Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 42 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1546-H1552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule
IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid
basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege.
The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this House takes more seriously than I do the
rules governing confidentiality of matters before the House Ethics
Committee.
Each of us privileged to serve on the committee signs an oath
pledging not to disclose information related to our work in the
committee except as authorized under our committee rules.
During nearly 8 years of service on the Ethics Committee, including 2
years as the chairman, I have never found it necessary to disclose
committee documents or any other privileged information. Mr. Speaker,
that changed yesterday when it became clear that the Democrat
leadership would, indeed, force Members to vote on a proposed
independent ethics entity.
You see, I knew, and Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones knew, something
that the other Members of this House did not know. Several months ago,
we had been advised by the nonpartisan, professional attorneys at the
Ethics Committee that they believed the proposed independent ethics
entity would infringe upon Members' due process protections under the
rules of the House and that it would seriously hamper the Ethics
Committee's ability to carry out its important responsibilities.
When the ranking member of the bipartisan task force, Mr. Smith of
Texas, sent a letter asking for our committee's official comments on
Representative Capuano's proposal, I took his request to Chairwoman
Tubbs Jones and asked her to prepare a formal response with me to the
ranking member of that task force. I did so because I felt strongly
that the proposed entity would so greatly impact the work of the Ethics
Committee that it would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, irresponsible
not to share with task force members our official views of this plan.
Last night, in a Dear Colleague letter to every Member of this House,
that was printed in the Congressional Record, it was printed in Roll
Call, it was printed in other publications, Representative Tubbs Jones
has attempted to rewrite the history on this issue.
For reasons that I have trouble fathoming, she now claims, and I
quote, Mr. Speaker, ``Both Representative Hastings and I agreed that
the Ethics Committee could not and should not give advice to the
committee charged by House leadership with reviewing the ethics process
itself.''
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I could not
possibly have stated more clearly to Mrs. Tubbs Jones my desire to
respond fully and jointly to Ranking Member Smith's request for
guidance on how the task force proposal would affect our committee.
Now I recognize the difficulty that she must have explaining to her
colleagues why she did not believe that they should be made aware of
the concerns expressed by our nonpartisan attorneys on the committee.
But, Mr. Speaker, those attorneys don't work for her and they don't
work for me. They work for every Member of this House. So, I don't
understand, I didn't understand then and I don't understand now, why my
distinguished colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, sought to keep that
information from every Member of the House, but she did. And I do not
stand by and permit her to call into question my integrity on setting
that record straight, as I did so with a letter I sent out to every
Member, along with the e-mail of the attorneys on their advice on that
issue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that this is not the
first time that I have had to set the record straight following ill-
considered public comments by Representative Tubbs Jones. Last June,
she issued a press release declaring that the Ethics Committee would
empanel an investigative subcommittee into the matter of Representative
William Jefferson. Under the committee's rules, Representative Tubbs
Jones had no authority to issue such a statement and lacked the
authority to establish such a subcommittee. She not only knew that such
an action would require a bipartisan vote of the committee, but she
also knew that the committee had never voted on the matter. And she
knew, Mr. Speaker, that I had pressed her for months to reestablish the
Jefferson subcommittee which had lapsed at the end of the last Congress
before it completed its work. And I said so, Mr. Speaker, when she
issued that because she did not consult with me and ask me to give
permission for her to release that statement. She simply did not do so.
So, once again, I cannot fathom her reason for making such an
inaccurate and irresponsible statement as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to this House for insisting that
Members benefit from the advice and counsel of the skilled attorneys at
the Ethics Committee before voting on a proposed independent entity.
After all, Mr. Speaker, this affects them. I'm a Member, also, of the
Rules Committee. And at the Rules Committee 2 weeks ago, when we had
testimony on this issue, I expressed my concern then as to what would
come of this outside entity.
So, Mr. Speaker, I resent the claim by Representative Tubbs Jones
that I have violated the rules of the House and the Ethics Committee in
this manner. As she no doubt intended, Representative Tubbs Jones'
false allegations have now made their way into the news, bringing
further discredit to the House. But most disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is
her public threat to use her position as chairman of the House Ethics
Committee to bring sanctions against me. Such a threat can only be
motivated by a desire to intimidate and embarrass, while distracting
attention from her decision to keep every Member of this House from
receiving information that I think every Member deserved to have before
we voted on that proposal last night.
Mr. Speaker, I think her action in calling into question and
impugning my reputation, and what she did last night, is wrong, and I
think she failed in her effort of trying to do that.
So I rise today, point of personal privilege, to point out the
history of this, and my position, and the reason why I felt that every
Member of this House had to have this important information,
notwithstanding the fact that we had a very short time frame to even
debate the matter at hand.

