[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2162-E2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ETHICS IN THE 110TH CONGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOEL HEFLEY

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 7, 2006

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the 109th Congress ends and I prepare to 
leave the House of Representatives after 20 years, I wanted to speak 
with my colleagues about congressional ethics one last time. This is an 
honorable House and an ethical House. Most House Members desire to 
serve honorably and ethically, a few do not. Yet, as James Madison 
observed in the Federalist 51, ``if angels were to govern men, neither 
external nor internal controls on government would be necessary . . . 
but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary 
precautions.'' The integrity of this House is important to our Nation 
and our integrity is not as it should be. As Members of Congress, we 
will never be perfect, but we can strive to be better. As Members of 
this House we must do better.
  In 1952, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois wrote a small book that had 
wide influence, ``Ethics in Government.'' Douglas said the book grew 
out of his experiences on the Chicago City Council and in the Senate, 
where he served on a committee which investigated the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation and chaired a Senate subcommittee which considered 
the entire range of ethics issues for those involved in public service. 
His book started with the following words, ``[T]he American public has 
become increasingly uneasy in recent months about the moral practices 
of many government officials.'' Sounds familiar, doesn't it? More than 
60 years later, Congress is still struggling with many of the issues 
identified by Senator Douglas. We have made significant progress since 
the 1950s, but as this past Congress has shown, we have a long way to 
go.
  Before discussing ethics in the Congress while I have served and what 
I believe we need to do in the future, I think it would be helpful to 
review some of the conclusions and recommendations of Senator Douglas. 
After reviewing that state of ethics during the time of the ruling 
Florentine House of the Medici as described by Machiavelli in ``the 
Prince,'' Douglas surveyed the state of ethics in Great Britain during 
the 18th and 19th centuries and of our own Congress during the period 
before the Civil War and during the Civil War. Despite the evidence of 
enormous corruption during those times, Douglas stated, ``[M]y own 
conclusion is, therefore, that there has been an appreciable long-time 
improvement in the level of political morals.'' However, he also noted 
that there are frequent periods of ``moral relapse,'' often after wars 
and that in his own time the standards of behavior were ``by no means 
good enough and need radical improvement.''
  Let's look at what Douglas was concerned about. First, he identified 
six ``difficulties which

[[Page E2163]]

beset public officials and legislators.'' Leading the list was the 
items of gifts and entertainment. The next issue he described as the 
``lure of past and future employment.'' Next, he identified the problem 
of the use of public office as a means of making money through various 
private business interests engaged in by members in addition to their 
congressional duties, such as insurance or practice of law. Douglas was 
extremely concerned by what he called, ``use . . . of public office to 
further . . . private business.'' Finally, Douglas identified the abuse 
of members of government resigning and ``then almost immediately 
appear[ing] as well-paid legal representatives of private agencies 
which are doing business with the Government.'' Douglas also identified 
this issue as the sale of influence. Senator Douglas recommended 2 
remedies to these issues; better pay and an ethical code for public 
officials.
  Douglas went on to identify 3 sets of additional ethics issues 
important to legislators: (1) The expense of campaigning for office, 
(2) relationships between legislators and administrative agencies, and 
(3) the conduct of congressional investigations and the treatment of 
witnesses before congressional committees.
  Douglas concluded with 2 final recommendations: disclosure of private 
income and the suggestion that stocks and investments be sold or placed 
in trusts not under the control of the owner. Finally, Senator Douglas 
stated that ``more important than the institutional improvements which 
I have suggested is our need for a deeper set of moral values.'' He 
surmised that ``since the state is but the individual writ large, 
perhaps the disclosures of the past years may reawaken within us a 
sense of our individual failure to live up to the standards we inwardly 
cherish.'' Institutional reform begins with self-reform, he suggested.
  Since the time of Senator Douglas, we have come a long way towards 
fulfilling his recommendations and establishing a modem ethics process. 
The Ethics Committee was established in 1967. Through the years, the 
committee has provided oversight and enforcement, sanction 
recommendations and investigations, and importantly, advice and 
education to Members and staff. Congress adopted Code of Ethics for 
Government Service was in 1958 and the House adopted a Code of Official 
Conduct in 1968. Significant campaign finance legislation was adopted 
in 1971, 1974, 2002 and House Rules now limit personal use of campaign 
funds. A limited private financial disclosure system was put in place 
in 1969 and made public in 1978. In 1989, Congress adopted rules 
limiting outside income and employment, banned honoraria and 
established post-employment restrictions. Finally, in 1995, strong gift 
and travel rules were adopted by the House and Congress passed the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act to counter public perception that special 
interests groups maintain undue influence over the legislative process 
and that Members are granted perquisites and privileges unavailable to 
average Americans. Each of these steps was significant in and of 
itself. Taken together they represent real progress.
  Through this modem ethics process an established ethics committee has 
sanctioned Members of the House for inappropriate conduct on a 
nonpartisan basis. More importantly, the Ethics Committee has provided 
thousands of letters to Members and staff advising them how to navigate 
the web of ethics rules and procedures. In my opinion, the advice and 
education process, though unsung, is the most valuable asset the House 
has received from the Ethics Committee.
  Under the modem ethics system our constituents now have a good idea 
of our income and assets. Members are restricted from outside income 
and honoraria of the sort that concerned Senator Douglas and created 
the potential, the appearance and sometimes the actual existence of a 
conflict of interest. Gifts have been limited and official business 
funded by private groups is publicly disclosed.

