[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 135 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1911-E1912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  STATEMENT ON THE UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY OF UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE 
                            STUART EIZENSTAT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 1997

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in my decades of watching and working on 
Capitol Hill, I have never met a public servant of greater integrity 
and dedication than the Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business 
and Agricultural Affairs, Stuart Eizenstat. Recent criticism involving 
him has prompted me to undertake an in depth review and analysis of his 
earlier private-sector work in the airline industry. My inquiry has 
only confirmed my unequivocal and carefully considered view of Mr. 
Eizenstat as a public servant of the highest integrity and impeccable 
action.
  I profoundly deplore the absolutely unfounded accusations that have 
been made against him by special interests, who have a vested interest 
in an outcome contrary to the carefully considered and appropriate 
policy being pursued by the United States Government. It would appear 
that these interests are cynically using this totally unjustified and 
false criticism of this outstanding public servant in an effort to 
achieve their objectives through sleaze, innuendo, and falsehood.
  I specifically wish to place in the public record the following 
information about Under Secretary Eizenstat in order to clarify this 
situation.
  First, prior to his confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the European 
Union, Ambassador Eizenstat listed over 30 clients with whom he would 
have no contact for a 1-year period. Ethics regulations require than an 
official recuse himself for 1 year from matters in which a former 
client is a party if the official believes that an appearance of a 
conflict would otherwise result. At the request of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, Ambassador Eizenstat went even further. Because he 
had represented British Airways with respect to the USAir merger, he 
agreed not to participate in official matters involving this merger for 
the duration of his appointment as Ambassador and to consider carefully 
whether to participate in other issues involving British Airways, if 
any should arise. He fully honored this extensive commitment.
  Second, after serving for over 2\1/2\ years as Ambassador to the 
European Union, he has twice been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, once in 
early 1996 as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade and 
again in the spring of this year as Under Secretary of State for 
Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs. In neither instance was 
he asked to limit further contact with British Airways or with any of 
his former clients. Indeed, he could not do his job in either position 
if he were required to recuse himself indefinitely from all matters 
involving his former clients.
  Third, in his meeting with EU Commissioner Van Miert, he did not seek 
approval of the American Airlines-British Airways alliance. Rather, he 
presented a position of the State Department he himself had not 
participated in even developing. Instead he merely expressed concern 
that the European Union, in its consideration of the proposed alliance, 
not impose

[[Page E1912]]

anticompetitive conditions which would complicate an Open Skies 
agreement with the United Kingdom. He never talked with anyone from the 
Department of Transportation.

  Fourth, more than 4 years after having any representation of British 
Airways, having had no financial interest in his former law firm's 
representation of British Airways, having had no contact with British 
Airways in any official capacity even to this day, and conforming to 
the letter and spirit of the ethics requirements, he has continued to 
act, as he has throughout his public career, with the highest ethical 
standards. Indeed, he continues meeting the highest standards and has 
now decided to go beyond anything required and recuse himself from 
further involvement on this issue until DOT makes its administrative 
finding.
  Fifth, this is confirmed by the following statement which was 
approved by the highest ethics official in the State Department:
  Under Secretary Eizenstat's recent discussions with EU officials 
regarding the British Airways-American Airlines alliance were fully 
consistent with Government ethical guidelines and regulations.
  No law or regulation requires recusal in this case. Government ethics 
rules require that an official not participate in a matter only in two 
instances: when the official has a financial interest in the matter or 
when the matter involves in certain cases a former client whom the 
official represented within the last year. Neither instance applies 
here: Under Secretary Eizenstat does not have a financial interest in 
this matter; he last represented British Airways 4 year ago.
  Under Secretary Eizenstat's 1993 statement of recusal on British 
Airways, referred to in the JOC [Journal of Commerce] article, resulted 
from his representation of the British Airways on a matter unrelated to 
the AA/BA [American Airlines/British Airways] alliance. The recusal was 
limited to the period when he served as U.S. Ambassador to the EU, a 
position that he no longer holds. Neither the law, the Congress, nor 
Government ethics officials required that he continue this recusal when 
he assumed his present position as Under Secretary.
  His current recusal provides as follows: ``Finally, I will recuse 
myself from participation on a case-by-case basis in any particular 
matter in which, in my judgment, it is desirable for me to do so in 
order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety, despite the lack 
of any actual conflict.'' Both Under Secretary Eizenstat and Department 
ethics officials have believed that the Under Secretary need not recuse 
himself under this provision from discussions with the EU on the AA/BA 
alliance because 4 years have passed since he represented BA and 
because his representation of BA was on a different issue than the 
pending area.

                          ____________________