[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14299-14319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1900
        IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the privileged resolution (H. Res. 
495)

[[Page 14300]]

in the matter of James A. Traficant, Jr., and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 495

       Resolved, That, pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 
     of the United States Constitution, Representative James A. 
     Traficant, Jr., be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House 
     of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER. The resolution constitutes a question of the privileges 
of the House and may be called up at any time.


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. Before our debate begins, the Chair will make a 
statement about the decorum expected in the Chamber.
  The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from 
references in debate to the conduct of other sitting Members where such 
conduct is not the question actually pending before the House, either 
by way of a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
or by way of another question of the privileges of the House.
  This principle is documented on pages 174 and 703 of the House Rules 
and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair.
  It is also well established that indecent language either against the 
proceedings of the House or cast against its Membership is out of 
order.
  Disciplinary matters, by their very nature, involve personalities. 
The calling up of a resolution reported by the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct or the offering of a resolution as a similar 
question of the privileges of the House embarks the House on 
consideration of a proposition that admits references in debate to a 
sitting Member's conduct.
  This exception to the general rule against engaging in personality, 
admitting references to a Member's conduct when that conduct is the 
very question under consideration by the House, is closely limited.
  This point was well stated by the Chair on July 31, 1979, as follows: 
while a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate on a 
disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XVII still prohibits the use 
of language which is personally abusive.
  This was reiterated by the Chair as recently as January 27, 1997. It 
also extends to language which is profane, vulgar or obscene and to 
comportment which constitutes a breach of decorum.
  On the question about to be pending before the House, the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), as chairman of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Members should confine 
their remarks in debate to the merits of that precise question.
  Members should refrain from remarks that constitute personalities 
with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, with respect to other sitting Members whose conduct is not the 
subject of the pending report, or to Members of the other body.
  The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in 
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings 
of this House.
  As always, the galleries must refrain from any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of the proceedings.
  Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVII, the Chair intends to take 
necessary initiatives to ensure proper decorum.


                    Motion Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. LaTourette moves to postpone further consideration of 
     House Resolution 495 until September 4, 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette) is recognized for 1 hour.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  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.

[[Page 14301]]

  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 
     voluntarily 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

[[Page 14302]]

     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.

                              {time}  1915

  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. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I yield 15 minutes of my 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, for his 
control of that 15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise to speak in opposition to the motion by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette), and I oppose the motion for the following reasons: 
The bipartisan membership of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct has worked diligently, and I think fairly, over the course of 
several months, and this has brought us to the resolution under 
consideration today to expel Representative Traficant. The committee 
following regular order has placed this matter in the hands of the 
leadership to schedule it whenever the leadership deemed appropriate.
  In fact, when asked what I wanted in this, I said, ``If you let it 
lay over until September, that is fine with me. If you schedule it now, 
that is fine with me. Whatever you think is best for the schedule, that 
is fine with me.'' They scheduled it for tonight, and so tonight is the 
night that we need to do this business.
  The committee reached its decision to sustain nine counts of 
misconduct against Representative Traficant based on clear and 
convincing evidence before it. In an article in the Youngstown, Ohio 
Vindicator, dated July 23, yesterday, the juror, I think the same juror 
that Mr. LaTourette mentioned: ``Leo Glaser said today that his vote to 
convict U.S. Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., stands. Glaser, 
juror number 8 in the Federal District Court trial in Cleveland, said 
his quotes in a newspaper story over the weekend were somewhat 
inaccurate.
  ``He said he found the headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer story, 
`Traficant juror changes his mind; now convinced conviction was wrong,' 
especially inaccurate.'' So while I have sympathy for what Mr. 
LaTourette is trying to do, I do not know if this juror thinks he made 
the right decision or he did not make the right decision. I cannot tell 
from these stories. But, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that Members vote 
against this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself up to 7 minutes.
  I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who 
is a very diligent and very valuable member of the committee, who 
joined in the unanimous vote to recommend expulsion.
  A word about the testimony before the committee of Richard Detore, 
for when we hear the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) argument, 
we realize that only one issue has come up since the time that the 
committee recommended expulsion that changes the facts before us since 
the committee completed its deliberations, and that is the comments of 
jurors. I will address those comments in a few moments, but first I 
want to talk about the testimony that I think is underlying some of the 
concern, that of Richard Detore.
  Unlike the jurors in Cleveland, the eight members of our adjudicatory 
subcommittee, including myself, heard Mr. Detore's efforts to exculpate 
Mr. Traficant.
  We nonetheless determined that the allegations against the gentleman 
had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, including count 3, 
the only count, the single count on which Mr. Detore arguably had 
pertinent firsthand information. Despite his limited familiarity with 
the full range of charges against Mr. Traficant, Mr. Detore nonetheless 
spoke with assurance about matters of which he could not possibly have 
had direct knowledge, including events in Youngstown, of which this 
Washington area resident could not have been aware and private

[[Page 14303]]

conversations which did not include him.
  He testified about conversations between Mr. Traficant and J.J. 
Cafaro, a business plan for whom Mr. Traficant secured a $1.3 million 
appropriation and who engaged in a sham transaction involving $13,000 
in cash and $26,000 additionally in repairs and boat slip fees in a 
sham transaction pretending to buy Mr. Traficant's boat. Cafaro and the 
former USAG chief engineer, Al Lange, Cafaro and Cafaro Company 
treasurer Dominic Roselli, and Cafaro and his accountant Patricia 
DiRenzo. Mr. Detore testified on all of these conversations and there 
is not a bit of evidence that he was a party to or a participant in any 
of these conversations.
  The adjudicatory subcommittee found Mr. Detore either lacking in 
credibility or found his testimony outweighed by the overwhelming 
evidence against Mr. Traficant.
  It has been argued that as an indicted co-defendant, which he is, he 
placed himself in great peril by testifying before our committee and 
that this bolsters his credibility. I think it can be argued just as 
well that this was his Hail Mary pass to discredit the Assistant U.S. 
Attorney before his case goes to trial. Mr. Detore clearly demonstrated 
that ours is the forum where he intended to try to save his neck.
  He has repeatedly failed to show up at pretrial hearings in Cleveland 
citing ill health, yet he managed to make a surprise appearance before 
our committee last week, testifying for hours late into the night. For 
that reason, he is now facing contempt charges in Cleveland, charges 
that he and the gentleman from Ohio will doubtless argue is further 
evidence by their persecution by the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
  Casting further doubt on the voracity of Mr. Detore's allegations of 
misconduct by the assistant U.S. attorney, is the fact that he 
similarly hurled accusations of misconduct against the staff of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, staff which we know to a 
certainty acted appropriately and the allegations are patently false.
  Let us look at the recantations by juror Leo Glaser. He has been 
cited as saying that he heard at trial the testimony he heard of Mr. 
Detore last week. If he had heard that, he might not have voted to 
convict. I would point out that the conclusion of the Adjudicatory 
Subcommittee and the recommendation that the gentleman be expelled were 
based not to the conviction, but on the evidence presented at trial.
  Furthermore, Mr. Glaser has gone on to say to the press that he also 
did not have the opportunity to hear how the Assistant U.S. Attorney 
might have cross-examined Mr. Detore so he cannot be sure how he would 
have weighed the Detore testimony. Nor does he know what his fellow 
jurors might have argued in their deliberations after Mr. Detore's 
testimony in cross-examination.
  And finally, Mr. Detore could have testified at trial. Mr. Traficant 
did not call him. We do not know whether he would have taken the fifth 
amendment at trial. He did not take it in our Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct hearing. If anyone denied Mr. Glaser the opportunity 
to hear Mr. Detore during the trial, it was the gentleman from Ohio. It 
is intriguing to me that suddenly Mr. Detore is made available to make 
a statement to us.
  With regard to the second juror, he did not even participate in the 
jury deliberations at all. He left the jury to attend a family funeral, 
an alternate was selected. He has no idea what the give and take was 
inside the jury room during the deliberations.
  Let me reiterate that unlike the jurors in Cleveland, we did hear 
from Mr. Detore, yet we were not persuaded. We voted for the count with 
regard to which he testified, count 3, and for eight other counts, 
finding that the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence 
that the rules of the House have been violated.
  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. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise tonight in defense of guilt 
or innocence of our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). 
I rise tonight in a sense of what I think is fairness. I have a 
tremendous respect for this body and an overwhelming respect for the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the difficult job that 
they have. I too compliment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), for their tremendous 
efforts and integrity that has been so prevailed throughout this trial.
  I rise tonight in support of this resolution. I am not blessed with a 
law degree, I do not apologize for that, I just do not have one. But I 
do know that in court language, when one is going through a trial 
process, judges sometimes overrule things because of a clause. They say 
that a bell cannot be unrung. And, indeed, if we tonight ring this bell 
of guilt against the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) during this 
appeal process, we are only talking about a 6-week delay, in order to 
make this ultimate decision, in my opinion, it is unfair to my 
colleague.
  I think we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is not 
professing that we believe he is innocent by delaying this action until 
September. It is just saying that we are going to give him a chance. 
Even if someone is convicted of murder in most every State in the 
Nation, there is always an escape valve because the governor has the 
right to overturn if evidence is presented that convinces the governor 
that the defendant is deserving of a new hearing.
  What we do tonight is ring the guilt bell upon the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) when it is not necessary at this time. Certainly 
if he is charged with what he is charged with by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, and I have no reason to doubt that he 
has not been charged correctly, then we should act. Certainly we ought 
to give one of our own colleagues the benefit of doubt. Delay this 
action for 6 weeks until we get back in September and then vote our 
convictions.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject the 
motion to postpone H.R. 495.
  I know how difficult this proceeding is for the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette), himself a former prosecutor and for the other Members 
of the Ohio delegation who have served many years with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and developed close friendships.
  If the subject today were a friend and colleague from the Illinois 
delegation, I cannot say for certain that I would not try to do the 
same thing. But the subject today is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) and whether this body is best served by postponing the 
consideration of this resolution until after August.
  It is said that there may be new developments in the gentleman's 
Federal case, and that a month's time might yield a new outcome.
  In fact, there was a new development just today in the gentleman from 
Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) Federal case when a three-judge panel of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the gentleman from 
Ohio's writ of mandamus on a petition relating to jury selection. We 
heard a great deal about that petition during our hearing, and there is 
no doubt in my mind that there will be other appeals and other 
petitions on the gentleman's behalf. But my point is, regardless of 
whether these approaches succeed or fail in the Federal courts, they 
are, by no means, relevant to the status of his case in the U.S. House 
of Representatives.
  Why do I say this? For one, our subcommittee did not rely strictly on 
the transcript from the Federal case.