  The tide of power in Washington turned again in November. With power 
comes great responsibility. Knowing that Congress is an institution, we 
can find comfort in the fact that faces may change but purpose remains. 
During the years we as elected officials represent our home districts, 
our people, our values, we should hold ourselves to higher standards 
because we have been given the power to change law, to create law, and 
to fund our government. And when those standards weaken in the House, 
we monitor each other through the use of the Ethics Committee. Real 
ethics reform begins and ends with enforcement of the rules and advice 
and education by the Ethics Committee.
  Since its inception in 1967, the Committee on Standards for Official 
Conduct, informally known as the House Ethics Committee, has been 
unique in the House of Representatives. It is the only standing 
committee in which membership is equally divided between each party. 
The make-up of the committee is intended to provide a fair procedural 
framework for the conduct of the committee's activities and to help 
ensure that the committee serves well the people of the United States, 
the House of Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees 
of the House.
  I have been in the position to serve on the Ethics Committee as a 
member and as chairman. During my service, I have come to the 
conclusion that the process works if leadership allows it to. Having an 
equally divided committee encourages a working relationship that has 
rarely been equaled on other committees. While serving as chairman, all 
of our actions were consensus and most were unanimous. I told each new 
member to leave his partisanship at the door and they did.
  I would be hard pressed to remember a time when Congress was not 
under scrutiny but in recent times, we have come under a direct 
dissection and search for credibility. To be a credible ethics process, 
bipartisanship must exist not only in committee deliberations and 
actions, but also in the development of the rules under which those 
deliberations and actions will occur.
  I believe some of our credibility disappeared during the 109th 
Congress, when the House leadership fast-tracked legislation and called 
on party loyalty to pass rules changes for the Ethics Committee during 
a party-line vote. This is a misfortune that should be remedied in the 
110th Congress.
  The vote on the ethics process should be separate and apart from the 
vote on the House rules. The vote on the House rules is a party-line 
vote, the vote on the ethics process should not be. I see it as a duty 
for each member to make an individual vote not a party-line basis but 
on the basis of what would be the best ethics process for the House. 
The January 2005 vote signified a major detour from a bipartisan ethics 
process.
  Besides the actual rule changes, which would have weakened the Ethics 
Committee both in its ability to do its job and as a bipartisan 
institution, I am troubled by the process leadership engaged in to 
fast-track the rules changes. Despite numerous requests by the Ethics 
Committee, leadership did not consult the committee on any of the 
changes they proposed and publicly released the text of these rules 
only a few hours before they were to be voted upon. As a result of 
protest by myself and others, some of the proposed rules changes were 
dropped immediately. Fortunately, the rest were dropped after months of 
unnecessary dispute. So the end result was that the rules were not 
changed permanently, but the process used by the House leadership 
damaged both the ethics process in the House and the House as an 
institution.
  Prior to this misguided effort, the Ethics Committee has almost 40 
years of bipartisan tradition. Sure, the process has not always been 
perfect, but the House has had a tradition of addressing any 
imperfections through the use of a bipartisan process. From its very 
beginning, the rules for the Ethics Committee were the results of a 
bipartisan panel composed of six Democrats and six Republicans. To 
continue working without undue influence, it is imperative to develop 
the rules in a bipartisan manner. All significant changes in the ethics 
process over the years, principally in 1976-77, 1989-1991 and 1997, 
were adopted after bipartisan task forces looked at the issues or a 
bipartisan consensus was reached before passage. As I have stated 
repeatedly, if the House is to have a meaningful, bipartisan ethics 
process, ethics reform can be made only after thoughtful, careful 
consideration on a bipartisan basis.
  Why, at this time when partisanship dominates virtually every aspect 
of political life, is bipartisanship necessary in the ethics process? 
The reason, quite simply, is that if the ethics process were to be 
dominated by the majority party, whichever party that might be, it 
would have no credibility whatsoever. Such an ethics process would 
almost certainly degenerate into simply another tool of partisan 
warfare and thereby become a farce.
  I also have to note, that both parties in the House are guilty of 
misusing the ethics process from time to time, most notably during what 
Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann call the period of ``the politics of 
scandal.'' During this period in the late 1980's and continuing through 
1997, both parties alternatively used the ethics process to attack and 
eventually destroy one Democratic Speaker, Representative James Wright 
of Texas and one Republican Speaker, Representative Newt Gingrich of 
Georgia. During the 104th Congress, virtually every member of the 
Republican and Democratic leadership of the House had an ethics 
complaint filed against them.
  As a result of broad dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle 
regarding the Gingrich matter, the 1997 task force made positive 
recommendations that were adopted by the House. As a result both 
parties disavowed the ``politics of scandal,'' with the result that 
between 1997 and 2004, only one ethics complaint was filed against a 
House member, down from a peak of over 26 filed between the Wright case 
in 1989 and 1996. In 2004, a