[[Page H1547]]

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I appreciate your indulgence. And I would
like to yield time to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I haven't had the privilege of meeting the newest Member of this body
who took the oath of office yesterday, Mr. Foster, but I, as everyone
did, rose to my feet and applauded as he swore to protect this country.
And I'm mindful of what was said last night on the floor of the House,
that I wonder what's passing through his mind as the first vote he cast
as we all became caught up in this maelstrom of ethics discussion. And
I would say to him, I know he's not in the Chamber, but perhaps as he
reviews the Record, as an incoming freshman in January of 1997, as we
commenced the 105th Congress, and I see some of my classmates here on
the floor, I remember the first vote I cast was for the Speaker of the
House, Newt Gingrich, who was then under a cloud of ethics. And I
remember the last vote I cast as a freshman Member was whether or not
to impeach a sitting President of the United States.

{time} 1200

So my freshman term began and ended with this issue of ethics.
Ironically, as my days in this Chamber wind down, we are embroiled
once again in a partisan struggle about the integrity of this
institution. I was on the floor last night during the debate, and many
who spoke don't even know where the Ethics Committee is located in the
Capitol. That's a good thing. That means, then, that you've never had
the occasion to be called in front of the committee or to render
testimony or to provide some information. And yet it is so vitally
important to the integrity of this institution.
My bona fides, again, I listened with some interest to incoming
freshmen Members who debated this last night, that the Ethics Committee
has been broken, hasn't worked for however many years, and yet I beg to
differ in the sense that I was tapped as a noncommittee member to sit
on an investigative subcommittee, and we sat and we resolved,
appropriately, I think, the matter with a former Member from Alabama. I
don't need to name his party. It's irrelevant. The House rules apply to
everyone equally. Whether you're a backbencher or whether you're one of
the most powerful members of leadership, it doesn't matter. But I
participated in that investigative subcommittee and then was actually
appointed to the committee itself.
I remember standing right here in this very spot as this body voted
to expel a Member from Ohio, that extraordinary remedy of substituting
the will of this House for the will of the voters of then the 17th
District of Ohio. And we did that. And the process worked.
The Ethics Committee continued to handle many sensitive matters, many
of those never seeing the light of day, appropriately, because when a
baseless or meritless claim is brought against one of the number of
this House, it shouldn't be debated or discussed on the front pages of
the newspaper but should be dealt with down in the basement and, as
appropriate, then brought to the attention of the American public. So
those confidentiality rules are important and necessary.
I objected to the rules changes that were made, my friend from
Tennessee mentioned that as well last night, that unilaterally forced
upon then the minority, and I objected to those. And let me point out
again, as my friend from Tennessee did, that we changed those rules
because it was a unilateral action, and that was appropriate for our
majority at the time then to say we should redo this in a bipartisan
fashion.
And then, of course, may I claim, the ``infamous'' vote on Medicare
part D and allegations that were made. And then suddenly in my time on
the committee, I was the chairman of the investigative subcommittee to
investigate allegations. We didn't know where the allegations were
going to lead us. I issued the report and admonished publicly the then-
majority leader on our side of the aisle. I was removed from the
committee because of that. More disturbing was the fact that there were
professional staff that were fired as a result of that, good, decent,
honorable professionals who were fired as a result of that report.
Certainly not our finest hour. And there are still some relationships
on our side of the aisle that have been strained personally to this day
because of those actions.
But the wisest man I ever knew, my father, he never finished college.
May he rest in peace. He had a single mantra that I remember from a kid
growing up on the farm to those hallowed Halls, and that mantra was
simply: The only thing worth keeping in life is keeping your good name,
and you keep your good name by standing up and doing what's right. And
I will leave this body with that name intact.
I used to believe that an outside entity had no place in the ethics
process. But after this renewed partisanship on a committee that should
not be partisan, I came to a different conclusion, and I voted with the
majority last night as one of the handful on our side that believed
that perhaps this might be the way out. And as I leave this august
body, I hope and pray that I have not damaged the institution by my
vote, but that will be for a future Congress and future Congresses to
determine.
The former chairman of the committee, my friend from Washington's
predecessor, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, he and I used to believe that if
we simply provided the resources for the committee to reward staff, not
punish them for doing their jobs, to provide some subpoena power, that
the committee itself could continue to hold up the integrity of this
institution. But again, seemingly, that is not the way forward as far
as it relates to ethics, and so last night I crossed the aisle and
voted for this.
But we are here today for a further purpose. A good and decent,
honorable man who has the integrity of this institution at stake has
been impugned, in my view; so, unfortunately, we then come to this
point of personal privilege.
I have reviewed the letter from my friend, and she is my friend, the
March 11 letter that suggests that rules have been violated by the
disclosure of a professional opinion about the merits or lack of merits
of the proposal we voted on last night. And I will say again for the
purpose of the Record that, in my view, rule 7, subparagraph d, and the
subparagraphs beneath that rule, that there has been no violation of
those matters as it relates to the disclosure. This was not the
disclosure of any fact or nature of a complaint. This was not the
disclosure of any executive session proceedings. It was not the
disclosure of any report, study, or document that expresses views,
findings, or recommendations in connection with activities of ethics
investigation. So as I go through those subparagraphs, those words are
important, as we know, not just legally but ethically to determine
whether or not this disclosure by Mr. Kellner, who I know personally,
having worked with him on the committee, is a very professional,
capable individual. I do not find as a sitting Member that anything of
the disclosure of Mr. Kellner's letter has violated House rules.
Having said that, I am mindful again of what the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster) had to remind us of, and it, hopefully, was a
reminder, that we have a privilege to serve here. This is a privilege
granted to us. Each of us has taken the same oath of office that Mr.
Foster took in the well yesterday. And inherent in that oath of office
is the belief that the integrity of this institution is more important
than any single Member serving here. To think that these same feet that
used to walk barefoot down our cotton rows have had the privilege of
walking the marble Halls of Congress for the last, now, 12 years, this
is something that the integrity of the institution is more important
than a single Member. And I can only wonder about those who are here
witnessing today, as they excitedly have come to Washington, DC, maybe
for their first-ever visit, and they come to the House Gallery, and
there must be thrust upon them this discussion about whether Members of
Congress are ethical or not, and it saddens me.
So I implore simply all that are here and those that aren't here and
for those that are going to come to this body, in order to bring about
and reinforce the trust that the 300 million people across the country
from sea to shining sea have in this institution, we must have a
functioning ethics process.

