[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E467-E468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ESTABLISHING AN OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 11, 2008

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank many of the people 
who participated in the work of the Task Force, either by coming to 
speak with us and share their views or by contributing on a staff 
level.
  A number of individuals attended meetings at the Task Force's request 
to share their past experiences and offer their opinions on the idea of 
an independent ethics office. We very much appreciate the time they 
gave us. They are Senator Ben Cardin, former Representative Louis 
Stokes, former Representative Robert Livingston, Thomas Mann of the 
Brookings Institution, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise 
Institute, Donald Wolfensberger of the Woodrow Wilson International 
Center for Scholars, former Federal Election Commission Chairman 
Bradley Smith, Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission Executive 
Director Judge Anthony Wilhoit, President of the Ethics Resource Center 
Dr. Patricia Harned, Sarah Dufendach of Common Cause, Gary Kalman of 
U.S. PIRG, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, Meredith McGehee of 
Campaign Legal Center, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and 
Ethics in Washington, Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch, Lloyd Leonard of 
the League of Women Voters, Senate Ethics Committee Staff Director 
Robert Walker, and Senior Counsel to the House Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct Ken Kellner.
  I would like to extend my particular thanks to Tom Mann, Norm 
Ornstein, Sarah Dufendach, and Gary Kalman, all of whom were very 
committed to seeing a responsible and practical proposal from the Task 
Force and therefore spent many hours in consultation toward achievement 
of that goal.
  The staff who assisted members of the Task Force also deserve our 
thanks and recognition: Bernard Raimo, Counsel to the Speaker; Paul 
Taylor, Chief Republican Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties; Ed Cassidy, Senior 
Advisor & Floor Assistant to the Republican Leader; Robert F. 
Weinhagen, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Office of Legislative Counsel; 
Jean Louise Beard, Chief of Staff, and Kate Roetzer, Legislative 
Assistant to Rep. Price; Allison Havourd and Rob Guido, Legislative 
Assistants to Rep. Camp; Christopher Hickling, Legislative Director to 
Rep. Meehan; Ben Taylor, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Hobson; Carla 
Murrell-Hargrove, Staff Assistant, and Rashage Green, Legislative 
Assistant to Rep. Scott; Jeff Kahrs, Chief of Staff to Rep. Tiahrt; and 
Emily Lawrence, Legislative Director to Rep. McCollum.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the debate on the Office of Congressional Ethics 
and the process followed by the Task Force in formulating these 
recommendations has centered on the issue of bipartisanship. Although 
my Republican colleagues declined to endorse the final proposal 
outlined in our report dated December 19, 2007, the process up to that 
point had, in fact, been incredibly bipartisan. This is to the credit 
of all of my colleagues on the Task Force. We had lively, open, and 
civil discussions in a series of meetings held over the course of a 
year, and we all value the cordial and professional way in which we 
were able to work together.
  A number of draft proposals were circulated to all members of the 
Task Force throughout the process, starting with an initial proposal 
that was floated in June. As we worked to craft a specific set of 
recommendations, all Members had the opportunity to offer suggestions 
and feedback--and all did. As we worked from a general outline of an 
independent office into a more specific legislative draft, we 
incorporated most of the ideas put forth by Task Force members.
  I would like to point out that the final proposal--as introduced in 
December and as amended for consideration on the House floor--contains 
a litany of concepts put forth by our Republican colleagues. They 
include:
   Term limits for OCE board members;
   Joint appointment of OCE board members;
   Requirement that reviews be initiated with bipartisan agreement;
   Only prospective consideration by the OCE--no retroactive reviews of 
allegations pertaining to acts that occurred before the date of 
adoption;
   Code of conduct for OCE board members and staff that includes 
avoidance of conflicts of interest;
   Financial disclosure form for OCE board members;
   Wording on OCE ability to ``solicit such testimony and receive such 
relevant evidence as may be necessary to carry out its duties'';
   60-day blackout on referrals from OCE to Ethics Committee before an 
election was made mandatory, as opposed to being at the Committee's 
discretion;
   Provision requiring leaks to be investigated; and
   Provision on ex parte communications.
  One other issue to which I would like to respond is the internal memo 
from staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that was 
publicized via a Dear Colleague letter on March 11th and submitted for 
the Record that same day. This memo came in the form of an email 
exchange between Ken Kellner, Senior Counsel to the Committee, and Bill 
O'Reilly, Chief Counsel and Staff Director.
  I would like to be absolutely clear that while the written memo was 
never shared with my office prior to their release in the Dear 
Colleague letter, its contents and the concerns of the Ethics Committee 
were shared in November 2007--prior to the introduction of H. Res. 895 
on December 19, 2007. While some of the concerns raised by the 
Committee essentially rose from a basic objection to the creation of an 
independent ethics office within the House and could therefore not be 
addressed without compromising the fundamental concept, others were 
valid and reasonable issues that we took into consideration and 
modified based on Committee staff's suggestion.

  I call Members' attention to five key changes that were made to the 
Task Force proposal in direct response:
   We built in a process for the Ethics Committee to unilaterally take 
a case from the OCE at any time if the Committee feels it necessary or 
appropriate.
   We removed a provision that would direct the OCE to provide a copy 
of its findings to the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject 
of a review. We agreed that it was not ideal to provide what could 
essentially be a ``roadmap'' for an investigation to the subject of a 
review. Therefore, the subject of the review would only see the OCE 
findings when they become available to the public--only after the 
Ethics Committee has a chance to deal with the matter.
   We altered the content of the findings so that cooperative witnesses 
could not be named publicly--precisely because we agreed that the OCE 
would not want to punish legitimate whistleblowers by publicly 
disclosing their names. The change specified that only uncooperative 
witnesses may be named in the findings.
  With respect to Committee concerns about publishing the board's 
findings even if the Committee has decided to handle a matter 
nonpublicly, we made sure to clarify that Ethics Committee rules would 
allow the Committee to dismiss a matter while also issuing a private 
letter to the subject or respondent. If the Committee felt the need to 
handle a smaller infraction privately, they could do so in this manner 
and no publication of the action is required.
   We expanded the ex parte communications prohibition to include ``any 
interested party'' as was suggested.

[[Page E468]]

  These modifications were made to the proposal prior to the release of 
the final Task Force recommendations and introduction of H. Res. 895. 
Members deserve to know that the concerns of the Ethics Committee were 
taken into account by the Task Force and that, while this commentary 
caught many Members by surprise on March 11, we had already been 
briefed on its substance and had responded appropriately.
  The Task Force worked diligently over our 11 months of meetings to 
cooperate on a bipartisan basis and craft a set of recommendations that 
would improve the ethics process in the House of Representatives. While 
I regret that we could not come to a final agreement, I thank my 
colleagues on the Task Force for their efforts and for their commitment 
to this institution.

                          ____________________