[[Page E2164]]

complaint was filed against the majority leader, Representative DeLay, 
and in my opinion, the political use of the ethics process by both 
parties began again.
  Some commentators have called the period between 1997 and 2004 an 
``ethics truce.'' I don't believe that is the proper term because the 
Ethics Committee was clearly engaged in aggressive investigation of 
misconduct during this time period, with many of the investigations 
self-initiated by the committee. During this period the Ethics 
Committee, while the House was under Republican control, followed the 
facts, investigated both Republicans and Democrats. For instance, the 
Ethics Committee conducted a thorough and exhaustive investigation of 
Representative Jay Kim of California during 1997 and 1998. While 
Representative Kim pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors in court 
regarding violations of Federal campaign laws, the investigative 
subcommittee charged him with numerous additional charges, including 
false statements, improper gifts, improper financial disclosure and an 
attempt to improperly influence a witness.
  In the investigation against another Republican, Representative E.G. 
``Bud'' Shuster, while the complaint had been filed in 1996, the Ethics 
Committee again conducted an exhaustive 4-year investigation into this 
powerful committee chairman, often working directly with the Department 
of Justice, which resulted in Representative Shuster being cited for 
``serious official misconduct.''
  A third investigation, involving Democratic Representative Corrine 
Brown of Florida, which was self-initiated by the committee, did not 
result in any charges, but the committee noted her actions demonstrated 
poor judgment and ``created substantial concerns regarding. . . 
appearance of impropriety and the reputation of the House.''
  Also during the period of so-called ``truce,'' the Ethics Committee 
self-initiated a second investigation against a Democrat, 
Representative Earl Hilliard of Alabama, in 1999. In 2001, 
Representative Hilliard admitted ``serious official misconduct.''
  In 2001, the committee received the one complaint filed against a 
Member during this period. On July 16, 2001, Representative Peter 
Deutsch of Florida filed a complaint against Representative Steve Buyer 
of Indiana, alleging improper use of official resources for political 
purposes. The committee unanimously dismissed the complaint on August 
1, 2001.
  On April 11, 2001, Representative James Traficant of Ohio was 
convicted in Federal court of conspiracy to violate Federal bribery and 
gratuities statutes, receipt of an illegal gratuity, obstruction of 
justice, defrauding the Government, racketeering and tax evasion. The 
committee self-initiated an investigation and after a 3-day public 
hearing, recommended expulsion. On July 24, 2002, the House voted to 
expel Representative Traficant. The peer review process contemplated by 
the Constitution was truly in play during this process, as a very close 
friend of Representative Traficant served on the Ethics Committee 
during this period and felt duty-bound to cast a vote to expel his 
friend. This member, a former county prosecutor and defense counsel, 
while voting to expel Representative Traficant, ensured the committee 
held meticulously to its rules and afforded the respondent every ounce 