[[Page H1548]]

We don't. And when there are charges and countercharges that,
unfortunately, necessitate bringing a point of personal privilege, we
do not serve this institution well.
And so I tell the gentleman, with whom I have occasionally disagreed
as it relates to ethics, that I think you are an honorable, decent man
who has the integrity of this institution deeply in your heart, and I
support you and urge all colleagues to consider the institution and the
damage that we perhaps are doing by this partisan warfare.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), one of my classmates.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to have the opportunity to speak today.
The gentleman from Washington is my classmate. We were both elected in
1994. The distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics Committee I've known
for 25 years. I served on the Ethics Committee for 4 years, had some of
the same circumstances that Mr. Hulshof was previously talking about at
the time. Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Tubbs Jones were also members of the
Ethics Committee.
And there's a reason that we take that oath of secrecy, and it's why,
unlike Mr. Hulshof, I voted ``no'' last night. My belief has always
been that the ethics process here has worked when left to its own
devices, and by ``left to its own devices,'' when leadership on either
side stays out of it and permits five good Democrats and five good
Republicans to consider what is sometimes a messy business. But it
needs to be not aired in public as, sadly, this new whatever we did
last night will do, because, and I used to be a prosecuting attorney,
as did the chairwoman of the committee, there are many times when a
case is brought to you and there are no facts to support that case, but
you will be accused on page 1 and the case will be dismissed on page
45, and when you're in public life, by the time you get to the
retraction on page 45, your career is ruined.
So every Member that embarks upon the ethics process takes the oath
that we will hold close to us and not discuss with our colleagues, not
discuss with the press, not discuss with others if we have a Member
under investigation, if allegations are made against a Member, not to
protect a Member, not to shield that Member from scrutiny, but so that
we don't shoot the Member until there has been an adjudication that he
or she has done something wrong. I took that oath. Every member of the
committee takes that oath. We take that seriously.
Now, yesterday evening when I was preparing to make a determination
as to how to vote, I received a memo from Doc Hastings, Representative
Hastings, that had included in it the opinion of the nonpartisan,
bipartisan professional staff of the Ethics Committee where they opined
on how, if at all, what was being done last night would impact upon the
ethics process of this House. I have to tell you that the memorandum
wasn't written for Republicans. It wasn't written for Democrats. It was
nonpartisan, bipartisan, and I found a lot in it that I thought that's
an interesting point and I hadn't actually thought about it. I was
grateful to receive that memorandum from Doc Hastings, not knowing how
it came to my possession or attention other than Doc Hastings provided
it.
I'm dismayed on this point of personal privilege, however, to then be
in receipt of a letter written by my friend the chairwoman of the
committee that, in my opinion, has a tortured construction of rule 7 of
the committee. It correctly indicates that we take the oath of secrecy
and matters should only be discussed in accordance with the rules of
the House. Mr. Hulshof, I think, has adequately talked about 7(d), and
what that indicates is that we're not supposed to talk about if
Representative Y is under investigation until that matter moves to the
public phase, that being the adjudicatory hearing, which we achieved
against the gentleman from Ohio a number of years ago and which we were
all involved in.