                              {time}  1930

  We went well beyond it and heard from the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. 
Traficant) witnesses, including those who were not allowed to testify 
on his behalf in Federal court.
  Second, our standard of proof is much lower than what a jury faces in 
a Federal criminal case. In Federal

[[Page 14304]]

court, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. In 
the U.S. House, it is clear and convincing evidence that our code was 
violated, a very important distinction.
  Last, our mission was not to determine whether the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is guilty of a felony count or 10 felony counts. 
It was to determine whether the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
violated the Code of Official Conduct and the Code of Ethics for 
Government Service, again a very important distinction.
  We Members of the House are not a Federal court of appeals nor are we 
here to second-guess or predict the rulings of juries or judges in the 
Federal courts of Ohio. We are here to serve our duty under article I, 
section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution.
  As a member of the adjudicatory subcommittee that reviewed the 
evidence in this case, I would respectfully urge my colleagues to vote 
against the motion to postpone and for the resolution. Neither justice 
nor this body will be served by delay.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to respond to the comments of my very good friend, my 
colleague from Alabama, because there is a certain quick appeal in the 
argument that this process is still under way, the sentencing occurs 
next week, there are appeals, there are writs of habeas corpus 
following that process.
  The motion to postpone is a motion to postpone till September 4. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has made a motion for a new trial, 
and that motion has been denied with an extensive opinion by the judge. 
No one can argue that this appellate process will be even seriously 
under way, little less completed, by September 4.
  The logical conclusion of a process which says we wait until all 
appeals are exhausted means that the provision of the Constitution 
which provides that we expel Members for the most egregious behavior is 
rendered a nullity. I do not think that is what our Founding Fathers 
intended, and that is not what we should do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones), a former judge, a former prosecutor, a great member of 
our committee.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the 
chairman, and my colleagues who served on the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct. What an experience.
  Service on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is not a 
committee assignment for which there is a lot of competition. In fact, 
it is not even an enviable position. However one is called into 
service, each Member must accept his or her responsibility and 
obligation to serve with honor and integrity, consistent with the 
tradition of this great House of Representatives which we love and 
revere.
  I seriously considered not speaking before the full House, in part 
because I believe that the misfortunes of one of my colleagues should 
not be used for political purpose or grandstanding. However, having 
accepted this responsibility of serving on the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, I believed it my duty and obligation to speak out 
in support of the decision that we made and in opposition to delay.
  Let me say at the outset that I have known the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) for many years. As he stated many times in that 
hearing, he was a vocal supporter of my candidacy for the Ohio Supreme 
Court, and for that I will ever be thankful. Some even questioned my 
ability to serve, and I knew that I could be fair and so did the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Let me go for a moment to this question about where the money was if 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) got the money. If my colleagues 
got the money, would they put it in the bank?
  Let us talk a little bit about these jurors. I have tried many cases, 
both as a judge and as a prosecutor, and there were many times where 
jurors, once they rendered that decision, wanted to back up and say, I 
do not know if that was the right decision; judge, can tell us whether 
he was guilty or not or whatever it was. Jurors make decisions based on 
all the facts and evidence that is before them at that particular time, 
and this is what those jurors did.
  The burden was beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden of proof 
in our Nation. Our committee has a job and our committee is, and we are 
not governed by the same rules that my great colleague, Mr. Stokes, 
whom I have a lot of respect for, was when he made the motion back on 
Mr. Myers. Our rules of ethics are different. They are not the same as 
they were back when Mr. Myers was presented before this House.
  The rules say that this body can make a decision to expel a Member 
prior to sentencing and prior to conviction, and that is what this 
committee recommended to my colleagues.
  We are not a jury. We are not a criminal court. We are in the court 
of the House of Representatives and the court of public opinion which 
expects us to do our job, unlike the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), but my job is to make a decision right here on the House of 
Representatives. Vote against the motion.
  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. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the prosecutor allegedly 
threatened a witness and said if he did not say what he wanted him to 
say he would be indicted. He did not say what he wanted him to say and 
he was indicted. That could be prosecutorial misconduct. I do not know. 
If the court upholds the decision that they have made and they sentence 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to prison, I certainly will 
vote for expulsion, but I do not know whether there was prosecutorial 
misconduct.
  I do know that two jurors, after watching the ethics hearing, said if 
we had known and seen what we saw before the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, we would have voted otherwise. That creates a little 
bit of doubt in my mind, and I do not know and I do not think any of my 
colleagues know tonight if the judge might say, hey, because of the 
jurors' reevaluation of this, maybe we should order a new trial. I do 
not know if he will do that or not. He may not, but that is his 
decision.
  I do know that he is going to be making that decision next week and 
he is also going to be making a decision on whether or not to send the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to prison for how long, and for the 
life of me, and I say this to both my Democrat and Republican 
colleagues, I cannot understand why we cannot wait until we come back 
from break to vote on this issue.
  That is why I support the motion of my colleague who serves on the 
Committee on Government Reform with me, and I am sure that he would 
have the same attitude whether the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
was from California, New York or whatever, because that is the kind of 
man that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is.
  Another reason why I feel very strongly about this is we have had 
hearings, numerous hearings about what went on in Boston about 30 years 
ago where they put an innocent man in jail for over 30 years for a 
crime he did not commit, and I believe all the way up to J. Edgar 
Hoover, they knew he was innocent, but they were protecting Mafia 
informants.
  So many times there are miscarriages of justice. I am not saying

[[Page 14305]]

that is the Traficant case, but it happens, and for that reason alone I 
think we ought to say let us take a deep breath, go on break, come back 
in 4 or 5 weeks and then vote on this issue. If he is sentenced, if he 
goes to prison, he should be expelled, and I will vote for expelling, 
but what in the world is wrong with waiting for 4 or 5 weeks? I simply 
do not understand that.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I am going 
to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  There is a lot that we do not know, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette) said, about the argument that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) made about judicial misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct. 
There is a lot we do not know about that.
  What we do feel we know, however, is that there was clear and 
convincing evidence on the charges that he was charged with before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and in summary, that is 
four counts of bribery over a long period of time; that is obstruction 
of justice; that is defrauding the government through the use of 
congressional staff for personal service; and there was false 
statements on income tax returns. We think we know that by clear and 
convincing evidence.
  Clear and convincing, those of my colleagues who are attorneys know 
better than I do, equals highly probable. Clear and convincing evidence 
means it is highly probable that he is guilty of these offenses. It 
does not equal absolute certainty, and it does not even equal the 
reasonable doubt standard that the judge mentioned over here. It means 
it is highly probable. That is what the committee's conclusion was.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I hold the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in highest esteem. Over the course 
of the past 10 days, during this very long and arduous process, we have 
agreed and we have disagreed. We have passionately advocated different 
points of view, and I respectfully disagree with this motion and urge 
my colleagues to vote down that motion to continue.
  What I would like to do is really just address just the folks who may 
be harboring these thoughts or fears of an acquittal or some different 
outcome during this appellate process, which I absolutely agree with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) will not be concluded within 
6 weeks.
  Our task today, Mr. Speaker, is as different from that criminal jury 
verdict as the legislative branch is different from the judiciary. Our 
task tonight is as dissimilar as article I is different and separate 
and apart from article III.
  Unlike the matter that was debated on this House floor on October 2, 
1980, in Mr. Myers' case, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct relied entirely upon the guilty verdicts. Mr. Myers had not 
been given a full-blown hearing before the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  As my colleagues know and has been discussed, we had that hearing. In 
fact, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was given great latitude. 
He was treated generously by a committee of his colleagues who 
respected the gravity of the occasion which brought us face to face. 
Would that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) had acted in a 
reciprocal manner, but even the antics of last week are irrelevant to 
the decision that was reached by our committee.
  We reached our decision on 9 of 10 violations of House rules 
independent and apart from the jury verdict in Cleveland. So on the 
process and procedural grounds the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. 
LaTourette) motion must fail, but on substance, it fails as well.
  This witness, Mr. Detore, the committee considered his testimony and 
rejected it. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out, 
and let me reiterate, Mr. Detore exonerated himself for the criminal 
charge with which he was indicted, and yet he offered no defense to the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) kickback scheme of accepting 
$30,000. Mr. Detore offered no defense on the $30,000 kickback scheme 
between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a congressional 
staffer. Mr. Detore provided no testimony on the illegal gratuities 
supplied by constituents to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) at 
the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) behest.
  Mr. Detore offered nothing on the charge of obstructing justice by 
encouraging others to give false testimony to the authorities.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of reference and comparison between 
what we are doing today and tonight compared to that same debate that 
was within these hallowed halls some 22 years ago. Perhaps one other 
comparison, I hope, is appropriate. The House of Representatives in the 
Myers case voted down Mr. Stokes' motion 332 to 75. For procedural and 
substantive grounds, the motion from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette) must fail.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green), a distinguished member of the committee.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the newest member of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, and like all of my colleagues, I did not want it. In 
fact, I had to be asked three times by the leadership on our side 
before I would say yes. But I rise tonight to oppose the motion to 
postpone until September 4.
  This House is more important than any of us individually. We will 
come and go. Our voters will make that decision. What my concern is 
what this looks like for our House of Representatives for the future. 
Sentencing for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is set for next 
Tuesday, July 30. We will be in recess until September 4. We could 
actually have our colleague serving with us and also serving in Federal 
prison for a month.
  I would hope we would not think about us as individuals but think 
about us as a House and ask ourselves if we want that for our House of 
Representatives, and not really ours, as Members, but the people of 
this United States. I do not think it is right, and I do not think it 
does this House honor.
  I will not repeat what my colleagues have said who heard the 
testimony. I listened to Mr. Detore, and I found that he must be a very 
nice fellow, but I did not find him to be a credible witness on even 
the issues he was trying to talk about. I felt like he was out of the 
loop even on those issues, much less that we need to remember that the 
jury in Cleveland convicted our colleague of nine other felony counts. 
The committee found eight other counts and unanimously voted for 
expulsion.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the motion by the gentleman from Ohio.
  It is not easy to do this, obviously, and it is difficult for all of 
us to be here because it seems like, on the surface, there was 
unethical, probably illegal, and certainly bizarre behavior, and we 
feel offended by this and we feel compelled to do something to prove 
that we are keeping our House in order.
  I am not an expert on the legal part of this case. I would not 
pretend to be, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
deserves the credit for the effort they went through to dig out the 
information. But the process disturbs me, and that is why I wanted to 
take a minute or two to talk about that.
  The point was made earlier that the House's conditions are a lot 
different than the legal conditions for guilt and, therefore, they are 
not as stringent. But we would not be here if Mr. Traficant had not 
been convicted, and so that is key. That is the important issue.
  And that trial bothers me. I do not accept it as a good, fair, 
legitimate trial. I do not think all the witnesses were heard that 
should have been

