena. kit was only for the materials that were in the offices of Hermandad. it is not all of the records. That whereas is simply factually inaccurate. There could very well be more records out there. We need to find out what Nativo Lopez knew and when he knew it. He refuses to respond to the committee. We will continue to make sure that he does not defy the committee. We would love to have the minority join us in supporting the Constitution and the laws in requiring people who we have decided need to provide information to us, that if they refuse to do it, we compel them to do it. There I would love to have you join us in supporting the Constitution and the laws. It seems to me that when you say that, in whereas No. 8, we are seeking duplicative and dilatory review of material already in the committee's possession, that you mean we want to really make sure that we achieve the highest level of verification where someone's vote is concerned. hey, I do not think that is bad. I think double-checking is good. I think being accurate is proper. I have a hard time understanding why that is bad. if we are dealing in such an area of sensitivity that you have indicated your concern, what is wrong with checking the list twice or three times or using those officials who do it every day to help us in coming to a decision? I think that is good. I do not think it is bad. you seem to think that it drives to a conclusion that we should end all of this. What amazes me is that you now indicate in whereas No. 9 that we have got all the evidence that there needs to be gathered. Fairly ironic that you could come to that conclusion, since not one staff member of the minority has been willing to sign a confidentiality statement to share, to look at the materials that we have. None of them have been willing to sign. They will not enter into a confidentiality agreement not to leak the material. So how in the world do they know what we have been doing? They refuse to sign a confidentiality statement to join with us without leaking. At least I admire their honesty in not signing the statement. It just seems to me that if you come to the conclusion that we ought to end this on October 29 based upon those whereases, you are saying you want to dismiss us, even if the INS has not provided all the records, even if material people who may be indicted for criminal conspiracy have not provided information to the committee, that you want to end it even if we do not know how many people voted illegally. It is not ``if,'' do not think it is ``if.'' It is how many. And to do ti right and to do ti properly takes time. I appreciate the gentleman offering the resolution. I think it is fairly clear that based upon the facts of the case as we have moved forward that this resolution is not timely. The call for dismissal on October 29 is premature, and I look forward to joining with you, notwithstanding the fact that you reject use of experts to assist us in determining what actually happened, in signing confidentially statements so we can work together to get to the bottom of it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I tell my friend from Connecticut, he brought the same lady on the floor the other day, she is no longer on the list, obviously. That is why we need to go through and carefully check. But in trying to preserve people's privacy, does she really need to be exhibited this often, as some kind of a poster child? Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], chairman of the task force. And I am sorry the minority leader is not on the floor. He was here earlier but I guess he left, because I would have liked for him to be here so he could hear the chairman of the task force.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue that may soon have severe implications for our health industry. Within the next year there may be a shortage of critical medical devices on the market due to the unavailability of biomaterials. Biomaterials, such as teflon, polyurethane, and polyester yarn, are necessary components in medical devices, for hip and knee implants, pacemakers, and catheters. What makes these biomaterials special is that their biological nature will not be rejected by the immune system. Their chemical properties are specialized to fit the durability and the malleability that is needed in constructing implants, like the tiny cochlear ear implant which enhances hearing. What has caused this short supply of biomaterials? Biomaterials suppliers are leaving the market of medical devices because of an onslaught of litigation. The suppliers of biomaterials have rarely been found liable for defects in the manufacture of a medical device. The reason is that the biomaterial seldom has anything to do with defect of the product. With so many victories, why would the biomaterials makers continue to face litigation threats? Why do plaintiffs and trial lawyers pursue innocent, though hapless, suppliers of biomaterials? Because they can. In the United States, anyone willing to pay a court filing fee can bring a lawsuit for any reason and pursue it through actual trial even with no hope of success. And while manufacturers of medical devices are relatively small and go bankrupt when forced to pay large litigation settlements, suppliers of biomaterials have deep pockets and thereby attract the voracious appetites of the major trial lawyers. Thus, biomaterial suppliers, most of which are companies that sell a small percentage of its overall production to medical device manufacturers, are subject to litigation for products that it had no say or responsibility. Biomaterial suppliers are being litigated against for simply supplying the raw materials. One example of the problem with litigation reaching too far in the biomaterials industry involves DuPont, a maker of synthetic materials. DuPont sold teflon to a manufacturer that made temporo mandibular joint implants. The manufacturer was sued on the grounds of tort law, where the plaintiff believed that the implant was defective. The manufacturer went bankrupt so the plaintiff held DuPont liable for the defective implant. With only about 5 cents' worth of teflon in each mandibular joint implant, DuPont was named in over 250 different cases. DuPont won every case. However, the litigation cost was almost $50 million over 8 years. Result: DuPont left the medical device market after it decided, without too much difficulty, that its sales for 5 cents of teflon resulted in millions of dollars in legal expenses. Do we hold steel mills responsible for the criminal use of a gun? Do we hold makers of car paint liable for every auto accident? The law does not, Juries do not. This Congress should not. As the chairman of the Health Subcommittee on Ways and Means, I fear this trend. In a time of rising health care costs, we can ill afford to lose the technologies that have helped patients live their lives with better quality and care. A shortage of raw materials for medical devices and implants will only raise health costs and limit access to the few. In the ongoing process of trying to provide more accessible health care at costs sustainable