[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8849-H8850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H8849]]
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of a personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair has been apprised of
the predicate on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
seeks recognition and finds (in consonance with the precedents cited in
section 708 of the House Rules and Manual) that it qualifies as a
question of personal privilege under rule IX.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for concluding what has been
a 4-year nightmare to myself and my family. In fact, 4 years, 1 month
and 31 days ago, a group associated with Ralph Nader filed an ethics
complaint against me.
I have agreed to accept a single letter of reproval to settle this
matter. Now, this letter of reproval deals with matters of appearances
of improprieties to which I acknowledge. I am very pleased that the
committee dismissed the wild and inaccurate charges originally filed by
the Nader group. I am very pleased that not a single allegation, not a
scintilla of evidence, not a hint of any of this referred to any
actions that I took that influenced my activities as chairman of my
committee.
Now, the Webster dictionary defines reproval. As we know, a letter of
reproval, by definition, is the mildest form of sanction. The Webster
dictionary defines it as, and I quote, ``to scold or correct, usually
gently and with kindly intent.''
Now, I must confess I feel neither gentle nor kindly about this 4-
year nightmare which has been so difficult for my family and which has
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
It began with this Nader organization complaint filed. And under the
rules, it is a fact, not an opinion, it is a fact that, under the
rules, such a complaint must include the signatures of three sitting
Members. It is a fact, not an opinion, that at least one of those
signatures, not only was not by a Member, his name was not even spelled
correctly. So on the face of it, this should have been rejected in the
very beginning. The then committee began the investigation by violating
their own rules. But that is something behind us.
It is also a fact that, in the week of October 5, 1998, 2 years ago,
the then chairman of the committee sought me out and said to me, and I
can quote it because I immediately not only wrote it down, but also
sent it to my attorneys and sent a copy of a letter to the
distinguished gentleman himself to make sure that I had not
misunderstood. He said to me that, after conferring with other Members
of the committee, that they wanted to wrap up the matter by year's end
because there was nothing of substance. It was, and I emphasize, I
quote, ``B.S.'' I immediately prepared a memorandum, and of course my
family and I proceeded on this basis.
As it turned out, that was 2 years ago. I was told they wanted to
wrap it up by year's end. It did not happen. We regret that. But we
went on to do our best to try to comply with this nightmare.
It is also a matter of public record that the chairman of the
investigation committee and I have had bad blood over the years,
largely, although not exclusively, over the fact that I refused to
block a 6-runway which he wanted killed for his airport. At the time,
people came to me and said ``you should object under the rules to that
gentleman being chairman of the subcommittee.'' I said absolutely not.
I said then that gentleman is an honorable gentleman, and I said now
that gentleman is an honorable gentleman. So I agreed for us to proceed
under those rules.
I agreed to this letter. It is true that, after my chief of staff of
22 years retired, I and my new chief of staff contacted that old chief
of staff numerous times on official business to get guidance because
that former chief of staff was the only one who had the knowledge that
we needed to conduct the affairs of our office. If that created an
appearance of impropriety, absolutely. That is true.
It is also true that my wife and I and my family went to Puerto Rico
on what we believed to be an official trip. While it is true that we
did, indeed, meet with two different organizations on official business
plus, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I
took time to meet with DEA agents on drug matters relating to Puerto
Rico, nevertheless it was concluded by the committee that this trip was
more recreational. I accept that judgment that it created the
appearance of recreation.
It is also true that my congressional staff contributed many times to
work in my campaign. It is true that we kept no written records. I
acknowledge that. I admit that. If that is an appearance of
impropriety, so be it. We understand that the particular staff person
in question did testify that she worked nights and weekends to make it
up. But, absolutely, we did not keep records which have been deemed to
be adequate, and so I have no problem in acknowledging that violation.
It is also true that the Bud Shuster for Congress Committee spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars on dinners and charter flights. We
identified it as political. But it is true that we did not spell out
the details. We did not spell out who it was we had dinner with. We did
not spell out the purpose of the dinner. We reported it all on our FEC
reports, but we did not provide any detail. So if that is an appearance
of impropriety, so be it. I accept it.
Also, the word ``excessive'' was used in spending campaign funds.
Now, if one comes from a rural area, we do not have the benefit of
airlines, scheduled airlines. We have to use charter flights.
{time} 1230
But between the dinners and the flights, these campaign expenses were
``excessive.'' We thought that was something the FEC was supposed to
deal with, but nevertheless we accept that. If that created the
appearance of impropriety, so be it.