[[Page 14306]]

heard, and I think some of the witnesses may well have been ``bribed'' 
into doing and saying certain things.
  But there is more that bothers me. I would like to see the appeals 
process completed. I was here in 1984, on my first tour of duty here in 
the House, and the George Hansen case came up and we voted then to 
convict. I think he had FEC violations and we voted to censure him. He 
lost his election, he lost his job, he lost his money, he went to jail 
and served time, and then he was exonerated on everything. He won all 
his appeals. I do not see the need to rush to judgment, certainly 
tonight.
  I am not happy that when the gentleman finally gets an opportunity to 
come and defend himself, he gets a total of 30 minutes. Really? And 
have my colleagues looked at the record of the case in Ohio? It 
contains a stack a foot high. Thirty minutes to defend himself? I do 
not think that is really fair.
  But there is another thing that bothers me, and that is the change of 
venue. I believe that the change of venue has been used historically in 
this country to make sure that the most horrible criminal gets a fair 
trial and gets his case moved from a area unduly influenced by media 
coverage. Have any of my colleagues ever heard of a trial being moved 
for the benefit of the State and to the disadvantage of the defendant? 
It may have happened, but I do not know about it, and I think that in 
itself is a reason to step back, take a look at this, and vote for the 
motion by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, many of Congressman Traficant's actions are impossible 
to defend. Mr. Traficant has most likely engaged in unethical behavior. 
I would hope all my colleagues would join me in condemning any member 
who would abuse his office by requiring his staff to pay kick-backs to 
him and/or do personal work as a condition of employment. I also 
condemn in the strongest terms possible using one's office to obtain 
personal favors for constituents, the people we are sent here to 
represent. Such behavior should never be tolerated.
  However, before expelling a member we must consider more than 
eccentric behavior and even ethical standards. Questions of whether the 
process of his court conviction and expulsion from Congress respected 
Mr. Traficant's constitutional right to a fair trail and the right to 
be represented of those who elected him to office, are every bit as 
important.
  Many Americans believe that Congress daily engages in ethically 
questionable and unconstitutional actions which are far more injurious 
to the liberty and prosperity of the American people than the actions 
of Mr. Traficant. Some question the ability of Congress to judge the 
moral behavior of one individual when, to take just one example, we 
manage to give ourselves a pay raise without taking a direct vote on 
the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, after carefully listening to last week's ethics hearing, 
I have serious concerns over whether Mr. Traficant received a fair 
trial. In particular, I am concerned over whether the change of venue 
denied Mr. Traficant a meaningful opportunity to present his care to a 
jury of his peers. Usually change of venue is instituted in cases where 
the defendant is incapable of receiving a fair trial. I am unaware of 
any case where the venue is changed for the benefit of the state.
  However, the most disturbing accusations concern the possibility that 
Mr. Traficant was denied basic due process by not being allowed to 
present all of his witnesses at the trial. This failure raises serious 
questions as to whether Mr. Traficant had the opportunity to present an 
adequate defense. These questions are especially serious since one of 
the jurors from Mr. Traficant's criminal trial has told the Cleveland 
Plain Dealer, that had he heard the testimony of Richard Detore at Mr. 
Traficant's trial, he would have voted ``not guilty.''
  Mr. Speaker, I also question the timing of this resolution and the 
process by which this resolution is being brought to the floor. Mr. 
Traficant's conviction is currently on appeal. Many Americans would 
reasonably wonder whether the case, and the question of Mr. Traficant's 
guilt, can be considered settled, until the appeals process is 
completed. I fail to see the harm that could be done to this body if we 
waited until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal.
  Prior to voting to expel Mr. Traficant before he has completed his 
appeals, my colleagues should consider the case of former 
Representative George Hansen. Like Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hansen was 
convicted in Federal court, censured by the Congress, and actually 
served time in Federal prison. However, Mr. Hansen was acquitted on 
appeal--after his life, career and reputation were destroyed.
  If my colleagues feel it is important to condemn Mr. Traficant before 
the August recess, perhaps we should consider censure. Over the past 20 
years, this body has censured, instead of expelled, members who have 
committed various ethical and even criminal activities, ranging from 
being convicted of bribery to engaging in sexual activity with under-
age subordinates.
  I am also troubled that Mr. Traficant is only being granted a half-
hour to plead his case before the house. Spending only an hour to 
debate this resolution, as if expelling a member of Congress is of no 
more importance than honoring Paul Ecke's contributions to the 
Poinsettia industry, does no service to this Congress.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because of my concerns over the fairness 
of Mr. Traficant's trial I believe it is inappropriate to consider this 
matter until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for a freshman to get up and 
talk about a Member that I do not know very well. Although I was born 
in Ohio, I am not here because of some relationship to Ohio. I am a 
California representative. I was voted by, in my particular case, over 
800,000 people I now represent, until we get reapportioned. All of my 
colleagues got here because of over 600,000 or more voters. They put us 
here, this body did not. Our governors did not put us here; a court did 
not put us here.
  We are a unique body. We get here by one and only one reason, and 
that is \1/435\th of the country votes to put us here. I do not know 
the people of Youngstown all that well, but they put the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) here, and I take it as an extremely important and 
extremely solemn duty to decide to take the extraordinary measure of 
removing him.
  I must tell my colleagues that I am also not a lawyer, but I am going 
to have to decide, hopefully in the next month rather than the next 
hour, whether or not to, for the second time in modern history, I guess 
for the second time in history practically, to remove a Member. I do 
not have enough information.
  I respect the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I respect the 
chairman. I believe that they have looked at this long and hard. But I 
have not had the opportunity. And as lawyers often say, I must look at 
this sua sponte. I am sorry, de novo. See, I am not an attorney. I have 
to look at this anew, and I am not prepared to do it now. I would 
appreciate the opportunity to see what the court in Cleveland does over 
the break. I would appreciate the opportunity to review the records and 
have my staff assist me. I will probably, when the times comes, vote as 
my colleagues do.
  Now, if I can just make one statement to this body, because there was 
a reference from one of my colleagues that in fact we had to worry 
about the image of this body. We will be gone after tomorrow, more or 
less, for a month. There will be no votes. There will be no activity. 
Whether the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is a Congressman or an 
ex-Congressman, he has a cloud that he is living under that he will 
have to deal with. It will make no difference to them. This body will 
survive one month of somebody with a conviction not yet sentenced or 
sentenced and not yet incarcerated.
  I believe that if we give it that time, if all of us go and soul-
search, take the time to understand the case, when we come back, 
whatever the vote is, we will feel better for ourselves and for this 
body if we have taken the deliberative time, and I ask my colleagues to 
please support this motion to give enough time for us to do the job 
right. We do not do it that often.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 14307]]

  I would just sum up with a few statements at this point. This is no 
rush to judgment. We have been struggling with this for some time. Most 
of my colleagues have not been as intensely involved with it, nor 
should you be, because you have other responsibilities and you have 
given us this responsibility.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is not getting 30 minutes to 
defend himself. He is getting 30 minutes here on the House floor. He 
had 5 hours before the committee, and it amounted to a great deal more 
than that because we gave additional time for him. He had the entire 
hearing process to defend himself.
  The gentleman that just spoke said he had not had time to really 
study it and understand. Well, the trial transcripts have been on the 
Internet for at least a week. Monday, the exhibits and the transcripts 
were all delivered to Members' offices. We are busy, and I know it is 
hard to have time to go through, and it is volumes of material, so I am 
not criticizing anybody for that, but my colleagues have heard tonight 
from the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
members that have been deeply and intensely involved in this over the 
last few weeks and months, as a matter of fact. And not one member of 
that committee did I sense was out to get Jim Traficant. I sensed no 
hint of partisanship in that hearing. And I would suspect that Jim 
Traficant would agree to that, that there was not a partisanship angle 
to this in the committee. I think this was a very painful decision for 
every one of us. Jim Traficant and I have been friends. Jim Traficant 
has been a friend to most of you in here.
  This is not a pleasant time or a pleasant task. If I thought that 
between now and September 4 the landscape would change substantially, 
then I might be with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and say 
let us put this off until September. But, my colleagues, I must say 
that the largest single profession represented in the United States 
Congress is lawyers, so you know, and I am not a lawyer, but my 
colleagues know that the appeals process can drag on and on and on for 
months, sometimes for years.
  So if we do not do this tonight, I do not know exactly when we are 
going to do it. I just do not think it is going to change between now 
and September 4. So I would respectfully ask that Members reject the 
motion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the subcommittee that 
investigated and prepared the statement of alleged violations. She has 
been a member of this committee for 5\1/2\ years. She has performed 
wonderfully far more than her share of the burdens of this committee in 
this and other matters.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) has said, I have been a member of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct now for 5\1/2\ years, and in those 5\1/2\ years, in 
every case, every member of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct has tried to discharge their duty fairly and to do the right 
thing. That has always been the goal. There has never been a drop of 
partisanship in the committee.
  As we have worked through this, I think it is important to share what 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reviewed before coming 
here today.
  We have heard about this Mr. Detore, who was not found to be a 
credible witness by the adjudicatory subcommittee. But in addition to 
that testimony offered to the committee, we reviewed 6,000 pages of 
testimony, more than 50 witnesses for the prosecution, and 29 witnesses 
called by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  What we found in the review of the statements of those witnesses that 
were subject to cross-examination is, regrettably, a pattern of tens of 
thousands of dollars that were delivered to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) in kickbacks and bribes, the most serious misconduct 
that we need to address here.
  Now, it has been suggested that we delay these proceedings. If we 
delay to September 4, we will know nothing more than we do this 
evening. We will not have an appellate decision. We will just know what 
we know today.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Speaker, I would note that article I, section 5, says it is for 
each House to determine with the concurrence of two-thirds whether to 
expel a Member. It is not for the House to delegate to the judiciary 
the decision on who is fit to serve in each body.
  I would urge that we step up to our unpleasant duty this evening, 
that we discharge our obligations granted to us under article I, 
section 5 of the Constitution, and that we act this evening, unhappy as 
that task may be.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the quote ``rush to judgment.'' 
Quite a long time ago, well over a year and a half ago, the Chair and 
the ranking member of the committee and the staff of the committee were 
aware of articles talking about indictments, investigations, facts for 
which there would have been ample evidence for the committee to proceed 
at that time to investigate totally separate from the criminal justice 
process.
  The committee chairman and the ranking member said no, let us wait; 
let the criminal justice system work. Let us not rush and push this. We 
know the complications when there is a dual-track investigation, and we 
refrained from acting.
  There was a trial and there was a conviction, and the only thing this 
committee did was to make sure they gathered the information and the 
transcripts from the trial as that trial went on. Now the conviction 
comes in; and many Members of this body, either proposed or wanted to 
propose privileged resolutions essentially saying we have a Member of 
our body, a colleague of ours who has been convicted of 10 felony 
counts. This is intolerable, we want to expel, and they could have 
brought a privileged resolution to this floor. We went to those 
colleagues, and we persuaded them to defer to this process. Let us do 
it according to the rules, give the subcommittee the adjudicatory 
committee and the full committee a chance to look at the evidence, 
gather it, and produce it. We did that.
  We come forward in regular order. I ask Members to reject the motion, 
do not reject the committee's process and the process of restraint and 
justice that we have shown and vote ``no'' on the motion to postpone.
  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

[[Page 14308]]

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, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). All time for debate on the 
motion has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 285, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--146

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     English
     Everett
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--285

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clement
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Phelps
     Pickering

[[Page 14309]]


     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bonior
     Knollenberg
     Stearns

                              {time}  2026

  Mr. WYNN, Mrs. EMERSON and Mr. JOHN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to postpone consideration was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to yield half of 
that time, 30 minutes, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). That 
leaves me with 30 minutes. And I would like to yield for control of the 
time, half of that time, 15 minutes, to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) who is the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In both cases, the gentleman yields for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. HEFLEY. For debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again I renew my call for the privileged resolution, I think it has 
been read, so I rise in support of that House Resolution 495 which 
calls for the expulsion of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., from 
the House of Representatives.
  On July 17, 2002, the Adjudicatory Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct held pursuant to the vote requirements of 
committee rule X that nine of the 10 counts contained in the statement 
of alleged violations adopted by the Investigative Subcommittee in the 
matter of James A. Traficant, Jr., had been proved by clear and 
convincing evidence. These counts involved findings that Mr. Traficant 
engaged in the following acts that did not reflect credibly on the 
House of Representatives:
  Bribery by trading official acts and influence for things of value; 
demanding and accepting salary kickbacks from his congressional 
employees; influencing a congressional employee to destroy evidence and 
to provide false testimony to a Federal grand jury; receiving personal 
labor and the services from his congressional employees while they were 
being paid by the taxpayers to perform public service; and filing false 
income tax returns.
  On July 18, 2002, the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
held a public sanction hearing to determine what sanction, if any, the 
committee should recommend to the House of Representatives with respect 
to the nine counts of the statement of alleged violations proven by 
clear and convincing evidence in this matter.
  With respect to any proved counts against Mr. Traficant, the 
committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following 
sanctions: We could recommend a fine, we could recommend a reprimand, 
we could recommend censure or we could recommend expulsion from the 
House of Representatives, and two other possible recommendations would 
be denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege or immunity of 
Mr. Traficant if permitted under the U.S. Constitution, or any other 
sanction determined by the committee to be appropriate.
  With respect to the sanctions that the committee may recommend, 
reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate 
for more serious violations, and expulsion is appropriate for the most 
serious violations.