of due process mandated by the committee's procedures. Another peer of 
Representative Traficant from Ohio, a former judge and county 
prosecutor, also judged her colleague in this process. The committee 
was ably served during this process by the experience of another 
member, who tried numerous death-penalty cases before coming to 
Congress.
  Another matter investigated by the committee during this period was 
the investigation into allegation of bribery during the 2003 Medicare 
Prescription Drug Act. The committee also self-initiated this 
investigation. During this investigation the committee deposed the 
Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee and numerous other senior Members of the 
House. The investigation ultimately resulted in the admonishment of 
three Republican Members, Representative Tom DeLay, Representative 
Candace Miller of Michigan and Representative Nick Smith of Michigan on 
September 30, 2004. It is important to note that the committee 
admonished Representative Smith for public statements that threatened 
to impugn the integrity of the House and for failure to cooperate with 
the committee investigation.
  In summary, during the period of so-called truce, the committee self-
initiated serious investigations. To me, this demonstrates not a truce, 
but a return to a committee dedicated to the investigation of serious 
matters in a nonpartisan way. As an additional note, during the 108th 
Congress, the committee noted it either commenced or carried over 10 
investigations from the 107th Congress.
  From 1997, when I served my first term until 2004 while serving my 
last, we as a committee gave mostly unanimous or overwhelmingly 
bipartisan conclusions. The committee worked. Deadlock never reared its 
ugly head. Partisanship was left at the door. And careful deliberation 
carried us to our conclusions.
  This was true even with the diverse nature of the committee's 
membership. While I served on the committee the chairmen were from 
Utah, Texas and Colorado and the ranking minority members were from 
California and West Virginia. Members of the committee were from Ohio, 
Washington, Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and California. We had lawyers, non-
lawyers, former judges, former prosecutors, former defense counsels, 
businessmen, big-city members and members from rural America. We also 
had liberals and conservatives. Still, almost every decision was 
unanimous and every decision was nonpartisan.
  This past Congress was noted for scandal, further emphasizing the 
need for a strong ethics process in the House. While ultimately the 
criminal justice system and the voters addressed most of these cases, 
the lack of a functioning Ethics Committee during most of this Congress 
was glaring. At a time when Representative Tom DeLay of Texas was 
indicted and Representatives Duke Cunningham of California and Bob Ney 
of Ohio were convicted of bribery, the Ethics Committee was not 
functioning. This was also the period of the Abramoff scandal and the 
search warrant of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana's 
office. Only at the end of the Congress was the committee able to 
effectively investigate allegations involving former Representative 
Mark Foley of Florida. An ongoing investigative subcommittee inquiry 
into Representative Jim McDermott of Washington was also continued 
during the Congress but no result has been reached.

