[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1968-E1969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ETHICS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 8, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, October 8, 1997 into the Congressional Record:

                   Reforming The House Ethics Process

       The House recently passed reforms of its procedures for 
     considering charges of misconduct against a Member. The 
     reforms were based upon the recommendations of a bipartisan 
     task force set up in the wake of the highly contentious, 
     widely criticized handing of the ethics charges against Newt 
     Gingrich last year. The reforms make some modest 
     improvements, but overall are a disappointment.


                            Current Process

       One of the major responsibilities of the House of 
     Representatives is to police its Members to make sure that 
     their actions are not bringing discredit upon the House. This 
     is a key responsibility; the American system of government 
     depends upon the confidence of the people in their elected 
     representatives.
       Since the 1960s, the House has considered charges of Member 
     misconduct--such as accepting bribes, misusing campaign 
     funds, or lying to investors--through its Standards of 
     Official Conduct Committee. This is the only bipartisan 
     committee in the House with equal numbers of Democrats and 
     Republicans. It reviews charges of misconduct, launches 
     investigations, and recommends to the full House whether and 
     how a Member should be punished. The full House then makes 
     the final decision on disciplining the Member.
       Over the years this system has worked reasonably well, but 
     in recent years the process has become increasingly 
     politicized, with charges often brought against Members for 
     political purposes and with the Standards Committee 
     increasingly deadlocking along partisan lines.


                                Reforms

       The reform package passed by the House made some modest 
     improvements to the process, but also had serious flaws.
       On the plus side, it would make the operations of the 
     Standards Committee less partisan, by allowing both the 
     chairman and ranking minority member to set the Committee's 
     agenda and by making the staff nonpartisan. It also expedites 
     consideration of complaints, lessens the time burdens on 
     Committee members, and helps to protect the rights of an 
     accused Member by guarding against leaks of confidential 
     matters at the early stages of an investigation.

[[Page E1969]]

       But overall I voted against the package. Since the 
     Committee was set up, outside groups have generally been able 
     to file charges against Members if they believe there is good 
     evidence of possible misconduct that should be investigated. 
     Some important cases have been brought before the Standards 
     Committee in this way, including the charges against Speaker 
     Gingrich that resulted in his being reprimanded by the full 
     House and paying a $300,000 penalty.
       Under the new Committee rules, however, people outside 
     Congress can no longer file complaints with the Committee, 
     even if they have personal and direct knowledge of egregious 
     conduct by a Member. Now only a Member of the House could 
     file charges against another Member. I believe the new rules 
     make it even harder to hold Members accountable for serious 
     misconduct. By this action the House does further damage to 
     the integrity of the institution.


                 Involving Outsiders in Investigations

       I was also disappointed that the reform package failed to 
     include a bipartisan proposal that I had introduced to 
     involve outsiders in the investigation of charges against 
     Members.
       Under my proposal, the Speaker and the Minority Leader 
     would jointly appoint a pool of ``independent fact-finders'' 
     to be called upon by the Standards Committee to help in 
     ethics investigations as needed, on a case-by-case basis. 
     These individuals would be private citizens, and might 
     include, for example, retired judges, former members, or just 
     ordinary citizens. The findings and recommendations of these 
     independent fact-finders would be reported back to the full 
     Committee, which then makes recommendations to the full 
     House. The basic idea is to restore credibility to the 
     process by involving outsiders at a key point in the 
     consideration of the charges against a Member--investigating 
     the evidence and making recommendations on possible 
     discipline--with the final judgment on the case still resting 
     with the full House, as it must under the Constitution.
       Our current process has simply lost too much credibility 
     with the public and the media. There have always been 
     inherent conflicts of interest when Members judge fellow 
     Members--either to protect a friend or Member of the same 
     party or to go after an opponent for political purposes. But 
     in recent years those tensions have come to the forefront, as 
     the ethics process has become highly partisan, bitter, and 
     contentious.
       Various other professions are increasingly calling on 
     outsiders to help them police their membership--to reduce the 
     tensions, stalling, and conflicts of interest. Several state 
     legislatures, for example, are now successfully using 
     independent ethics panels to help consider charges of 
     misconduct against legislators. The House should do the same.
       However, the House leadership opposed the idea of allowing 
     outsiders to help investigate Member misconduct--perhaps 
     fearing a loss of control over the disciplinary process--and 
     it was not allowed to be considered by Members on the floor.


                               Conclusion

       The unfortunate fact is that the House usually moves to 
     reform its ethics process only after a major ethics scandal 
     or a widely perceived failure of the system. The major 
     problems we experienced with the Gingrich case gave us a rare 
     opportunity to make some serious reforms that go to the heart 
     of our difficulties in policing ourselves and, in turn, help 
     restore credibility to the institution of the Congress. We 
     should have passed more meaningful reforms.
       Although we were not successful this time in including 
     outsiders in the process, I believe that House movement in 
     that direction is almost inevitable. I agree fully with the 
     new Chairman of the Standards Committee, who said that next 
     time the ``use of non-House Members will be a fait 
     accompli''. Involving outsiders in the ethics process is not 
     a panacea, but it is a significant step in the right 
     direction. It means more openness in the spirit of good 
     government, and it reflects confidence within the House that 
     it is able to withstand the scrutiny.

     

                          ____________________