                              {time}  2030

  Due to the most serious nature of the conduct in which Representative 
Traficant engaged, including repeated and serious breaches of the 
public trust, the committee reported this resolution to the House on 
July 19, 2002, with its unanimous recommendation that Representative 
Traficant be expelled from the House of Representatives.
  In its 213-year history, the House has expelled only four of its 
Members. Three of those expulsions occurred during the Civil War and 
were based on charges of treason. The fourth expulsion was that of 
Representative Michael J. Myers in 1980 and was based on Representative 
Myers' conviction on Federal bribery and conspiracy charges arising 
from the ABSCAM investigation.
  It is important to note, however, that the number of actual 
expulsions from the House should be considered with regard in light of 
the fact that a number of Members who committed violations of the most 
serious nature resigned their seats or lost elections before formal 
action could be taken.
  Mr. Speaker, when each of us was sworn in as a Member of the House of 
Representatives, we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution states 
that each House of Congress may punish its Members for disorderly 
behavior and expel a Member with the concurrence of two-thirds of its 
Members. One of the last lines of our oath of office states that each 
of us will ``well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on 
which I am about to enter.'' To my thinking, it is this section of the 
oath that is the focal point of the proceedings tonight.
  None of us ever wants to sit in judgment of our peers. There are some 
unique occasions, however, when the behavior of an elected official 
violates the public trust to such an extent that we are called upon to 
uphold this provision of the Constitution that we swore to support and 
defend.
  It is for this reason, and I have to tell you, friends, with a 
genuine sense of sadness, that I bring this resolution to the floor of 
the Chamber tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, like the chairman, I rise in sadness, but in strong 
support of the motion to expel. The gravity of the offenses of the 
gentleman from Ohio against the rules of the House compel us to impose 
the most severe of sanctions, and thereby uphold the honor and 
integrity of the people's House.
  I say this, and I can say this with certainty, because of the rigor 
and the evenhandedness of the process undertaken by the committee, 
consistent with House and committee rules, and with the resolve of a 
chairman who, in every instance he could, bent over backwards to ensure 
fairness and afford the gentleman from Ohio a full and fair opportunity 
to present his defense.
  We gave the assertions of the gentleman every consideration. We 
entertained every motion, admitting into evidence virtually every 
document he offered, and, despite having the trial transcript before 
us, nonetheless heard from a number of additional witnesses, including 
some who had testified for him at trial.
  And what was the gentleman's defense? That he paid for the labor and

[[Page 14310]]

materials provided to him on his farm; that, in the alternative, the 
farm wasn't his; that he paid for the cars provided to him; that the 
kickbacks he demanded from the staff were in fact loans voluntarily 
tendered to him and repaid by him.
  But take a closer look. The gentleman had a very busy winter of 1999-
2000. The Federal investigation of him had started, and suddenly he was 
constructing his defense. In December 1999, he transfers the title to 
his farm to his wife and daughter. He pays J.J. Cafaro $7,000 for three 
cars that had been given to him from 1997 to 1999, and he pays, this is 
count two, David Sugar's company $1,100 for work done on the farm 6 
months earlier. Not until April of 2000 does Sugar instruct his 
secretary to create false invoices for the work.
  In January 2000, after learning of the investigation, he gives his 
Congressional employee, Alan Sinclair, $18,500 in cash, indicating that 
the cash came from Cafaro, telling Sinclair to keep the cash at home to 
justify the withdrawals he had made from his paycheck. He gives 
Sinclair a note, again after he knows the investigation is going on, 
saying, ``They may ask you if you ever gave me money, and you did. You 
lent me cash on several occasions and I did pay you back in cash.''
  The next month he gives Sinclair another $6,000 and gives Cafaro 
$3,000 more for the three cars. These transparent fabrications did not 
impress the committee.
  Mr. Traficant protests that he is the victim of selective 
prosecution, indeed of government misconduct, but in order to believe 
his assertions you would have to accept the gentleman's notion of a 
vast, unparalleled conspiracy involving not only the self-interested 
and disreputable characters from Youngstown, but also involving the 
Office of the U.S. Attorney, the IRS, the FBI, a respected U.S. 
District Judge, the counsel for the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, a conspiracy designed by Janet Reno and implemented by John 
Ashcroft.
  You would have to believe that thousands of pages of testimony by 
prosecution witnesses, including many low-ranking employees accused of 
no wrongdoing who testified of being ordered to do work for the 
gentleman, and the hard documentary evidence against him, are all a 
tissue of lies, the result of evil intent, manipulation, coercion and 
intimidation by a treacherous cabal, for which there is simply no 
evidence and which is preposterous on its face.
  In the end, the committee found that the evidence was overwhelming, 
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the rules of the 
House had been violated, flagrantly, I would add.
  Mr. Speaker, we are much preoccupied these days, both as elected 
officials and as private citizens, by breaches of public trust. We may 
enact legislation before we recess to protect the public from unethical 
conduct in the corporate arena. But to state what should be obvious, 
each of us in this very body has weighty responsibilities in this vein 
as well; not to abuse those who seek government assistance through our 
offices and not to abuse those who work for us.
  To fail to expel the gentleman from Ohio in the face of the vast 
evidence spread out in the record is to say that a Member can behave as 
he has and retain membership in this institution. That cannot be our 
message today.
  I urge my colleagues to take the difficult action, thankfully rare, 
but abundantly warranted in this case, of voting for the motion to 
expel.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, in lieu of the gravity of this matter, 
the number of counts, I respectfully request unanimous consent of this 
body that an additional 15 minutes be awarded to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Colorado yield for 
that request?
  The gentleman from Colorado has yielded for debate purposes only and 
must yield to permit another Member to make a unanimous consent request 
to change the procedure.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will yield for that request. That is not 
passing judgment on the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is 
recognized for an additional 15 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Ladies and gentlemen, you heard on the news, the first 
national news story that I was involved in, a murder scheme by 
contract. It made national headline news. The woman was a friend of 
mine. She was so distraught, she called me every name in the book by 
phone. I didn't know what she was talking about.
  She later called and recanted, after they put her in protective 
custody for 8 weeks, paid $800 to keep her dogs in Kentucky, and then 
brought her to the grand jury twice. And when she said that Jim 
Traficant committed no crimes, then they demeaned her. But through the 
process they told her, to ensure her safety, to go public.
  Now, if you are a juror and you have heard about a Jim Traficant, if 
that isn't poisoning a voir dire, what is?
  But then the next one that was in the national news was the $150,000 
barn addition. Now, I am an old sheriff. Finally a man with a 
conscience, Henry Nimitz, sees me at a restaurant and comes up and 
says, ``Jim, I want to apologize. They were going to indict me, take 
away my business, ruin my life. My attorney said, why do you have to 
spend a half a million dollars? Tell them what they want to hear. I 
did, and I feel like a coward.''
  But what he failed to recognize, I had a friend with me by the name 
of John Innella. I immediately went back to my office and did an 
affidavit with John Innella. Then the next day, as an old sheriff, I 
called Mr. Nimitz' girlfriend, who admitted that Mr. Nimitz called and 
admitted what he said to Jim Traficant. So now the $150,000 barn was 
not brought.
  Now, I am going to get right to the point. I want you to imagine 
there is a small army of patriots, and they are facing a gigantic army 
armed to the teeth. And the captain, trying to show strength, calls his 
assistant and says, ``Go to the tent and get my bright red vest.''
  He goes and gets the red vest. He puts the red vest on, and he says, 
``To show the power and courage of our people, without a sidearm I am 
going to carry this sword and I am going to attack the enemy, and, as 
they slay me, the blood will not be seen because of my bright red vest 
and you will be encouraged to fight for our homeland.'' He gave a 
banshee cry. He ran out into battle and was destroyed.
  His assistant come up and he called his attendant. He said, ``Go to 
the tent and get me those dark brown pants.''
  Think about it.
  Tonight I have dark pants on. Am I scared to death? No. I will go to 
jail before I will resign and admit to something I didn't do.
  Now, I want to go case by case. Forget all these witnesses. The 
judge's husband is a senior partner in the law firm that represented 
one of the key witnesses in my case, and that is part of now legal 
action relative to 28 U.S.C. 455. In addition, that person, Cafaro, I 
am not going to mention names, admitted giving hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to politicians, I might add, mostly Democrats.
  He said he gave me a $13,000 bribe. Because we were at a public 
meeting, he said he waited until everybody left, and then we walked out 
together, we got in his car, and he gave me the money.
  One of the attorneys handling my appeal is a bright young black 
attorney by the name of Attorney Percy Squire, Chief Clerk to the Chief 
Judge of the Northern District of Ohio, and I called him as a character 
witness. And he said, ``Jim, what do you want me as a character witness 
for? I came late to that event where you were trying to put a quarter 
percent sales tax together, so you could leverage funds, and I walked 
you out and saw you get in the green truck,'' that another witness said 
he picked me up in a green truck, because his had a cap on, and we