{time} 1215

It does not, in my opinion, indicate that when a memorandum that
might be instructive to the other Members of the House on a matter
before the House should remain secret. And I would just say that we
would then read paragraph 7(g) that indicates that, ``Unless otherwise
determined by a vote of the committee, only the chairman or ranking
minority member of the committee, after consultation with each other,
may make public statements regarding matters before the committee of
any subcommittee.''
The gentleman from Washington says that is what he did. And if the
gentleman from Washington did that, I find no violation of the
committee rules. I find no violation of the House rules. And I think
what is most unfortunate, and it really goes into why the matters
before the Ethics Committee need to remain secret, the letter suggests,
it doesn't suggest, it says that Representative Hastings has broken the
rules of the House, and if he does it again, there is going to be a
complaint. Well, if someone feels that way, then file a complaint. But
it is entitled to the confidentiality which it is now indicated has
somehow been broken.
And I want to indicate that besides my disappointment, that what is
roiling this House, and I think those of us that are centrists,
moderates, those of us that are institutionalists, we now are roiled in
the House because the rules don't seem to be the rules. The rules apply
when people think they should apply. And if the rules don't apply,
well, then we will make a new rule.
And last night's example, and it ties in directly to this point of
personal privilege, couldn't be any clearer. The new majority, because
of the Medicare part D vote that Representative Hulshof talked about
that we wrongly held open for 3 hours to achieve a certain result, in
outrage in response to the culture of corruption that permeated this
place until 2007, led to a rule change. And the rule change was that we
will hold no vote open in this House for the sole purpose of affecting
the outcome or changing the outcome.
Well, that is just what we did last night, sadly, Mr. Speaker. For 12
minutes, 12 minutes after the final vote was cast, the vote was held
open. It was 204-209. And during those 12 minutes, four Members of the
majority party were persuaded to switch their votes. There is no other
explanation. But where we find ourselves, and why this point of
personal privilege is so important, where we find ourselves is that the
rule is written in such a way that says you can't hold the vote open
for the sole purpose of affecting or changing the outcome.
Now, we are going to have to bring in Kreskin. We are going to have
to have ESP to climb into the mind of the presiding officer. And unless
the presiding officer says, do you know what, I know what the rule is,
I know what clause 9 of rule XX says, but I kept the vote open to
affect the outcome. Short of that, there is no way to enforce the rule.
And it puts us in a very difficult place. And I would ask my friends
that are today in the majority to remember the 12 years that they were
in the minority that they felt so oppressed, and in many cases had the
right to feel oppressed, by some of the heavy-handed tactics that were
employed on the conduct of this floor.
When you have a rule that can never be enforced, when you have rules
that you don't pay attention to, it leads to discontent. It destroys
the fabric of the institution. The minority serves an important purpose
in the House of Representatives. It is the loyal dissent. It is to make
sure that the majority just can't run roughshod and do what they choose
to do in violation of rules, practices, precedents and procedures.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that last night the rules were once again
broken. I believe that the totality of the circumstances will
demonstrate that. But what I do not find is that my friend and
classmate from the State of Washington violated rule 7 of the Ethics
Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to yield now to the minority Republican whip, Mr.
Blunt of Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I come today to express my great appreciation for him, the work he
has done in this and past Congresses, the work he has done as part of
our whip team, the consistent good judgment I