to our Nation's future, present product liability laws has the potential of running a lot of biomaterial suppliers out of the medical device market, even though many of them are completely without fault with regards to the design and manufacture of defective implants. It would be wise to look at recent health care history for a perspective. Just 40 years ago, children who were afflicted with hydrocephalus--water in the brain--died of brain damage in early childhood. With a device called an implantable shunt, doctors are now able to save these children by relieving the fluid pressure. Before pacemakers were created, heart attack victims would not have survived without something pacing the beat of their heart. Technology has now allowed us to achieve this. We can manufacture knee implants that allow crippled people to walk again. We now have hip and jaw implants. Our technology has been pushed forward with ambitious thinkers, courageous entrepreneurs, and a public with increasing demand for quality in their lives. In the end, every American benefits from these advances in medical technology. More than 75 percent of biomaterial suppliers have already left the medical device implant market. In responding to the influence that made them leave the market, 100 percent of the suppliers cited the fear of litigation costs. The medical device industry has almost $50 billion in annual domestic sales, with almost an additional 120 billion dollars' worth of sales in the foreign market. Because nearly a third of all medical device companies reside in California, a loss of this revenue to the California and U.S. economy would be significant. With the current rate of biomaterial suppliers leaving the market, the medical device companies may be left without the precious biomaterials to make implants and be forced to close their businesses. The many effects that current product liability law provides for with regards to biomaterials simply illustrates one segment of the detrimental effects of overlitigation on our economy. The biomaterials shortage is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. The problem remains excessive litigation while the solution is comprehensive product liability reform. It is not in the best interests of the American people to cease all litigation on defective or harmful products. However, we must provide an environment where consumers can be protected from bad products, while also limiting senseless litigation so that businesses can continue to operate, innovate, and provide for the American consumer. Piecemeal reform of certain industries, while ignoring the problems that excessive litigation is having on other industries, is not the solution. We tried, in 1995, to enact product liability reform but it was vetoed by the President. I ask Congress to enact comprehensive product liability reform.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, why do we need malpractice reform? Without it, the health care industry as a whole faces greater inflation and increases in costs, costs which Americans can not afford. With reform, however, both the consumer and medical practitioner alike benefit, both fiscally and physically. Medical malpractice costs have risen 49 percent since 1990. At present, the estimated cost of such malpractice insurance is more than $9 billion annually, and the costs continue to mount. Add to this number the billions of dollars for defensive medicine, and tort litigation becomes a major contributor to the financial woes of the health care industry. In reforming the tort system, we will free up funds and lower the costs of overall health care. A recent study performed by Stanford University professors David Kessler and Mark McClellan provides compelling evidence of the numerous cost-effective benefits of tort reform. By examining nearly almost 2 million cases of coronary illness among the elderly, over a time period spanning approximately 6 years, these analysts concluded that the Federal Government would have saved $600 million a year in Medicare expenditures on heart disease alone. In fact, the annual overall savings projected by the study totaled $10 billion to Medicare, an important reason why tort reform should be part of any effective strategy to save Medicare from bankruptcy. Even more phenomenal, however, are the figures projecting overall savings for the health care industry. By implementing tort reform, Kessler and McClellan estimate an astounding $50 billion in savings to the health care industry as a whole. Defensive medicine significantly forces up medical costs. Defensive medicine is the practice of ordering extra tests on patients in order to protect the health care provider from the risk of being sued. Tort reform that directly limits the liability of health care providers, according to Kessler and McClellan, could reduce hospital expenditures by 5 to 9 percent within 3 years of adoption. This would be done primarily by eliminating unnecessary testing associated with defensive medicine alone. An excellent example of an illness subject to such practices is coronary artery disease. Over the 7-year period examined in the Stanford study, States with serious tort reform saw real costs rise about 9 percent, as compared to those States which lacked reform which experienced an inflationary rate more than 10 percent higher, at 19. Given the often uncertain diagnosis of this ailment, many doctors order up batteries of tests and procedures. As with heart attacks, researchers found these tests to be mostly defensive measures, which proved unnecessary. In fact, readmission and mortality rates remained constant throughout the United States. These extra tests are just one example of defensive medicine driving up the costs of effective and safe health care. Yet these savings in no way harm either private citizens or the health care industry. The health care liability system actually tends to stymie efforts to make health care safer and more accessible. Rising insurance premiums have long charted the rising cost of jury awards and out-of-court malpractice settlements. By issuing a cap on pain and suffering damages, by eliminating collateral source payments, and by placing limits on plaintiff attorney contingency fees, we will be able to not only lower health care costs, but also allow more than the mere 43 cents received for every dollar, at present, to reach injured patients. In 1975, California, my home State, introduced a number of tort reforms applying to medical malpractice. The Medical Injury Compensation Act [MICRA] embodies a package of reforms, including a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, which set a precedent which national reform should be modeled after. I propose that Congress take the following necessary measures in implementing tort reform. First and foremost, we must follow California's lead and adopt a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards. This cap will in no way limit the amount of money that an injured plaintiff could receive to cover his or her hospital costs, doctor bills, lost wages, or other medical expenses. Second, I would advise