[[Page 14311]]

had built prefab siding for a hunting hut. We went and got my truck and 
went and put the hut up.
  And they accepted Cafaro's testimony even though he admitted to lying 
in a previous RICO trial. That is one count.
  Richard Detore is a patriot. I didn't subpoena Detore because his 
attorney said, ``Don't subpoena Richard, subpoena me.'' To tell you the 
truth, I was a gentleman, and I did it. I felt sorry for him.
  Before I was indicted, before Detore was indicted, I have a tape 
where he says everything on that tape that he told the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. He said, ``Jim, I think I am living in 
Red China. If I didn't have two kids, I would blow my brains out.''
  Now, let's look at a few affidavits. Dealing with David Sugar, just 
yesterday caught up with him. They said it was a half mile, Jack, 
across the State line, and they might now pull me into jail for being 
out of my district.
  With one of my staffers close by to listen, Sugar admitted that he 
told Harry Manganaro that after the second FBI visit, because he had 
backdated some invoices, if he did not lie against Jim Traficant he 
would not only be indicted, his daughter, his wife and his son would be 
indicted. I have a tape of Harry Manganaro. He wasn't allowed to 
testify, nor was the tape admitted at trial.
  Now, in addition to that, a man by the name of Joe Sable told another 
one of my constituents three days ago, ``I feel so bad for Jim.'' David 
Sugar told me the same thing. And David Sugar said to me, ``Jim, I 
would love to help you.'' Now he is saying in the paper, ``I never said 
that to Traficant.''
  By the way, Nimitz' attorney, who I taped his girlfriend, his 
attorney said he admits to meeting Traficant, but did nothing illegal.
  Now, let's talk about Tony Bucci. His fourth plea agreement, his 
brother in Cuba, fled the country on a fugitive warrant, they sentenced 
him to 6 weeks arrest, and here is what he said. He did $12,000 worth 
of work at the Traficant farm, and he owned me. Now, not all of you 
know me personally, but if you think someone owned me, you would throw 
me the hell out of here.
  Witnesses testified that I asked him for jackhammers because we had 
an old bank barn. I never owned the farm. But this old bank barn didn't 
have enough height for horses, Ralph. I asked him to let me use their 
jackhammers. He said, ``It is an insurance problem. I will send some 
people out.'' I said, ``I don't want you to do that. You will get too 
close to that old bank barn and you will drop it in.''
  And that is what happened, folks. And the whole corner of that barn, 
Cynthia, fell down. Harry Manganaro came out and helped me prop it up. 
It cost my dad $15,000.
  Now, guess what? Harry Manganaro came to my office yesterday and said 
his building happened to be firebombed last weekend and all his records 
are missing, including the bill, $15,000, not counting materials, to my 
dad who owned it.
  Sinclair. Now, look. You are prosecutors. Mr. Callahan made a hell of 
a point. Mr. LaTourette, thank you. But now I want a prosecutor to 
think, you really want Jim Traficant. They didn't allow a witness to 
testify, they wouldn't allow a vendetta defense. She voir dired nine of 
my witnesses outside the presence of the jury, didn't allow them to 
testify. Allowed none of my tapes. All of my tapes are exculpatory. 
Even on those who took the 5th Amendment, she didn't allow them.
  Bucci lied through his teeth. His sister-in-law told me that there 
were three brothers and a brother that lived across the street from the 
farm and he was my friend. And she said he was sick, they took him to 
Florida, where he had his leg amputated; brought him back, stole the 
money from the family, and her children did not even attend the 
funeral. She submitted an affidavit and testified.
  God almighty here.
  Now, they said the prosecutor said, ``Traficant is touchy-feely. 
Traficant is too intelligent to be taped.'' Why did they have Sinclair 
tape an attorney, Madovich? Why didn't they fake body injury? I have a 
device, Mr. Hefley, that I could tape you right now, your conversation 
in the midst of all of this, and you wouldn't know you are being taped.
  Now not one wiretap, with the number one target in the United States 
of the Department of Justice prosecutors. My phone wasn't tapped. They 
didn't want to get an admission. They didn't want to get Traficant 
saying listen, go to it, that grand jury, do this.
  J.C., everybody that testified against me would have gone to jail and 
lost their law license and ruined their life.
  Now, a brother-in-law testifies. He said his brother-in-law told him 
that he was taped by someone that he had bribed a county engineer, 
hundreds of millions of dollars. He told his brother-in-law that he 
would go to jail for 10 years and lose $15 million, but all they wanted 
was Traficant. So he told his brother he added up all the campaign 
contributions, which was $2,300 or $2,400 and said he bribed Traficant.
  You know what is amazing about this one? She didn't even allow the 
brother-in-law, who was subject to jeopardy, being sentenced in another 
case, to testify.
  And guess what I did? I used the government's own picture because he 
said I did this, Ellen, in a barn. So I held up the picture and said, 
``What barn was it?'' Couldn't identify the barn.
  I said, ``What was I doing in a barn?''
  He said, ``You were cleaning a horse's hoof.''
  ``Which one?''
  He said, ``The back one.''
  I said, ``Was he tied, or was he being held?''
  He said, ``Someone was holding him.''
  ``Anybody else in the barn?''
  ``Oh, all kinds of people.''
  ``What was the floor like?''
  ``Can't remember. Too much manure.''
  The jury even threw that one out.
  I have an affidavit or a tape on every one of these counts.
  Now, Sandy Ferrante testified that she personally saw me repay over a 
period of years money to staffers that I borrowed from them. When the 
IRS nailed me, they took me to civil court, and I made $2,400 a month. 
And that just run out, and now they are going to put me in jail for 12 
years, take everything that my wife and I owned, and I never owned that 
farm.
  I will go to jail, but I will be damned if I will be pressured by a 
government that pressured these witnesses to death to get a conviction 
on a target, the number one target in the country.
  Jim Kirsham, who was an FBI-paid special agent, she would not let him 
testify, said, ``If you get us anything on Traficant, we will build a 
monument to you.''
  I got an affidavit from a guy just sent to me from Canada that I 
helped in a case where 11 Chinese were arrested, and he said, ``I want 
to thank Jim Traficant publicly,'' and they said, ``Stay away from 
Traficant. Don't mention his name. We are going to get him.''
  I had an FBI agent that compromised one of my constituents under 
mental instability, desperately trying to save custody of her child, 
compromised her into sex. She said, ``Jim, he didn't throw me to the 
ground. I don't want my 87-year-old mother to know about it.''
  FBI agent Anthony Speranza. I will be damned if someone is going to 
rape one of my constituents.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman will avoid profanity or indecent language.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. How much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I read an affidavit of a Scott Grodi. He sat through 
the whole trial. I would like your attention. I got this affidavit 
today, about an hour before I came here. He was released two days 
before the trial, his aunt died. He said he wanted to finish. I thought 
we had it resolved for the U.S. Marshals to take him so he would be a 
pallbearer. When he came back, he was dismissed.
  He didn't put in his affidavit, Cynthia, but you can write and talk 
to

[[Page 14312]]

him, John Grodi, Scott Grodi. He said he knew the prosecutor wanted him 
out. He said, ``I knew Jim Traficant was innocent.'' He said, ``I could 
see how he impeached their witnesses and how they were lying.''
  Now, Mr. Berman said that there was a recant by Mr. Glaser. This is 
today's newspaper just faxed to me. Mr. Glaser said he did not recant, 
and, on the evidence, he couldn't see himself convicting Jim Traficant 
now.
  Mr. Grodi said the woman next to him also felt I was innocent. I 
tried to get an affidavit from her. Her attorney informed us that she 
was afraid to get involved. Now, folks, if she had something good to 
say about the government, would she be afraid?
  Look here, that Cafaro Company and that Laser, I saved them with a $4 
million appropriation. Thank you, Bill Young. But most air flights miss 
on their airports, and that technology is already used on our 
submarines and our naval aircraft carriers. And the only deal I have 
with Cafaro is bring those jobs, Ellen, and bring those headquarters 
from Manassas, and screw Frank Wolf.
  I have helped everybody in my district and every one of these people, 
yeah. I did not even like some of them. But when they had 150 employees 
and got a contract for a highway that hired another 200, I had a 22 
percent unemployment rate. Did I go to bat for them? Yes. Did I write 
letters to the Secretary of State? Yes. Did I write letters to the 
Secretary of Commerce? Yes. Secretary of Labor? Yes. Department of 
Transportation? Yes.
  But here is where I am at tonight. I have been pressured for 20 
years. Now, in 1996, read this. ``Dear Sheriff, after watching your 
deal in Washington and listening to the courageous admission of Mr. 
Detore concerning Morford pressuring him, I decided to come forward. 
Mr. Morford pressured me to lie about you in front of a grand jury in 
1996. I would not lie. I am proud now that I did not lie after hearing 
Mr. Detore. Enclosed is my truthful affidavit. You can see it any way 
you wish.''
  Here is what they wanted Mr. Detore to say, he was outside the door 
and heard me and Cafaro make a bribery deal. What Mr. Berman didn't 
mention is I paid $10,000 for cars that didn't run, and Mr. Cafaro sold 
these cars made in Youngstown, the whole company, for $1. They are 
considered worthless. He owed me money, never gave me the titles. 
Flying Members of Congress around, getting Senators' girlfriends' 
gifts.
  But you get out of jail free by getting the man right here.
  Here is the problem in America, and you must take America back. And I 
am running as an independent, and don't be surprised if I don't win 
behind bars.
  The American people are afraid of their government. Why are we afraid 
of our government? Now, I want you to listen to this. Bob, they didn't 
bring one FBI or IRS investigator who investigated me to the stand so I 
could cross-examine them. They brought a 30-year veteran from 
Philadelphia, Mr. Callahan, he had seven trips, spent 40 days, a 
quarter of a million dollars, and all he did was add up the numbers the 
prosecutor gave him. And said he did no investigation. When he left, he 
was so confused he walked into the edge of the jury edge, right in the 
sore spot.
  The other one was an FBI rookie. Now, listen carefully. When it come 
to fingerprints, the judge smiled like a fox. She dismissed the jury. 
The prosecutor says, ``Your Honor, we have no fingerprints of the 
defendant.'' One thousand documents. And listen to this. He said the 
one time I gave him an envelope of four, five, whatever thousand, and 
he took it immediately to the FBI guy who sent it to the lab.
  Now, I am an old sheriff. I want to get Traficant? I steam that thing 
open, I fix a few bills, say, ``Look, you tell Traficant you don't want 
to go any further. You are not going to hurt him. When you come out of 
that restaurant, just have that damn money on him.''
  What I am trying to tell you, there is no physical evidence. And when 
they talk about this Sinclair, $2,500, they fail to mention that he had 
five accounts. And every time he took 2,500 out of one, 2,500 went into 
another one. And after he left my employment for 22 months, $2,500 
didn't go into the other account. And while he was in my employ, he 
said he earned $50,000 from me and $50,000 from the government.

                              {time}  2100

  He bought a $300,000 house, a brand new Buick van, rented a new car 
for $300 month and spent $60,000 on advertising. They went back 15 
years on a horse transaction I had in Uhrichsville, Ohio, George 
Hooker. They could not find one citizen to say Jim Traficant bought a 
pencil for cash. Now look, if you drink five gallons of Gatorade, you 
are going to expend five gallons of Gatorade somewhere in one of these 
restrooms. You know what you have before you? We are getting to the 
point where a RICO case is going to be brought against a group of 
housewives for conspiring to buy Kellogg's cereal.
  I am prepared to lose everything. I am prepared to go to jail. You go 
ahead and expel me, but I am going to tell you what, Mr. LaTourette was 
right about Salvati, but do you know what was mentioned of Mr. Detore? 
Do you know what Jim Traficant said about Janet Reno? The 
administration wants him out. Now, I said this on radio and I am on the 
House floor. I am going to say it to you right now. I called Janet Reno 
a traitor and I believe in my heart she is.
  I believe Monica and Henry Cisneros were not that important, but I 
think that Red Army Chinese general giving money to the Democrat 
National Committee was an affront to our intelligence, and now I am 
going to tell it like it is. The Republicans want a permanent trade 
status with China. You let it slide. Democrats did not want Clinton and 
the party hurt. You let it slide. And what you let slide was the 
freedom of the United States of America. And I called her a traitor.
  And Janet Reno, if I do not go to jail, I will be in Orlando August 
15 and you are not going to be elected to any damn thing. Nobody should 
fear our Government.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair would caution the 
gentleman to please avoid the use of profanity or indecent language, 
and the gentleman should address the Chair and not other Members by 
their first names. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I apologize. As a fashion leader, it is tough for me 
at times to comport with some rules.
  It was brought up and said, Jim, why don't you go to Speaker Hastert? 
Hastert owes you. I didn't go to the Speaker. I didn't vote for the 
Speaker to get something from the Speaker. Now, you go ahead and expel 
me, but you ran this place for 50 years, Democrats, and you made the 
IRS and the FBI and the Justice Department so strong, our people are 
afraid to death of them.
  I want to thank Bill Archer and the Republican Party, and that is why 
I voted for you, Speaker. For 12 years I tried to change the burden of 
proof in the civil tax case and protect the American people's homes 
from being seized, and now, I want to give those statistics because 
they are relevant to my case and the IRS hates me for it.
  The law was passed in 1998, the Traficant language wasn't in, Clinton 
threatened to veto it. Ninety-five percent of the American public 
wanted the Traficant bill. The Republican Chairman, Bill Archer, called 
me and said he talked to the Speaker and leaders and said, Jim, we are 
going to put your burden of proof in and we are going to put your 
language on seizure in the conference, and wrote me a letter giving me 
the credit.
  Now, let me give you the statistics that I am proud of and I want to 
share, because this may be the last time on the floor, and I expect it. 
The year before compared to the year after the law, wage attachments 
dropped from $3.1 million to $540,000. Thank you, Mr. Archer. Thank 
you, Rob Portman. Property liens dropped from $688,000 to $161,000, but 
now let us think of our communities. Seizures of individual family-
owned homes dropped from 10,067 to 57 in 50 States when they had to 
prove it, and you guys did it. Congratulations.
  I want to fight these people. I want to fight them like a junkyard 
dog.