[[Page H1549]]

think he shows as a Member of this body. And I was surprised last night
with the letter that appeared on the floor. I was surprised yesterday,
frankly, that there could have been information available to the
Members of this House from the staff of the Ethics Committee that deals
with the proper work of the internal committee that has overseen the
ethics of this House for a long time that that information would be out
there and not made available to us, and frankly pleased that Mr.
Hastings followed the procedure that the rules call for and let that
information be available to Members.
And then, on the floor of the House last night, I received a letter
from the chairman of the committee. And I appreciate her work too. The
Ethics Committee is not an easy committee to serve on. Being the
chairman is not an easy role to fill in this Congress, and I think
Members of the House should be and are grateful to their colleagues who
are willing to serve on the Ethics Committee.
But when I saw this letter last night, I was particularly taken by a
paragraph, the third paragraph from the end which says,
``Representative Hastings' reliance on rule 7(g) which states `Unless
otherwise determined by a vote of the committee, only the chairman or
ranking minority member of the committee, after consultation with each
other, may make public statements regarding matters before the
committee of any subcommittee.' '' And then it went on to say after it
quotes that rule, that that rule ``does not relieve him of the
obligation to comply with the rules of confidentiality.''
First of all, I don't know what purpose that rule would serve if it
doesn't allow the ranking member and the chairman to tell the other
person, as the rule says, here is something that I have decided is
important to the Members of the House to understand or important for
others to understand. That is what the rule is for. The rules of
confidentiality as I read them, appear to clearly be talking about
investigation, not opinions of outside ethics efforts that may or may
not impede the work of the Ethics Committee. And that was important for
us to have. It went on in the last sentence to say, the last two
sentences to say, ``I do however want to make it clear that if he
continues to release confidential communication, I will seek to have
him sanctioned for violations of the Code of Official Conduct.''
The relationship here may be such that this is not intimidating, but
it certainly seems intimidating to me. And I join my good friend in
rising to this moment of personal privilege to explain how he was
working within the rules, how he is a long-term member of this
committee, understood the rules, and how he properly, in my opinion,
arrived at the conclusion that if we are voting on the floor on
something that is likely to impede the efforts of the internal Ethics
Committee as the bipartisan, nonpartisan staff of the committee said it
would, that that is something that Members had a right to know, and I
rise in support of my friend and the actions he has taken.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have other Members that wish to speak,
and I will call on them at this point.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. My question is will the gentleman yield at some
point?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will not yield at this point.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. At any time during the hour?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is my time, and I will
decide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman from Washington
controls the time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. LaHood from
Illinois, another one of my classmates.
Mr. LaHOOD. I thank my friend for yielding.
Congressman Doc Hastings is one of the most respected Members of the
House of Representatives. And Ray LaHood doesn't have to say that. I am
saying it. But the people of his district have said it on seven
different occasions. It is called an election. An election is a
referendum on one's service. And no one has served for the last 14
years in his district better than he has. And the people have said
that.
When a letter like this from the chairman of the Ethics Committee is
disclosed publicly, it gets on the front page of Doc Hastings' hometown
newspaper. And it plants a seed in the minds of the people who have
sent him here on seven different occasions that he may have done
something wrong, that he may have violated the rules.
And the truth is Doc Hastings has violated no rules. He has done
nothing wrong. He hasn't violated any rules of the House. He has been
on the Ethics Committee, when I asked him how long he has been on, he
said too long, but I believe he has been on 6 years. It's the hardest
committee to serve on. It's the hardest committee to find Members to
serve on, because of decisions you have to make against your
colleagues.
And for one member, particularly the Chair of the committee, to try
and impugn his motives or to suggest that he violated the rules is
simply wrong. And hopefully that wrong can be righted today during this
1 hour of his opportunity to try and regain his reputation in the House
of Representatives.
There's a saying where I come from, once you tar and feather someone,
you can never get the tar off. What happened here with the disclosure
of this letter, made public in Doc's district, is that he will always
have a little bit of this tar on him, that somehow he might have
violated the rules. That's wrong, folks. What good is it for us to
trash one another? What good is it for the institution to try and
criticize someone for no other good than to try and make a point on a
piece of legislation that your side of the aisle wanted to pass.
I believe that the chairwoman of the Ethics Committee owes Doc
Hastings an apology for trying to besmirch and impugn his integrity and
his honesty and his service on the Ethics Committee and in the House of
Representatives. If the chairwoman, Mr. Speaker, would be willing to do
that, it might get on page 40 of his local newspaper. It won't be on
page 1 the way the headlines read today. We owe it to Doc Hastings, to
the people that sent him here, to do this for him.
And if I can be so bold, Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that
because of the threat that was made in the last paragraph of the
letter, that perhaps the chairwoman, in the event that Representative
Hastings would do this again that she might file charges against him,
that we need a new chairperson of the Ethics Committee. Because I think
when you use your position as the Chair of the Ethics Committee to
threaten a member of the committee, you not only owe that member an
apology, you need to take a different place on that committee. You
can't use that kind of power against a member of the committee. That is
wrong, Mr. Speaker. That hurts the whole House. It hurts Congressman
Hastings. It hurts the people that sent him here. We need to do better
in this House. We do no good by trashing one another, by besmirching
and trying to discredit people who come here to serve honestly, with
integrity, by the rules. The rules have not been broken. There is
nothing in the memo that was disclosed that has anything to do with
another Member, anything to do with any investigation. It was
information to be shared with Members about a piece of legislation that
some of us thought was pretty bad. And apparently people on that side
of the aisle didn't want your Members to have it. So you put out a
letter discrediting the ranking member of the committee. That is wrong.
And so I encourage, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House to find a
different place for the Chair of the Committee on Ethics and to ask the
Chair of the Committee on Ethics to apologize to Mr. Hastings so he can
have some semblance of his reputation, one of honesty and integrity and
hard work for 14 years on behalf of the people of the State of
Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much for his
sentiments.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the
former attorney general.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I've served in this body for 14 years stretched over 30. Twenty-nine
years