  Finally, this past Congress lost credibility by failing to adopt 
significant ethics reform. The ethics and lobbying reform package 
proposed by the House leadership was so weak that I actually voted 
against it, believing it was designed to make people believe we were 
doing something when we really were not. Denying former Members access 
to the House gym and the House floor did not address the real ethical 
issues confronting the 109th Congress.
  The Senate did little better. I believe the public took note of this 
failure.
  H.R. 4975, the legislation narrowly adopted by the House, while 
addressing lobbying reform, did not go far enough, and was silent on 
reforming the rules that govern the ethics process in the House itself. 
We had a serious opportunity to implement comprehensive ethics reform 
in the House, but we did not take advantage of it.
  The importance the new Congress places on ethics will define its 
character. Congress has the duty to protect the integrity of the 
institution and within that duty, every member must hold himself 
accountable for his own actions as well as those of our colleagues. I 
also recommend that once members on the Ethics Committee are appointed, 
the leadership should stay out of the ethics process.
  I further urge the new Congress to use a different process than used 
in January 2005 to adopt the new ethics rules for the House. We have 
done a great disservice to ourselves by injecting partisanship in the 
ethics process and the consequences of that vote show in the form of 
stalemate during most of the last Congress. It is my hope that a real 
analysis of the rules is undertaken when deciding on changes.
  Based on my experience on the Ethics Committee, I, along with 
Representative Hulshof, have suggested reforms to the House ethics 
procedure that were not included in H.R. 4975. Our bill, H.R. 4988, did 
three things the passed legislation does not. Our proposal gave the 
Ethics Committee broader subpoena power during informal investigations, 
which is when the key decision is made whether to fully investigate a 
potential violation. Our bill would strengthen the independence of the 
chairman and ranking member by giving them presumptive 6-year terms 
like other chairmen. And our bill would strengthen the independence of 
the Ethics Committee staff by making this a career office, like the 
Parliamentarians office, yet with the accountability all staff should 
have.
  The House should also consider the earmark reform adopted late in the 
109th Congress. We need more accountability and transparency in the 
appropriations process.
  Another unnecessary and unfortunate act by leadership during this 
past Congress was the replacement of two very good members of the 
committee before the end of their terms. One of them had chaired an 
investigative subcommittee that recommended the admonishment of 
Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader, and both had 
participated in subsequent committee admonishments of Representative 
Delay. This gave the appearance and in my opinion, the reality of 
retribution. They, I believe, were being punished for doing the right 
thing.

[[Page E2165]]

