[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31007-31008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 20, 2003

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the Department of 
Defense Inspector General's public report on Richard Perle, an 
editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and a clip from The Washington 
Times.

                [Editorial from the Wall Street Journal]

                          Perle's Vindication

       One obligation of editors is to distinguish phony political 
     scandal from the genuine article. On that standard, any 
     number of writers and editors owe Richard Perle an apology.
       The noted defense intellectual voluntarily resigned in 
     March as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board 
     Advisory Committee after his enemies pumped up a few 
     anecdotes into allegations about ``conflicts of interest.'' 
     The Pentagon's Inspector General has been investigating those 
     charges and last week issued a report absolving Mr. Perle of 
     even the ``appearance'' of impropriety.
       The accusations, fanned by Michigan Democrat John Conyers, 
     had received especially prominent coverage in the New Yorker 
     magazine and the New York Times. They boiled down to the all-
     purpose Washington smear that Mr. Perle has exploited his 
     position for personal financial gain. But Pentagon 
     investigator Donald Horstman concluded in a letter to Mr. 
     Perle that ``all of your activities with respect to those 
     private entities complied with statutory and regulatory 
     standards.'' There were no ``quid pro'' offers or attempts to 
     leverage his (unpaid) Pentagon access.
       In Washington, of course, people are often run out of 
     office merely for the ``appearance'' of a conflict of 
     interest. But Mr. Horstman says he also examined that ``more 
     elusive issue'' and concluded that Mr. Perle's ``activities 
     did not create such an appearance'' under the ``perspective 
     of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant 
     facts.'' Mr. Perle's accusers knew all the facts, so the only 
     conclusion is that they are not ``reasonable persons,'' which 
     will not come as news to most of our readers.
       Mr. Conyers is now trying to compound his political felony 
     by proposing to close what he claims is a ``loophole'' that 
     requires someone to work more than 60 days a year before 
     certain, more stringent Pentagon ethics rules apply. But this 
     would essentially bar anyone with private expertise from 
     advising Defense officials even in a voluntary, unpaid 
     capacity. How this would enhance U.S. national security is 
     not obvious. Then again, U.S. security was the last thing on 
     the mind of Mr. Perle's critics.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 20, 2003]

                       Washington-Style Politics

       I beg to differ with Greg Pierce's recent item ``All-
     purpose smear'' (Inside Politics, Nation, Tuesday), claiming 
     that charges levied against former Defense Policy Board 
     Advisory Committee Chairman Richard Perle were an ``all-
     purpose Washington smear.''
       A close reading of the inspector general's report would 
     indicate that Mr. Perle's conduct raises real conflict-of-
     interest issues.

[[Page 31008]]

     There is no doubt that Mr. Perle had an important role in 
     shaping our nation's defense policy and heavily influenced 
     the mobilization of our war machine in Iraq, along with all 
     the defense contracts and profits that follow. The IG's 
     report confirmed that while guiding this effort, Mr. Perle 
     benefited financially by working for firms with major 
     business before the Department of Defense.
       The report notes that Mr. Perle appears to have represented 
     Global Crossing and Loral in matters pending before the 
     Defense Department, but escaped violations of the conflict-
     of-interest laws by virtue of the fact that he was considered 
     to be in the board's employ less than the required 60-day 
     period. Mr. Perle went so far as to sign an affidavit 
     claiming that his position as chairman of the Defense Policy 
     Board gave him a ``unique perspective on and intimate 
     knowledge of national defense and security issues.'' The fact 
     that the offending language subsequently was removed from the 
     affidavit doesn't change the reality of the assertion or the 
     awkwardness of the conflict.
       My legislation responds to the loopholes highlighted by the 
     IG's report by merely ensuring that persons such as the 
     chairman of the Defense Policy Board are treated as if they 
     worked for the government for 60 days.
       This would ensure that persons awarded with the public 
     trust through prominent public positions do not use that 
     trust to feather their own nests financially. At a time when 
     we are asking our soldiers to make so many sacrifices, I 
     hardly think it is too much to ask the chairman of the 
     Defense Policy Board to refrain from representing clients 
     with financial interests before the Defense Department.
                                  ____


                           All-Purpose Smear

       ``One obligation of editors is to distinguish phony 
     political scandal from the genuine article. On that standard, 
     any number of writers and editors owe Richard Perle an 
     apology,'' the Wall Street Journal says. ``The noted defense 
     intellectual voluntarily resigned in March as chairman of the 
     Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee after his 
     enemies pumped up a few anecdotes into allegations about 
     `conflicts of interest.' The Pentagon's inspector general has 
     been investigating those charges and last week issued a 
     report absolving Mr. Perle of even the `appearance' of 
     impropriety,'' the newspaper said in an editorial. ``The 
     accusations, fanned by Michigan Democrat John Conyers, had 
     received especially prominent coverage in the New Yorker 
     magazine and the New York Times. They boiled down to the all-
     purpose Washington smear that Mr. Perle has exploited his 
     position for personal financial gain. But Pentagon 
     investigator Donald Horstman concluded in a letter to Mr. 
     Perle that `all of your activities with respect to those 
     private entities complied with statutory and regulatory 
     standards.' There were no `quid pro' offers or attempts to 
     leverage his (unpaid) Pentagon access. ``Mr. Horstman says he 
     also examined that `more elusive issue' and concluded that 
     Mr. Perle's `activities did not create such an appearance' 
     under the `perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge 
     of the relevant facts.' Mr. Perle's accusers knew all the 
     facts, so the only conclusion is that they are not 
     `reasonable persons,' which will not come as news to most of 
     our readers.''

                          ____________________