[[Page 14313]]

They tied my hands behind my back and that first vote was 7-5. I am not 
going to get into some of the personal dynamics, but there were some 
people that Mr. Grodi told me that were predisposed to vote against me 
before that case started, and that upset him. By the way, one of the 
jurors said, it is unfortunate he got caught, but most of those Members 
of Congress are crooks anyway. I don't think you are crooks. I never 
ripped off Mr. Skelton.
  I have a lot of Hispanics mad at me, and I think Ms. Sanchez is a 
great member, but yes, I voted for Mr. Dornan because I thought we set 
an illegal precedent by allowing possible illegal immigrants to vote in 
a Federal election, and I voted with Mr. Dornan. And I am sorry, but 
that's the way it is. Now, since then I think you have an been an 
excellent Member. If you have been offended by this, I am sorry.
  I also want to say this. I urge you to put our troops on our border. 
I think anybody who jumps the fence shouldn't be made a citizen, they 
should be thrown out. And you are going to be dealing with homeland 
security, and I am saddened in my heart I can't vote on it.
  Now, I don't know how much time I have left, but show me one piece of 
physical evidence.
  Mr. Detore, by the way, spent $600,000 and is now without an 
attorney. His last attorney he paid $239,000 who went to the judge 
without him knowing and asked to be withdrawn from the case, because 
Richard Detore would not give him $100,000. He had already given him 
$239,000, and all he did was submit 3 motions for him. And one thing 
rang true: Every one of the witnesses that testified; significant, they 
had some witnesses scared to death. The key witnesses all would have 
gone to jail, lost their license, wives should have been indicted, and 
you know what? Back to my valley. I don't blame any one of you.
  I think if they had something on Mr. Detore, who knows what to God he 
would do, but I am going to say this. Someone who impugns the character 
of Mr. Detore is, in my opinion, violating the sanctity of this House. 
Because he said, I checkered my wife and I will not lie. And if they 
indict me, go ahead and indict me.
  They talked about a Corvette that cost $1,000. It was supposed to be 
$1,000, but ended up being $6,000 that I paid for it. They said, why 
did you pay so much for the Corvette? I rented a Corvette because I 
wanted to get a car to drive to visit Mr. Cooksey to go hunting and to 
speak at one of his events. But he got tied up 3 weeks later, and I had 
the car for 3 weeks, and when I drove back, the license plate expired 
in 30 days, got picked up on 395.
  I ended up paying $6,000 for a car. I paid for it and got the 
records. Everything I paid was by check or a credit card. No cash in 20 
years. My God, if you don't give me a right to appeal a judge whose 
husband was taking his law firm fees from the Cafaro company, who is 
the predicate act of the RICO, then who is our last bastion of appeal 
if it is not the people's House?
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for you; I thought you were better for the 
country, period. I thought the Republicans' program was better. Mr. 
Gephardt, if you're here, I apologize for my comments; it was in the 
heat of battle. If you had been there, I probably would have hit you 
too. But I apologize for those words.
  With that, with that, I retain the balance of my time, or however you 
word it. How much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Do I go last, Mr. Chairman? Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman state his inquiry?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, do I go last, since I am the subject of 
the demise?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) as a gentleman to relinquish his right to close, surrender to 
me and give me his time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will hold that decision in abeyance until 
we get down to that time. I will take it into consideration.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any time left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), who is the chairman of the Investigative 
Subcommittee in this matter.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a day that each of us hoped would never come, 
and we pray that it will not come again. Simply put, there is 
absolutely no satisfaction in judging one of our own. But the 
Constitution makes clear that we are the only ones who can judge a 
fellow Member of Congress in cases such as Mr. Traficant.
  It is certainly difficult for me, as I am sure it is difficult for my 
fellow members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to 
recommend the expulsion of a colleague. Our recommendation in this 
matter is based solely on the facts as we know and understand them. 
This recommendation is one that I know the entire committee took very 
seriously.
  My only responsibilities in this matter were twofold. First, I served 
as chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee. Along with 3 of my 
colleagues, our responsibility was to examine the evidence from Mr. 
Traficant's trial in Cleveland, Ohio, and to determine whether there 
was ``substantial reason to believe'' that violations of the House 
rules occurred. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank each 
of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their service and their 
support during this long and painstaking investigation.
  My cochair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Lewis) should all be commended for the fair and even-handed way 
that they carried out this difficult assignment that none of them 
sought.
  Mr. Speaker, on the Investigative Subcommittee, our role was similar 
to that of a grand jury in that our threshold of substantial reason to 
believe is lower than the clear and convincing evidence threshold used 
by Chairman Hefley's Adjudicatory Subcommittee.
  We were charged to review the evidence presented at trial and then 
make our determination regarding any possibility of violation of the 
Rules of the House. I should emphasize that we were not simply to 
accept the verdict of Mr. Traficant's trial at face value, nor were we 
to base our recommendations on that verdict.
  By a unanimous, bipartisan decision, the vote on the subcommittee 
concluded that in fact, it had ``substantial reason to believe'' that 
the Rules of the House were violated, and this the next phase, the 
adjudicatory phase, should move forward.
  Now, my second responsibility was not as the whole committee had or 
the adjudicatory committee; my second responsibility was to determine 
the appropriate sanction in the event that the adjudicatory phase was 
so warranted. This part, I must say, was very, very difficult, 
difficult because measuring Mr. Traficant's transgressions against past 
transgressions by other Members, then determining the appropriate 
sanction is, by far, far from a black and white exercise. But, the 
Constitution assigns us this responsibility, and to us alone, and so we 
proceed.
  After considering all of the evidence, I concluded that Mr. 
Traficant's offenses were so serious and so purposeful that expulsion 
from the House is the only appropriate sanction.

                              {time}  2115

  So with a heavy heart that is how I will vote at the conclusion of 
this debate, but not only for the sake of this great institution, but 
out of respect for the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, if any greater good is to come from these proceedings, 
let us

[[Page 14314]]

hope that by facing our responsibilities squarely we have begun to 
rebuild public confidence in the integrity of the people's House. 
Whether we like it or not, in recent years too many Americans have come 
to believe that holding high office means a person gets to play by 
different rules than everyone else. That perception has helped fuel 
growing public cynicism about the honesty and integrity of Congress 
itself. Nothing could be more dangerous to our democracy, and we simply 
cannot allow that perception to grow unchecked.
  Here in the House of Representatives, we all know there are rules 
governing Members and the conduct of their official duties, and we also 
know that those rules must be enforced fairly, without fear or favor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a day each of us hoped would never come. Mr. 
Speaker, this is a very difficult time for all of us, and I know it is 
difficult for all of my colleagues sitting here tonight, but I think 
that we must vote aye on this resolution.
  Sadly, when the Rules of the House are violated so willfully and 
flagrantly, we have little choice but to punish those who break them. 
For, by their actions, Members who violate the rules undermine not only 
our own internal order here in this great institution, but the very 
foundation of public trust and confidence on which the people's House 
must always rest.
  Today, it's up to us to repair that foundation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I was the ranking member on the 
investigative subcommittee serving with the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings), examining the testimony and evidence presented during 
the trial.
  The subcommittee unanimously concluded that the evidence showed that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) engaged in official misconduct 
of the most serious nature. He traded his official office and powers 
repeatedly for money, free labor, equipment at his farm and other 
things. He did so repeatedly and with several different people and 
companies.
  He demanded and received tens of thousands of dollars, with salary 
kickbacks from his congressional employees. He filed two false income 
tax returns that failed to report more than $75,000 in income from 
gratuities. As I mentioned earlier, the trial lasted more than 30 days 
with over 6,000 pages of transcript, more than 50 witnesses called for 
the prosecution and 29 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  We took this testimony and reviewed it, but we made an independent 
review of the sworn testimony and other evidence during the trial, and 
we unanimously decided that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
should be charged with violation of House rules based on the evidence, 
not criminal charges.
  There was testimony, evidence by the businessman who gave the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) gratuities, and that was supported 
by testimony of public servants who were pressured by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Eight witnesses testified relative to the 
kickbacks the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) received, and that 
testimony was also substantiated. Five employees of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) testified as to the work they were directed by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to perform on his farm or boat. One 
employee testified that he had been there between 100 and 300 different 
times.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) repeatedly asserts there is 
no physical evidence of his crimes, but, in fact, there is abundant 
evidence, including check, bank records, memos, faxes, letters and 
other documents.
  I would finally just say that when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) and I rejoined the remainder of the committee for the penalty 
phase, we joined eight others with the unanimous recommendation, with 
great sadness, that the expulsion remedy is one that we must do. I feel 
very sad this evening to listen to this testimony, but I know what our 
duty calls us to do, and I hope that the House is up to it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains with all parties?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  We would close in this order unless someone elects different: The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), in that order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Number one, the businessman my colleague is talking about that 
corroborated Mr. Cafaro's testimony was Al Lang, and I did not find out 
until after the trial that there was a demand note from Mr. Cafaro to 
Al Lang to repay the money for the boat he was to buy.
  Number two, that also Mr. Cafaro paid for Mr. Lang's attorney. So it 
was really Mr. Lang and attorney or Mr. Lang was represented by Mr. 
Cafaro's attorney? My God.
  Second of all, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct allowed 
me to subpoena one witness. I asked for 11 subpoenaed and 20 that did 
not need subpoenas. They finally come back and retracted. The one 
witness testified she personally made the loans when I could not make 
it to the farm. One fellow saw me make loans to the other fellow.
  My colleagues had a hearsay transcript. Now I want to ask the 
committee, and I wish the committee would hear me. I want to know what 
witness the committee called to refute my witnesses or the hearsay in 
that transcript. Why was I willing to bring 31? Why did the judge tie 
my hands behind my back?
  The point I am making to my colleagues is I am not unique. I know why 
I was targeted. I do not need American history to beat them, and I was 
an embarrassment, and then I brought home John Demjanjuk, the infamous 
Ivan the Terrible. I was labeled an anti-Semite. No one would look into 
his case. The headlines in my paper said Nazi sympathizer. What they 
did not say when the family came in, they came to me last because no 
one would listen to him because they said ``the case was too 
sensitive.''
  I said come on in and what they also did not print, I said, if your 
dad has been convicted and I will go over and pull the switch, but 
whether he was Ukrainian or Jew made no difference to me. I literally, 
through my investigation, discovered the evidence that proved that Ivan 
the Terrible was 9 years older, taller, black hair, long scar on neck 
and his name was Ivan Marchenko and then presented a picture to Israeli 
Supreme Court, and for all of the people calling me anti-Semite, let me 
tell my colleagues something. I never voted for a foreign aid bill 
until we had a surplus, and then I voted for aid, and I support Israel, 
a democratic State, surrounded by a cluster of monarchs and dictators 
who have held us hostage for oil, but he was not Ivan, and the Israeli 
Supreme Court taught me something that I think Congress should know. 
They literally delivered him to me on an El Al flight to take home. 
Congress would not even hold a hearing in light of my compelling 
evidence that the Israeli Supreme Court freed him, because it was too 
sensitive.
  What has happened to us, Congress? Am I different? Yeah. Have I 
changed my pants? No. Deep down my colleagues know they want to wear 
wider bottoms; they are just not secure enough to do it. I do wear 
skinny ties. Yeah, wide ties make me look heavier than I am and I am 
heavy enough. Do I do my hair with a weed whacker? I admit.
  Take into consideration what my colleagues are doing. The Democrats, 
and I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I have 
had my run-ins with him, probably no one brighter in this whole place.
  Mike Myers, an FBI undercover agent posing as an Arab sheik gave him 
$250,000, captured by videotape, and my colleagues let him go till 
after the break. The two Members who violated a 17-year-old page boy 
and a 17-year-old page girl, which is rape in every State, were not 
expelled.