  The third unnecessary and unfortunate act in the past Congress was to 
weaken the independence and nonpartisanship of the Ethics Committee 
staff. One of the reforms instituted in 1997 was the requirement that 
the committee staff be assembled and retained as a professional, 
nonpartisan staff. From 1997 through 2005, the committee started the 
process of developing an independent, career staff. Many of the staff 
hired during that period of time were hired from off the Hill, 
including several with backgrounds at the Department of Justice, the 
U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia, the Federal 
Election Commission, the District of Colombia Bar Association, and 
related agencies. While the staff of the committee has to have a strong 
understanding of how Congress works, I think it was a good tradition to 
include on the staff nonpolitical career attorneys who are able to step 
back from the intense political nature most congressional staff bring 
to their positions. In February 2005, the incoming chairman removed the 
committee's chief counsel and a member of the nonpartisan investigative 
staff. These actions, in my opinion violated the spirit and tradition 
of the Ethics Committee's charge to assemble staff in a professional 
and nonpartisan way. I hope the incoming leadership of the committee 
sees fit to return to the tradition of an independent and nonpartisan 
staff.
  Turning to reform proposals again, one idea that is repeatedly 
suggested by many is the concept of an ethics commission or an ethics 
counsel. Some describe the office as an independent office of public 
integrity. As noted by Ornstein and Mann in their book, ``The Broken 
Branch,'' the ethics bills passed in 2006 failed to include adequate 
enforcement mechanisms. These proposals are one way to fill this gap. 
Another way, is to strengthen the Ethics Committee itself. Under these 
proposals an outside group of non- members, most likely former members 
or retired judges or other ``wise men'' of some sort, would either make 
recommendations to the Ethics Committee or actually conduct 
investigations for the Ethics Committee. Certainly the names mentioned 
for these positions are the sort of people who would be fair and 
nonpartisan. Similar procedures are used by the House of Commons in 
London and by the Kentucky and Florida legislatures here in the United 
States. I have given this concept great thought. While I believe there 
is some merit to having a system where conduct is judged by officials 
who are removed from the political process, thus removing the 
temptation of partisanship from the ethics process, I am not convinced 
we need to do this. While peer review is extraordinarily difficult, in 
fact one of the most difficult duties I faced as a Member of Congress, 
I think only an internal policing system using fellow members judging 
the ethical conduct of members of the House is important. I believe 
this for two reasons. First, the Constitution requires it. Second, I 
believe it is important for fellow members to decide whether House 
rules have been violated and whether a specific act of conduct is 
appropriate or not. The Justice Department is the external mechanism 
when laws have been broken.
  The source of the power of the committee to recommend and the House 
to impose sanctions on the conduct of members is in the Constitution, 
which provides that each House may ``punish its Members for disorderly 
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' 
Art. I, &5, cl. 2. Unless the Constitution is altered, I can see no way 
Congress can place this responsibility on other shoulders.
  The key provision in the Code of Official Conduct adopted by the 
House in 1968, is House Rule 23, clause 1. It states, ``a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct 
himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives.'' Combined with House Rule 23, clause 2, 
which mandates Members to ``adhere to the spirit and letter of the 
Rules of the House,'' these two rules have the practical effect of 
allowing Members to judge using the current standards of the House. 
While subjective, the standard is certainly one that every member 
should be able to meet. It needs to be subjective because what the 
House considers to be inappropriate conduct changes over time. For 
example, in the 1980's two Members were censored for sexual conduct 
with pages. I believe that a Member found to have committed the same 
conduct in the current Congress would be expelled.

