[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.

                          ____________________