[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E269-E270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INDEPENDENT FACT FINDERS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN HOUSE ETHICS PROCESS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DAVID DREIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 1997

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my distinguished 
colleague, Representative Lee Hamilton, in introducing House Resolution 
61. This resolution would for the first time give private citizens a 
meaningful

[[Page E270]]

role in the House's ethics process. Our fundamental goals are to 
further enhance the openness of the House to make this institution more 
responsive to the public, and to bolster citizen confidence in 
Congress.
  Lee Hamilton and I developed this proposal during our service as 
House co-chairmen of the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress. Our resolution is based on the testimony of many Members and 
outside experts about the strengths and weaknesses of the current 
ethics process.
  Let me first make a comment about Lee Hamilton's recent announcement 
that this will be his last term in Congress. Lee's retirement will be a 
big loss to this institution and the American people. He has been a 
model legislator for us all, and I wish him all the best in whatever 
activity he chooses to pursue when he leaves the House. In the 
meantime, I am delighted to join with Lee once again in our mutual 
interest to improve the work and reputation of the legislative branch.
  Specifically, House Resolution 61 would make several important 
changes in the House ethics process. First, it would authorize the 
Speaker and minority leader to appoint jointly 20 independent fact 
finders at the beginning of each Congress. These private citizens could 
then be called upon to conduct ethics investigations for the Standards 
of Official Conduct Committee. The definition of private citizens 
includes, among others, former Members, staff aides, and officers of 
Congress, but not lobbyists.
  Second House Resolution 61 grants discretionary authority to the 
Ethics Committee to decide, on a case-by-case basis, when to request 
that private citizens be used to conduct investigations involving 
allegations of ethical misconduct. Our resolution provides that an even 
number of fact finders--four or six--shall be appointed jointly from 
the standby pool by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Standards Committee. Daily pay, travel, and per diem costs are provided 
the fact finders when they are engaged in ethics investigative work. 
Staff aides of the Standards Committee are authorized to assist the 
fact finders in carrying out their responsibilities.

  Third, the job of the fact finders is to conduct a preliminary review 
of the ethical complaint. They are to make the detailed inquiries, 
accumulate relevant background materials, gather pertinent evidence, 
and so on--all activities that usually consume enormous amounts of 
time. A benefit that inheres in the Hamilton-Dreier approach to ethics 
reform is that it will alleviate time burdens on members who will not 
have to do this pick and shovel investigative work. Another benefit is 
to increase public confidence that allegations of ethical misconduct 
are being fully and independently explored.
  Fourth, after the preliminary review of the ethics complaint has been 
completed, the private citizens would report their finds and 
recommendations to the full Ethics Committee. If the fact finders 
determine that their findings justify further formal action by the 
Ethics Committee, they may, by majority vote, transmit a statement of 
alleged violations to the ethics panel.
  Finally, in the event that a statement of alleged violations is sent 
to the Ethics Committee, that panel will then act as an adjudicatory 
subcommittee as provided in the Committee's rules. The full Ethics 
Committee will then conduct its own review of the information 
transmitted to it by the fact finders, including, if required, the 
convening of public hearings.
  In our judgment, House Resolution 61 provides an innovative and 
flexible approach to revamping the House's ethics process. On those 
high profile and complex cases, the Ethics Committee can turn to a pool 
of private citizens to conduct the investigations. For ethics 
complaints that appear minor, the committee can continue to appoint its 
own subcommittee to conduct the preliminary inquiry.
  Everyone who serves in Congress understands that public trust in the 
legislative branch is not especially high. To be sure, many factors 
have contributed to this development, such as heightened cynicism in 
the body politic, but public misgivings about how Congress handles 
ethical charges against its own Members also contribute to the lack of 
citizen confidence. This institution must devote more time and 
attention to congressional ethics, which is why I strongly endorse the 
recent establishment of a bipartisan House ethics task force to revise 
and improve our ethics process. This initiative by our Republican and 
Democratic leaders deserves everyone's support and encouragement.
  Members and citizens alike have a large stake in an improved ethics 
process. The strength of representative government rests fundamentally 
on public confidence in the integrity of our proceedings. In our view, 
there is an inherent conflict-of-interest when only members are 
involved in evaluating ethics complaints against their peers. House 
Resolution 61 will address this issue by allowing private citizens to 
assist in ethics investigations on a case-by-case basis. Adoption of 
our resolution will further demonstrate that the House and its Members 
care deeply about improving and strengthening their ethical processes 
and responsibilities.

                          ____________________