[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3858-3864]
[From the U.S. 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.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I appreciate your indulgence. And I would 
like

[[Page 3859]]

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

[[Page 3860]]

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. 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

[[Page 3861]]

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 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

[[Page 3862]]

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 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.

[[Page 3863]]

  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 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

[[Page 3864]]

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 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.

                          ____________________