[[Page H1550]]

ago, I think it was the first official action I took on this floor, was
to bring a resolution to expel a Member. It was not something I wanted
to do as a freshman. But we had a true ethics problem at the time. And
frankly, I didn't think we were dealing with it in the appropriate way.
That was sort of my baptism of fire here.
Since I returned to Congress 4 years ago after an absence of 16
years, I have applauded the work of the Ethics Committee because often
I and my staff consult with the staff of the Ethics Committee to ensure
that we are acting within the rules of this House. And I must say the
return that we have received in terms of information, advice and
counsel from the Ethics Committee staff has been professional,
exceptional and helpful. And so, when I see memos or letters that are
addressed to the membership from the Ethics Committee, I pay attention
to it.

{time} 1230

I try and incorporate that information in my decisionmaking. So when
I received the letter from Congressman Hastings with the memo enclosed,
I thought it was a benefit to me as an individual Member of this House
in making my decision.
I came to the floor, frankly, not knowing what I was going to do on
that ethics package. I sat with the gentleman from Missouri and went
over it. We, in fact, went over the memo that was given to us by Doc
Hastings, not just because it was given to us by Doc Hastings, but
because it was a professional opinion of those on the staff of the
Ethics Committee that I have learned to trust. It doesn't mean that I
follow blindly their opinion, but it does mean that I am educated by
that information.
For the life of me, I could not understand any rule adopted by this
House or the committee that would deny me, as an individual Member, the
benefit of that information when, in the judgment of the ranking
member, he thought it might help me and others make a decision. And
when you review the rules cited by the gentlewoman in the letter that
contained the threat of a complaint to be filed against the gentleman
from Washington, I cannot find the basis for a complaint.
Now, I have not served on the Ethics Committee, I will admit. I have
practiced law for 30-some years. I have been the attorney general of
the State of California. I have prosecuted people. I have put people in
prison. I have done investigations of other elected officials.
I have had to compartmentalize, and understand that when you do a
criminal investigation and it doesn't rise to the level of a complaint
or an indictment, you cannot, as a matter of honor, as a matter of
ethics, use that information in debate, in informing the public, even
though you may find that the individual that was under investigation
happened to be stupid, happened to be unethical, because you got that
information by way of an investigation of a criminal matter.
So, while I haven't served on the Ethics Committee, I believe I have
over the course of my political and legal career been able to read
legislation, read rules, and not only find out what the spirit of the
law is, but the letter of the law. And I cannot find in the citation by
the gentlelady from Ohio any basis for making a claim against the
gentleman from Washington.
Now, we can disagree on that. I am not on that committee. She is the
Chair. However, the thing that troubles me perhaps the most is that
this was made public. A complaint about the gentleman breaching
confidentiality about a matter that was not of interest to an
individual Member, that is, was not directed at a Member in terms of an
investigation, that alleged breach is revealed by a breach of
confidentiality that gives the gentleman from Washington very little
opportunity to defend himself. And that is part of the crux of the
debate last night.
Yes, as the Speaker said, we all are subject to criticism, some fair,
some unfair. That is part of the business of being in politics. But the
fact of the matter is, we here should not enhance that kind of platform
for irresponsible allegations against one another. And one of the ways
we ensure that we don't do that is the confidentiality with respect to
complaints against somebody.
So, I would just hope that the people of the gentleman's district in
Washington would understand that in the judgment of many, I would say
most in this body, virtually universal, there is no basis for a claim
of complaint against the gentleman from Washington. He did nothing to
reveal anything with respect to an investigation, anything with respect
to the business of the Ethics Committee. What he did was give us the
benefit of judgment of professionals on that committee pertaining to an
upcoming legislative debate.
Have we gone so far in this House that we deny ourselves of
information that would inform the debate? Is that what we are talking
about? Talk about turning the first amendment on its head, saying that
the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be the great
debating society of this institution, ought to be denied an opportunity
to debate when informed.
I love this House. I came back to this House. I may die in this
House. I love the institution, this House. And I think we who believe
this institution is important to the American people believe it is also
important to those who have been privileged to serve here. If we do not
have respect for ourselves, how can we ask the public to have respect
for us? If we do not have respect for ourselves, how can we have
respect for this institution?
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in sorrow about the accusations made against
my friend from Washington and want to stand here and say I have found
him in every way to be an honorable man, and that his actions over this
last week were anything but dishonorable, were in fact efforts to
inform this House, which is what we all ought to be about when we vote.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would like to yield to my friend from
the neighboring State of Idaho, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
I have known Doc Hastings since I came here in 1999. He has always
been kind of a mentor of mine, because we come from adjacent States,
and a lot of the issues we deal with are similar. So I have consulted
with him and sought his advice on many of the issues that affect our
two States. We have done things together. I have known that he has
served on the Ethics Committee, has been an honorable member of the
Ethics Committee.
In fact, at times, we have been out doing a variety of things,
whether it is out to dinner or out playing golf or something together,
and there is always a case before the Ethics Committee which sometimes
is of interest to other Members of the House. And I have inquired of
him, how is that going, what is going on there in that case, or
whatever. Doc has never failed to look at me and say, I can't talk
about that. He has always kept the confidentiality of that committee on
everything that has proceeded before it, and I respect him for that,
even though many of us would like to know what is going on behind the
closed doors.
Now, I am not an attorney, but I will tell you, I have been, when I
served in the Idaho legislature as Speaker of the House, I care an
awful lot about the institution. That is some of the debates we are
currently having between the administration and the legislative branch
and the rights and privileges of the institution in maintaining the
rights and privileges of this institution.
So I care deeply about this institution and its future. It is one of
the reasons that I had a problem with the legislation that was proposed
last night on the ethics reform. As I said, I am not an attorney. What
I rely on, and all of us become specialists in some areas when we come
here, things that interest us, but what I rely on is the advice of
other people.
When it comes to the advice of the Ethics Committee and what they do
and the role they play and the impact that the legislation that was
presented to us last night has, the impact that would have on the way
our Ethics Committee works and the ethics of the House, I thought the
information that was presented by Doc Hastings was not only important,
it was vital to me being able to make a decision. And I think that type
of information, as the