[[Page 14315]]

  If my colleagues know law enforcement and they have got a target, 
they want a confession, and when they cannot get that confession, they 
want an admission, and I am telling my colleagues this right now. They 
have more tapes on me than NBC. I did nothing wrong. That is why go 
ahead and expel me, and I believe this judge is so afraid of what is 
resonating throughout America, who believes that they should not have 
to fear their government and that Congress is the last hope to take it 
back, and I am saying to the Speaker, take it back.
  No American should fear their government and this guy does not. I am 
ready to go. Expel me. It will make it easier for them to really jack 
me good.
  But do my colleagues know what they will have done? They will have 
taken the standards of a RICO case down to less than a DUI where a 
person needs a .10 to get a conviction.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened to me early Saturday morning. 
I was up in Portage County, a new part of the district of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and I did not run against the gentleman 
because I thought I would beat him easily, and I wanted to give him a 
break.
  I left my car, and at 2:30 in the morning I pulled out, and I got 
pulled over by a township police car and a county sheriff. The window 
does not work on the car, so I opened up the door. They could not see 
me but said, ``Mr. Traficant, can we see your registration and 
license.'' It had dealer tags on it. I did. He asked me to get out of 
the car.
  They asked me to walk around the back of the car. They asked me to do 
my ABCs. They asked me to do this with all four fingers on both hands, 
and they asked me to stand and put my foot in front of my right, take 
nine steps, stop, turn and return. Then they asked me to lift my right 
knee, with my left foot on the ground and count to 30. Try that. Then 
they said reverse, put your right foot on the ground, pick your left 
knee up, count to 30, and I did that, and they said would you mind a 
breathalyzer. I said knock yourself out. I was .001.
  Here is what I asked them: Did the FBI tell you that was my car and 
ask you to see if you can get a DUI on me? They looked at each other 
real funny, and I cannot tell my colleagues exactly what I told them 
because of House decorum, but I told them if I find out it is an FBI 
agent that did it, I will tear his throat out, and if they lied to me, 
I would come back to them and tear their throats out.
  They are not going to frighten me. I am ready to go to jail. I will 
go the jail before I admit to a crime I did not commit, and there was 
never any intent to commit a crime, and when they start bringing 
letters that my colleagues send to Cabinet members trying to help their 
people, there is a dangerous precedent set in U.S. v. Traficant.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and regret that I rise 
today to express my support for H. Res. 495 in the matter of James A. 
Traficant, Jr. Let me make this very clear. No Member of Congress ever 
wishes to sit in judgment of a colleague, least of all a colleague as 
colorful and as indomitable as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Yet at the same time no Member ever wishes to see the rules of this 
institution broken or the standards of its Members brought low. Many 
Americans who have read or heard of the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. 
Traficant) conviction in Federal court wonder why we in the House have 
bothered with our own investigation and hearings.

                              {time}  2130

  They ask, ``Why go through all of that? A jury found him guilty on 10 
felony counts.'' They find it hard to find to understand why expulsion 
from the House would not be automatic once a jury finds a Member guilty 
of felony offenses in a court of law. The answer, quite simply, is 
found in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers left it not to the 
Judiciary nor to the executive branch to determine when, how, or if 
expulsion of a Member is warranted. They left it to us, the Members of 
this body.
  It falls to us today to look at three things: One, the statement of 
violations of our own code of official conduct, drawn by our own 
investigative subcommittee; two, the evidence presented at our own 
adjudicatory hearing by our own subcommittee counsel and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); and, three, the findings and sanctions 
recommended by our own full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  If my colleagues will look at these three things, they will conclude 
that there is clear and convincing evidence that the violations 
occurred and that the resolution should be approved by this body today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) for their outstanding work on this resolution. 
Throughout the long weeks and days leading up to and including the 
hearings, they showed the greatest integrity, patience, and fairness, 
often going out of their way to give the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) every opportunity to counter the clear and convincing 
evidence presented against him.
  I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), for 
his outstanding work.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to expel our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). 
I know, too, that many of my colleagues are questioning the propriety 
of expelling the gentleman from Ohio, something that has not happened 
in this House in some 40 years. And Members are questioning it 
notwithstanding the fact that a jury was convinced beyond a reasonable 
doubt of his guilt, the highest burden of proof required in our legal 
system, and notwithstanding the fact that the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, who was vested and duty bound by this body to review 
the conduct of our colleagues, has reviewed the facts and determined 
that his conduct was of such nature that it violated the House rules of 
conduct, and that it was of such character and so serious that it 
merited the highest sanction from the House of Representatives.
  Let me assure my colleagues that when we try cases in criminal 
justice courtrooms, we often talk about a subject called a red herring. 
Now, today, we have had an opportunity to hear from our colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio. In fact, the wonderful thing about our justice 
system and the hearings that we have had here in the House are that 
they were public. We had an opportunity to hear the presentation or the 
defense presented by the defendant.
  I will not go through all the red herrings, but we talked about: ``I 
paid for the car, I never owned the farm; everybody would have gone to 
jail or lost his license; I repaid the money to my staffers; do not be 
surprised if I win, I will win behind bars; 1,000 items; no 
fingerprints; hearsay transcripts; when the play is cast in hell, none 
of the witnesses in the trial will be angels; you cannot believe that 
the credibility of some of these witnesses could be better if they were 
someone else.
  Forget the witnesses for a moment. Forget that the judge's husband 
was a member of the firm, and forget that his clerk was the chief clerk 
for a chief justice of the Supreme Court or other trial court. We have 
a duty. We have an obligation. The public is watching us, and they are 
saying, ``House of Representatives, you have a duty. You have an 
obligation as elected Members of Congress to take into consideration 
what has been presented to you by this Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.''
  It is not easy. When I was a judge, I was required to sentence 
somebody to death. And people used to say, oh, he should get the death 
penalty. But it

[[Page 14316]]

was not that easy to stand up there and say I sentence him to death. 
And it is not easy today, my colleagues, but it is our job. It is our 
duty. Uphold the integrity of this House of Representatives and vote to 
expel the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Number one, to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), I say 
that I am sadder than you are.
  To my colleague from Ohio, after the public hearings, 80 to 90 
percent of the viewing public supports my position. Number three, all 
the witnesses that testified against me at trial were either felons or 
would-be felons, with no physical evidence.
  The gentlewoman is a very astute legal criminal mind. I just want her 
to think before she votes.
  In the case of staff, they said one afternoon I invited them down to 
the boat, they did some sanding, it was a bonding thing, and they drank 
beer. The ones that came to the farm, came for the weekend, 
voluntarily; wanted to use it as a health spa.
  One guy that said he was there 300 times, I had it before the trial, 
but I heard he took $2,500 to bribe a judge in a DUI case. I thought 
they had no evidence, and I did not even question him on it. I have a 
tape from one of his fellow trustees that I will submit to the 
committee. His name is Jim Price, Weathersville Township, relative to 
the testimony of that staffer that I will not mention.
  Look, show me the beef. Come up with a transcript. They could not 
even bring an FBI or IRS investigator to the stand, they are so afraid 
of me. And I am going to tell my colleagues something, and they are not 
going to believe it. My hands tied behind my back, I believe in my 
heart I won that trial, and that trial was manipulated. I would not 
rush in haste.
  Now, if my colleagues do not expel me tonight, I am convinced this 
judge is going to put me in jail. She cannot stand my guts. And she is 
deathly afraid of me getting on national TV, because it is beginning to 
resonate around the country about how people do fear our government. 
And why do we?
  I expect my colleagues to expel me. It is going to hurt me when some 
of you do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Does the gentleman from 
Colorado have any other speakers?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Just this gentleman, and then myself to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California have 
additional speakers?
  Mr. BERMAN. One additional member of the committee and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) may 
proceed.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), who is a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. HULSHOF. My colleagues, let me first thank you all for your 
attention and presence here. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey) 
pointed out to me during the vote that back in 1980, as this matter was 
being discussed, only a handful of Members were here for that debate 
over the expulsion of Mr. Myers. And so your continued presence here is 
a testament to this institution.
  The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the 
quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) could be captured incriminating 
himself on tape? Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a 
wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the 
act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer 
expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?
  I paraphrased comments made by a member of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct back in 1980 in that matter. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has violated the House rules not only as an 
individual who happened to be a public servant, but as a public servant 
who traded upon that very elected office.
  There is no one who disputes that the gentleman has fought 
aggressively for his constituents in the 17th Congressional District of 
Ohio. I daresay that 435 Members who come here every week do the same 
for constituents back home across this land, and yet we come here in 
the public good, not to enrich ourselves for private profit.
  To my colleagues who were sworn in in this Chamber on January 7, 
1997, in the 105th Congress, what an interesting tenure we have had. 
Our first vote for Speaker of the House, who had an ethics cloud 
hanging over his head; our last vote as freshmen members on the 
impeachment matter of a sitting president; and here we are again 
tonight with the lens of history trained upon us.
  There are some who have been fretting about this vote and that we are 
debating it in prime time, of all things. Well, my colleagues, I 
believe that tonight is going to be one of this institution's finest 
hours.
  To the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), I absolutely agree with 
his statements on the previous motion. It should take extraordinary 
wrongdoing to override the wishes of a voter in a Congressional 
district. I believe that. And I believe this is one such case.
  Sometimes when we walk in darkness, we are overcome with the 
brilliant light of truth. A little over 300 days ago, we assembled as a 
body on the darkest day of our Nation's history, and we sent a glimmer 
of light to the people we represent that you can extinguish thousands 
of American lives, but you will not extinguish the American spirit. And 
yet when you destroy that fragile bond of trust between the elected and 
the electorate, expulsion is the only appropriate remedy, regrettably, 
and I ask for that vote.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do have some additional comments I will 
give at the appropriate time, but I would like the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) to know at this time that I am going to waive my right 
to close in this serious matter and give him the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is allowing the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) the right to close?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker. So that when the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) is through, I will make a few comments.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Colorado yield 
me the balance of the time he does not use?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I will be happy to yield the balance, if I do have some 
left, but I do not believe I will.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have never spoken to my colleagues 
from this mike, that I can remember.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not enjoy what we are doing today, but I am proud 
to follow my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). When 
we have to discipline ourselves, it is a task we try to avoid. We avoid 
it to give due process to the accused, but in all reality, we really do 
not want to air our dirty linen in public. We really do not. Nobody 
does. Because we are a family, and families do not do that.
  With that said, I could not be more proud in my four of five terms 
here. I did not want the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
but I am proud to serve on it with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) as the Chair and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) as 
our ranking member. This is not something that any of us wanted. In 
fact, we would resign tomorrow, except it is our duty.
  This is the people's House and we have to do our job. If we cannot 
remove a Member of Congress who has been convicted of 10 felonies, 
including using his office for personal gain, we risk losing the faith 
and trust of the American people that we have.