But I would point out, in fact, it really raises my hackles a bit
when people say, ``Well, you didn't have any opposition.'' My
colleagues, I have got to confess to the sin of pride. I am the only
Pennsylvanian in our Nation's history who has won both the Democratic
and the Republican nominations nine times. These Democratic nominations
did not fall out of the sky. We conduct very, very complicated write-in
campaigns. And in 11 counties, we have had to run 11 campaigns for a
write-in campaign. It costs a lot of money.
We work 365 days a year on the political end of our activities, and
we do spend an awful lot of money. And if that created the appearance
of impropriety, I accept that.
Now, if our practices created the appearance of impropriety, our
attorneys at one point said, wait a minute, these are common practices.
I said, well, I thought they were, but maybe they are not. So our
attorneys initiated investigations into the FEC reports as well as the
ethics report of 35 Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle,
particularly Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
and the leadership in the Congress to see whether these practices were
also conducted by other Members of the Congress. And, indeed, they
discovered that in a vast majority of the cases, meals, with the full
range of Washington restaurants, Mr. K's, Red Sage, Morton's, Capitol
Grill, were paid for by campaign expenses. The Palm, the MCI Center,
private clubs, golfing expenses; all paid for with campaign expenses.
Entertainment, music, florists, commercial airfare.
Indeed, I emphasize since we do not have commercial flights in rural
Pennsylvania, I had to rely on charter flights, but we spent an awful
lot of money on it. And if that created an appearance of impropriety,
absolutely I accept that.
Members, as they traveled around in style, Sun Valley, campaign
expenses or paid for by private groups; Sun Valley, Idaho, Jackson
Hole, Aspen, Boulder, Miami, Boca Raton, Orlando, Ft. Myers, Naples,
Palm Springs, Pebble Beach, the list goes on and on, Mexico, Puerto
Rico, Bermuda, Virgin Islands, Cuba, Panama, London, Scotland, Ireland,
Rome, Zurich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, et cetera, et
cetera, all paid for by private groups.
Now, it is a fact that we did not keep a record of how much of my
time was spent on official business and how
[[Page H8850]]
much time was spent on recreation. This is one of the things that the
Congress and the committee might want to consider clarifying this, so
that when a Member does go on a trip paid for by a private group, he
should keep a record of how many hours and minutes he spends on
official business and how many hours and minutes he spends on
recreations so we would know clearly and so my colleagues do not find
themselves in the same difficulty in which we have found ourselves.
In fact, I considered introducing legislation, but it is not my style
to do something with tongue-in-cheek to say that we have got to have
written records of every time we go and have a dinner with somebody,
and we must write down who the person was and what was talked about. Do
we really want that around here? Well, what is good for the goose is
good for the gander, but it is certainly not my point to suggest that
that should be done.
I have to tell my colleagues that my attorneys read the committee
report, and they take violent exception to some of the
characterizations in it, and urge, by the way, that all my colleagues
read our reply to the report, but I accept the letter of reproval. I
accept the appearance of impropriety. In the course of it, my attorneys
tell me there were 150 subpoenas, 75 witnesses, 33 depositions; and
they tell me time and time again in debriefings that they were informed
that these witnesses by the staff attorneys were intimidated, were
threatened, and were harassed.
I want to emphasize very strongly, these are not the gentlemen and
ladies on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As far as I
have been apprised, the gentlemen and the ladies on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct conducted themselves in a manner which we
all would expect them to conduct themselves. The staff, of course, was
a different situation.
So in conclusion, this 4-year ordeal is over. I accept the findings
to stop the hemorrhaging of legal fees and to put this behind us. I am
less than thrilled by the drumbeat of malicious, inaccurate newspaper
stories which have appeared over the period of time. I certainly want
to thank my family and my friends, my staff and my colleagues for their
tremendous support which I have received during this 4-year nightmare.
And perhaps most significantly, as a result of the tremendous support I
have received, our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
been able to be an effective committee, has been a committee which in
fact, more than any other committee in the Congress, I am told, has
seen 119 pieces of legislation signed into law, the largest and most
productive committee of the Congress with, indeed, some historic pieces
of legislation.
So I accept the findings of the committee in order to put this behind
us. And most importantly I want to thank all my colleagues for their
tremendous support over this period of time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the apologia pro vita sua we have just
heard from the gentleman in the well is and represents one of the most
intensely personal moments in this body; one of the most human
experiences that we engage in. None of us, unless we stand in that
well, as the gentleman has just done, can understand the pain and the
difficulty, but also the strength of character it takes to deliver the
statement the gentleman has just made, and to say ``I accept the
judgment.'' But it is characteristic of the gentleman to do so.
The gentleman has led the committee throughout all this ordeal with
dignity and effectiveness. I know how pained the gentleman is over this
report, but I am proud of this moment that he has taken to address his
colleagues and to address the country and to address this institution,
and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________