[[Page H1551]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said, is vital to the
debate on any issue that comes before the House.
How can we deny Members opinions from people who are experts in the
area, whether we agree with them or not? I might have read all that and
said, you know, that is interesting; I hadn't thought about that, but I
disagree with that. But Members rely on other people's and experts'
opinions on issues that come before the House. We have not only a
right, we have an obligation to have that information if we are going
to make informed decisions about issues that come before us. And
certainly the ethics of this House and how we proceed is an issue for
this House to deal with.
So, to suggest that somehow the information that Doc Hastings gave to
the Members of this House so that they could weigh it in making a
decision on the legislation presented to us last night was vital.
I was very, very disappointed to read what I took to be a threatening
letter from the chairwoman of the Ethics Committee suggesting that Mr.
Hastings had done something improper. I can find nothing improper that
he did. In fact, what he did I thought was advance the debate. We
happened to lose that debate last night. That is okay. That is the way
the process worked. But to suggest that Members shouldn't have that
information is a joke. And to then put out a letter saying that
Congressman Hastings did something wrong, as has been mentioned several
times, stains the reputation of this good man, and he deserves an
apology from the Chair. And to suggest that if this happened again the
chairwoman would sanction him brings into question her objectivity in
judging him in the future, particularly if an ethics charge were
charged against him. I agree with those who suggest that it may have
placed in jeopardy her position as chairwoman of the committee.
So, I think at the very least she owes this good man from Washington,
who has served us and those Members that serve on the Ethics Committee,
an apology, and I hope that she would be big enough to apologize.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for the time that
he has served on the Ethics Committee. It is kind of a standard joke
around here that, yes, I am on the Ethics Committee. Do you want to be
on it, because it is not one of those thankful positions to serve on in
this House.
I thank you for the time you have served on that committee. It is a
service to all of us and to this institution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much for his
very kind remarks.
I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics
Committee, if she would acknowledge that I did consult with her on this
matter.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Thank you, but I won't.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that that
was the response, because let me go back and again review this, at
least chronologically on the issue that we debated last night and my
involvement with that and my involvement with the professional
attorneys that wrote their opinion on the impact this would have on the
ethics process.
I was sent a letter by the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Texas, the
first part of November. It was addressed to me. It was also addressed
to the committee. We had our regularly scheduled meetings at that time,
and I asked the chairwoman that I think that we should respond to this
in a way, and in further fact, would you be interested, and she said
no. I said okay, I respect that. But the attorneys went about their
business, as was asked, and rendered their thoughts on what this would
do to the whole committee process.
Now, this was in November, Mr. Speaker. That plan of this outside
group was not made public until the end of December. There was time, I
am not sure of the exact time frame, when those attorneys went down and
consulted with the task force. There is a bipartisan group there, at
least from a staff standpoint, I am not sure, because I wasn't a member
of that task force, but I was advised that they went down and shared
their concerns. So there was some involvement from our staff attorneys
with the task force on the issue and the policy, and I want to
emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, on the policy that would confront the
House later on.
Now, two weeks ago when I was in the Rules Committee, I am a member
of the Rules Committee, we had what I thought was a very, very good
discussion when Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith came up and testified on the
merits or demerits of this outside bill. There was a lot of angst on
the other side, I have to say. The distinguished chairwoman of the
Rules Committee expressed her displeasure at that time, and my other
colleagues on the Rules Committee did too. But we had a very, very open
discussion. And I expressed at that time, Mr. Speaker, what I thought
would be at least a partial remedy for the ethics process.