  Another component of standards of conduct used to judge Members is 
the appearance standard that has been used by the Ethics Committee with 
increasing frequency in recent Congresses. Based on rule 23, clause 1 
and other standards of conduct, the committee has long cautioned 
members ``to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn 
suggesting improper action.'' The primary concern regarding the 
appearance of misconduct is that it undermines public confidence in the 
integrity of the House. The committee has specifically endorsed a rule 
by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics directing that Senators should 
avoid the appearance that campaign contributors receive special access 
and instructed that members of the House should adhere to the same rule 
with regard of official access. In 1989, the Bipartisan Task Force on 
Ethics articulated the concern that gifts to Members may create an 
appearance of impropriety that may undermine the public's faith in 
government. The Ethics Committee has cited this concern in both the 
Ethics Manual and its Gift and Travel Booklet and members were publicly 
sanctioned or cautioned under this standard in 2004, 2000, 1996, and 
1995. Any judgment of a Member under the appearance standard can only 
be done by another Member of the House. It would not be fair or right 
to have outsiders, even former members, judging a current Member for 
the appearance of their actions.
  Finally, as Senator Douglas stated so long ago, and many colleagues 
and commentators have echoed since, we must clean up campaign 
financing. Thus, I introduced a bill in this Congress to ban leadership 
PACs. Watching our prospective committee leaders scramble for money in 
order to buy their positions demeans all of us. Fundraising is also 
nearly a full time job for many members of both parties. Lobbyists, the 
backbone of the process, are even tired of the obligation, the 
requirement, of giving, giving, giving to the politicians. The question 
of impropriety can not help but be raised when the amount of money 
solicited and poured into other's campaigns determines whether a Member 
attains a leadership position or committee chairmanship. Money cannot 
be the price of admission into leadership.
  In concluding, I want to thank the Members of the House of 
Representative who served with me on the Ethics Committee while I was 
chairman. These include Representatives Doc Hastings of Washington, 
Judy Biggert of Illinois, Representative Hulshof, Representative 
LaTourette, former Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, former 
Representative Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Representative Tubbs Jones, 
Representative Gene Green of Texas, Representative Lucille Royball 
Allard of California, Representative Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, 
Representative Martin Sabo of Minnesota, and Representative Ed Pastor 
of Arizona. In particular I want to thank Representative Zoe Lofgren of 
California, who served as the ranking minority on the Shuster 
investigative subcommittee and came back to serve on the investigative 
subcommittee for Representative Traficant. Finally, I must thank the 
two distinguished ranking minority members I served with, 
Representative Howard Berman of California and Representative Alan 
Mollohan of West Virginia. Each served with honor during difficult 
times and each never acted or mentioned a partisan issue to me while we 
were involved in committee matters.
  I also want to thank the fine professional staff of the Ethics 
Committee. Starting with Joanne White, our administrative assistant who 
insured the committee functioned so efficiently; other assistants 
Christine Stevens, Sean Kelley, Preston Johnson, Peter Johnson, and 
Amelia Snider; our counsels Kenneth Kellner, Bernadette Sargeant, John 
Sassaman, Reed Slack, Susan Pohl, Stacey Duffey, Peter van Hartesfeldt, 
Susan Olson, and Carol Dixon. Special thanks goes to Representative 
Berman's counsel Bari Schwartz and Representative Mollohan's assistant, 
Colleen McCarty. The committee was further assisted by two 
distinguished chief counsels during this period, Robert Walker and John 
Vargo. Finally, I want to thank my two counsel's while I was chairman, 
Virginia Johnson and Paul Lewis. Rob Walker and Virginia Johnson 
provided vital support and assistance during the Traficant matter and 
John Vargo and Paul Lewis did the same during the complaint filed 
against Representative DeLay at the end of my tenure.
  When I began my service in this House 20 years ago, I never thought I 
would serve on the Ethics Committee. I certainly never thought I would 
serve as its chairman. Yet, I now believe it is my duty to speak to you 
one last time regarding ethics. Ethics advice in this House must be 
fair, impartial, and nonpartisan. Ethics reform in this House must be 
fair, impartial, and bipartisan. Ethics enforcement in this House must 
be fair, impartial and bipartisan. The leadership of both parties 
should keep their hands off the ethics process once the rules are 
adopted and the members are assigned to the Ethics Committee. I hope a 
strong ethics reform package is passed on the first day of this new 
Congress. But we must do more. I urge the next Congress on the first 
day to also establish a bipartisan task force to draw on proposals 
adopted on that first day but to do more and to do better. The work of 
the 1997 Bipartisan Ethics Reform Task Force is instructive on how 
major changes in the ethics rule should be made. The task force labored 
on its recommendations for 4 months, taking testimony from House 
Members and outside experts in public hearings as well as executive 
session. It is evident from the task force's final report that it spent 
hours and days in studying, discussing

[[Page E2166]]

and voting upon a variety of rules changes. With so much at stake in 
the ethics rules for both individual Members and the House as an 
institution, such open, careful consideration of rules changes is 
absolutely necessary.
  John Barry, the author of ``The Ambition and Power,'' about ethics 
investigation of Representative Wright, described our Capital as the 
grandest building in this Nation. I believe our grandest building 
should also be a cathedral. A cathedral of integrity. Senator Douglas 
urged each member of Congress to consider the need for a deeper set of 
moral values. I ask each of my colleagues and the incoming Members of 
the House to consider the same.

                          ____________________