an elimination of collateral source payments. Plaintiffs, and their attorneys, often receive payments totaling two or more times the actual amount of damage ensued, simply by being paid by multiple insurers or defendants. As a third measure, I believe that we must place a limit on attorney contingency fees. In so doing, we will provide more money to the deserving injured patient. Finally, effective tort reform must allow for both periodic payments, and a fair statute of limitations. In 1995 the House of Representatives passed the product liability bill and the Balanced Budget Act, in 1996 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and in 1997 the Balanced Budget Act. Each of these important pieces of legislation included measures to instate medical malpractice reform, and each has received my support. Four times the House has passed tort reform legislation, and four times the Senate has removed such measures from the legislation. We cannot allow this pattern to continue. By taking the bold steps necessary to reform the tort system, both the House and Senate would be bettering the lives of every individual. The health care system of this country plays an important role in all of our lives. It is the responsibility of the leaders of this Nation to maintain it in such a way as to provide the safest, most cost- effective, and highest quality medicine possible. Without medical malpractice reform we fall dangerously short of this goal.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, California is famous as the home of the motion picture industry, Disneyland, beaches, and an overwhelming tourist industry. It may surprise you to learn, however, that agriculture is actually California's No. 1 industry. Since California is also the home of numerous international ports, the combination of agriculture and international trade creates the backbone of California's economy. As such, it is a priority to foster growth in agricultural exports by supporting U.S. efforts to decrease barriers to trade with foreign countries. For the last 50 years California has held the title as the Nation's No. 1 agricultural State. California's agricultural industry is important to the Nation as well as to the economic well being of our local communities. Agricultural exports account for over half of California's total agricultural products which brings $22 billion into the California economy every year. Thus, over half of the revenues earned by the sale of California's agricultural products were generated by California growers' ability to enter and compete competitively in foreign markets. For some products, such as the sale of cotton in my district, exports account for 75 percent of the $1 billion in total sales revenues. Agriculture provides 1 in every 10 jobs in the State. These jobs serve as the underlying force behind California's economic strength. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture's 1995 Crop Report, ``for every $1 billion in export sales, 27,000 jobs are created in the state''. By this approximation, agricultural exports helped the total California economy by creating 124,000 jobs, and these jobs, on average, pay more than nonexport related jobs. In my district, Kern County's $350 million in exports sales creates almost 10,000 jobs, which does not include indirect economic benefits. Given the direct relationship between agricultural exports and employment levels, it is important that we work to increase exports by encouraging free trade and maintaining strong working relationships with our trading partners. Although exports already represent a large portion of California's agricultural sales, they remain the area of greatest potential growth for the industry. While overseas markets are growing, our domestic market has reached a stagnant growth rate. The global marketplace is where the action is, due to the fact that there are about 6 billion consumers beyond our Nation's borders. In just the last 6 years, U.S. agricultural exports have increased by 50 percent. New trade agreements that open and liberalize trade allow California farmers access to those 6 billion consumers in the global market. I mentioned how successful cotton has been for California and my district. Consider if other agricultural products also succeeded in expanding through free trade. For example, as the leading dairy producing county in the Nation, Tulare County in my district is well positioned to seize a lion's share of the growing world dairy demand if only fair and free trade can be achieved. Other major agricultural products found in California, such as pistachios, almonds, grapes, and stone fruits, stand to gain from the ability to enter foreign markets if given an equal footing with producers from other countries. We must plan for future growth by working with our trading partners to open market access, allowing California farmers the opportunity to sell even more goods in the global market. Expansion of agricultural exports has always been my priority. As the Representative of an agricultural district I am proud that the success of California's farmers and ranchers helps build America's economy while feeding millions. Since the implementation of NAFTA 3 years ago, agricultural exports to our NAFTA trading partners have increased by 13 percent. Trade liberalization under NAFTA will continue to bolster the economic forces that are promoting trade growth. As we work to further reduce barriers to trade, we can look forward to great increases in our agricultural exports. Creating a free market is in our best interest, and I urge this Congress to do its best to continue to support free trade.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, so the minority leader----

Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The Chair's response to Members on this side who request unanimous-consent requests, notwithstanding the appropriate minority member agreeing that it is appropriate, cannot be honored because the minority leader says it is not to be honored? Is that the way the rule works, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. THOMAS. Is it my understanding that the Chair has ruled that notwithstanding that the ranking minority member has agreed that the procedure is appropriate and proper, the Democratic leadership wishes to override those people who are otherwise in positions of responsibility to mindlessly object to everything? Is that my understanding?

Mr. THOMAS

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

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

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. 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. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the committee.

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. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

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, 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

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. 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. THOMAS

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