{time} 1245

I felt that there needs to be more transparency some way while still
keeping and not violating confidentiality. I thought that Mr. Smith's
position was a very, very good position the way it was set up, and I
felt that should have at least been debated on the floor. That's
probably another issue.
But as this process moved forward, and the fact that, I believe it
was 2 weeks ago the issue was pulled from the floor, the distinguished
majority leader said new information has come to us. That information
came in Mr. Smith's proposal. He said it deserves looking into.
At that time, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Wamp and Mr.
Hill, Republican and Democrat, both stood up and announced that they
too had a bipartisan suggestion that should be looked at. So I thought,
well, okay, maybe this will go in a way that I think is very
beneficial.
I have long felt, and I said at that Rules Committee meeting before,
that when you do ethics you need to do it in a bipartisan way. It has
been alluded to. My friend, Mr. Hulshof, made this observation earlier
on.
I am absolutely convinced in this body you cannot, you cannot make
ethics legislation unilaterally. It comes back to bite you because of
the nature, I guess, of the issue. We painfully learned that, as Mr.
Hulshof pointed out in his remarks. I have stated this a number of
times upstairs in the Rules Committee when this issue has come up.
I thought this task force, frankly, moving forward, would be a way to
settle that. But as we know, we had a great deal of problems on our
side of the aisle with an outside group. It apparently couldn't come to
an agreement on that. As a result it went forward unilaterally.
At that time, I felt that the information, the information that our
professional attorneys downstairs had come up with the proposal, was
worthy to be shared by everybody in this House so that we could make a
determination as to what is the best course for the institution.
Sometimes I truly believe that we think too much in 2-year cycles,
which coincides with our term. I think we ought to think longer term. I
really think that the rules change that we made last night was the
wrong rules change, but that will be judged, I suppose in the future.
I came to the conclusion, knowing that this memo was there, and so I
went, had a meeting with the distinguished chairwoman and, again,
consulted with her. She, of course, disagreed with my position, and I
said that I was going to do so, and I did. Now, before I released that,
I might say, I asked my staff to contact the chairwoman's staff to let
her know that I was going to go forward with this, which, of course, I
did.
I was very surprised when I came to the floor and saw this letter
that was sent out. Thus I felt that I needed to rise today on a point
of personal privilege to explain my position.
I suppose, like all positions that we have, and positions that we
take in this body, there is always more than what is on the surface. I
felt that needed to be explained as fully as I possibly could. But I
have to say if I am guilty of anything, that my motivation was to allow
the Members of this body to get as much information as possible. I have
had Members from the other side of the aisle last night and this
morning

[[Page H1552]]

who came up to me and said I wonder why this information didn't want to
be shared. Well, I don't know that. I don't have the answer to that.
But I felt absolutely within my rights, without violating the rules
of the committee or the House, to share that with all of my colleagues.
I did so, and I did so in a way that I think is in the best tradition
of this House for as much openness as we can possibly have.
Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time. I thank the House for
its indulgence, and I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________