[[Page 14317]]

  As a duly elected Member from the 17th district of Ohio, I do not 
fault the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for doing everything he 
can to bring economic assistance to his constituents. As my colleague 
from Missouri said, we do that every day; 434 of us try to do that, and 
we work hard for our constituents, for jobs and economic development. 
The line of legality is crossed when we help ourselves for our benefit 
instead of helping our constituents for their benefit.
  The gentleman from Ohio crossed that line when he worked for a 
company to get road contracts for his district, and then that company 
did improvements on his own private property. That is not lawful. And 
when he helped a family move an imprisoned loved one closer to home and 
then provided a list of improvements to be made to his properties, that 
was illegal. When he created a system of kickbacks by his congressional 
employees, that was outrageous and unlawful. When he helped a company 
receive Federal tax dollars that we vote for for worthwhile projects, 
and then they accept benefits to use personally, that was illegal.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, I know I am out of time, but we need to do our job, and 
we need to make sure that we remember we are only here temporarily, and 
this is the people's House.
  These examples of violations of House Rules and U.S. Statutes by 
Congressman Traficant clearly demonstrates a continuing abuse of his 
congressional office. That is why the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct voted unanimously to expel him. Congressman Traficant 
is our colleague, and I do not like having to list his past mistakes, 
but I value the honor of this body above all else. Our colleague has 
brought disrespect on his House by his violations of law and for that 
reason, he must be expelled.
  Mr. Speaker, Congressman Traficant has been judged guilty by a jury 
of his peers in Ohio and a Committee of his peers in the House of 
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to show the American people that 
this body believes in the ``rule of law'' and vote to expel Congressman 
James Traficant.
  We should all be appalled by this activity--we should not continue 
the image that elected officials are crooks who get special treatment. 
We need to act on this immediately--well after conviction but before 
sentencing next week.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is our 
colleague. We are involved in what is in a certain way a profoundly 
anti-democratic decision, one contemplated by our Founding Fathers, but 
anti-democratic because we are talking about expelling a Member who was 
elected for a term of office before that term is completed.
  He is a friend to many. He has an irrepressible nature that all of us 
coming from a lot of different backgrounds have known about for a long 
time. In many ways he has been an effective colleague for the causes 
and issues that the gentleman believes in. But this body in its wisdom 
created a committee. The leadership of both sides appointed Members who 
have spent an incredibly large amount of time sifting through the 
evidence relating to four counts of conspiracy to commit bribery, each 
of them involving totally separate transactions with totally different 
witnesses; illegal gratuities under our bribery statute, filing false 
tax information, two separate counts; obstruction of justice.
  Our committee, involving an equal number of Democrats and 
Republicans, covering an incredible range of philosophies and 
ideologies, going from people who barely new the respondent to a 
gentleman who has termed himself publicly as his closest friend in this 
House, have applied our rules to the facts as we see them and 
unanimously recommended expulsion. No one did it easily. For some, it 
was an incredibly difficult conclusion to reach.
  Mr. Speaker, I think in the context of this process and our 
obligation to the American people, we are compelled to vote ``aye'' on 
the resolution to expel.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 
1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is a Member with 
whom many of us have served for years and years. Many of us are very 
fond of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); but at times like 
these we are required to set aside those personal feelings, those 
feelings of friendship, and fulfill this weighty responsibility.
  As chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, it is 
my duty to ask the House of Representatives to expel the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  I want to thank the members of the committee that I have served with 
through this. They serve us well. I want to thank our outstanding 
staff. They serve us well. And I particularly want to thank Members for 
being here for almost 3 hours. It is seldom that I have seen almost 
every Member of the House of Representatives on the floor for 3 hours. 
What that tells me is that Members take this as seriously as I do and 
as the rest of the committee does, and thank you for that. It is 
important that we do not take something like this lightly. We do not 
take it lightly.
  Mr. Speaker, if I have any time remaining, I yield it to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has relinquished to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) the right to close. The gentleman 
from Ohio has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 20 years and not one tape. Mr. Prosecutor from Missouri, 
am I that good? Come on.
  $1.3 billion in that budget that I brought back, much of it from the 
help of the Republicans, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), thanks. Twenty-two percent 
unemployment, been under 7, and we are still hurting. I am proud of 
that.
  He said that I took money from companies that did me favors. Look at 
the testimony of Susan Bucci. She said that they owed me money. I 
bushhogged 40 acres of their fields every year because her husband, 
Dan, was sick; and baled 25 acres of his hay every year for 5 years 
using my equipment and never charged him. She came to me when the 
brothers ripped her off.
  You know, there is something unusual here. You did not elect me. Yes, 
you have the right to throw me out. My people do not want me out. There 
is something that was not allowed to be brought, and I give the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the committee great respect; 
but ladies and gentlemen, you passed a 1967 Jury Service and Selection 
Plan in the Northern District of Ohio before Traficant was indicted, 
passed a jury selection plan that was not ratified until after my 
indictment. They excluded people from my area that knew me and these 
witnesses from the jury pool.
  This is not going to help me with the judge, but I think we have an 
aristocratic judiciary that looks at Congress like an advisory board. I 
think you better take that back.
  Not one person who knew me or these witnesses was on the jury, and 
you did not subpoena one witness to validate that hearsay transcript.
  Here is what I am saying to you. It is not a matter of liking me. A 
lot of Members do not like me because to get that $1.3 billion, I 
raided a lot of appropriations bills. But I want your vote. I want 145 
votes and I want to be able to go up and I want to fight the Department 
of Justice and the IRS.
  If they put me in jail, you have a very easy vote, and I predict you 
will. I think as a Member of Congress, I want you to think of this. 
There may come a time when you might get targeted.
  You know what I was told? Watch what you say. You are too outspoken. 
Watch what you say. Shut up about the Reno case.
  I am not going to shut up. I want your vote because I think my vote 
is

[[Page 14318]]

your vote, and my people elected me and I do not think you should take 
their representative away. With that, thank you for giving me 
additional time, at least listening to me, and vote your conscience, 
nothing personal; and I hope I am back and get another $1.3 billion.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to serve New 
Mexico as Attorney General. As Attorney General, I had the unfortunate 
task to prosecute elected officials for their violation of the law and 
the public's trust. Although, I accepted this duty, this was not an 
easy task to perform but one that had to be done. The Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct has been asked to take on a difficult 
charge to examine whether Representative Traficant violated the Code of 
Official Conduct while serving as a Member of Congress. And if so, 
whether those violations warrant his expulsion from the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I thank them for their service on this difficult 
matter.
  This great body has expelled only four Members (three Members and one 
Member-elect) in its history--Three of whom were expelled during the 
Civil War period in 1861 for disloyalty to the Union and the fourth 
occurred in 1980 following a bribery conviction. There have been other 
Members who were subject to expulsion for offenses such as bribery, 
illegal gratuities and obstruction of justice--but rather than force 
the hand of the House to expel them, they took the noble way out and 
resigned their office. I had hoped that Representative Traficant would 
have done the same thing, and resign his office rather than force the 
House to remove him. However, the current situation is before us, and 
we must act.
  On April 11, 2002 the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct gave 
notice that the federal jury returned a guilty verdict in the criminal 
trial of Representative Traficant. Six days later the Committee voted 
to establish an Investigative Subcommittee to conduct a formal inquiry 
regarding Representative Traficant. On June 27, 2002 the Investigative 
Subcommittee transmitted to the full Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct a 10 count Statement of Alleged Violations and set the stage 
for a public adjudicatory hearing to determine whether any counts in 
the Statement of Alleged Violations have been proven by clear and 
convincing evidence. I would like to read from the statement issued by 
the Committee:
  ``The Statement of Alleged Violations charge that Representative 
Traficant violated the Code of Official Conduct of the House of 
Representatives and the Code of Ethics for Government Service through a 
number of means, including: Agreeing to perform, and performing, 
official acts on behalf of individuals and/or businesses for which 
those individuals and/or businesses agreed to and did provide 
Representative Traficant with things of value; Agreeing to employ a 
member of his congressional district staff in exchange for $2,500 per 
month in salary kickbacks from the employee; Endeavoring to persuade 
this same employee to destroy evidence and to give false testimony to a 
federal grand jury; Defrauding the United States of money and property 
by a variety of means; Filing false income tax returns; Engaging in a 
continuing pattern and practice of official misconduct through which he 
misused his office for personal gain''.
  From July 15 through July 18 the adjudicatory House subcommittee 
heard from Representative Traficant where he argued that he broke no 
laws and contended that the government was out to get him--the same 
argument he made during his criminal trial. He argued against each of 
the points that the Subcommittee Counsel raised and was unable to make 
a clear argument against the evidence raised. The Subcommittee 
eventually determined that he was guilty of several ethics violations 
and that nine of the ten counts were proven by clear and convincing 
evidence.
  Representative Traficant misused his office for personnel gain; he 
misused the public trust; he misused the public's money, through his 
conduct in receiving congressional salary kickbacks from employees and 
receiving personal labor and services from congressional staff while 
they were on congressional work time; and he misused his powerful 
position to persuade individuals to destroy evidence and provide false 
testimony to a federal jury to conceal his abuse of office.
  Mr. Speaker prior to entering office we each made the following 
declaration:
  I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that 
I take his obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose 
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
  While the power of removal is a strong measure and one that should 
never be taken lightly, it is one tool afforded to us by the 
Constitution to use on those who have violated their public trust as 
Members of Congress. Besides violating the public trust Representative 
Traficant broke his solemn oath of office. He did not faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office, which he now serves, and because of 
this and the clear evidence before us he should be expelled from the 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 1, answered ``present'' 9, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               AYES--420

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence

[[Page 14319]]


     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

       
     Condit
       

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--9

     Bartlett
     Bilirakis
     Callahan
     Ford
     Hostettler
     Otter
     Paul
     Simpson
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bonior
     Knollenberg
     Stearns
     Traficant

                              {time}  2211

  Mr. DELAHUNT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the resolution was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will notify the Governor of the State of Ohio 
of the action of the House.

                          ____________________