[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6327-6328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  REGARDING H. RES. 1193, H. RES. 1220, H. RES. 1255, AND H. RES. 1287

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 26, 2010

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise along with my 
colleague Congressman Bonner to provide, pursuant to Rule 7(g) of the 
Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a statement of 
the Chair and Ranking Republican Member regarding H. Res. 1193, H. Res. 
1220, H. Res. 1255, and H. Res. 1287.

[[Page 6328]]

  The House has referred H. Res. 1193, H. Res. 1220, H. Res. 1255, and 
H. Res. 1287 to the Committee for its consideration. We acknowledge the 
referral of those resolutions. If adopted, the resolutions would have 
required the Committee to report to the House regarding aspects of its 
investigation ``In the Matter of Allegations Relating to the Lobbying 
Activities of Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA).'' 
Although the resolutions were not adopted, we are responding to expand 
further upon the Committee's previous public statements regarding its 
investigation in this matter.
  The outside Office of Congressional Ethics, OCE, after investigation, 
concluded that matters for five Members regarding the PMA matter should 
be dismissed. After review, the Committee concurred with the outside 
ethics office. The Committee concluded that the matters of two other 
Members should also be dismissed because the facts regarding those 
Members' actions were not different from those of the five Members for 
whom both the Committee and OCE concluded dismissal was appropriate. 
The Committee's action to date does not preclude future Committee 
action related to these matters should new information warranting 
action become available.
  The Committee publicly released a 305-page report that discusses the 
scope of the Committee's work in the PMA matter, as well as the basis 
for the Committee's bipartisan and unanimous conclusions. This report 
is available to the House and the public on the Committee's Web site, 
at http://ethics.house.gov/. As noted in that report, the Committee's 
investigation during a nine-month period included extensive document 
reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses. As a result of its own 
investigation and OCE's seven separate reports and findings, the 
Committee--whose Members include equal numbers of Democrats and 
Republicans--unanimously determined that the evidence presently before 
the Committee merited dismissal of all seven matters.
  The information reviewed by the Committee included statements from 
all seven Members. Summaries of interviews with five Members were 
included in OCE's findings, which the Committee chose to publish. Since 
the Committee agreed with OCE's recommendation that those five matters 
should be dismissed, the Committee was not required to publish any 
statement or OCE's reports and findings in those matters, but did so 
because of the unique circumstances of this matter and in the interests 
of public disclosure and transparency.
  In addition, the Committee sought statements from Representatives 
Tiahrt and Visclosky to respond specifically to allegations about their 
conduct. Both Members provided the Committee with statements through 
counsel, and the Members certified under penalty of perjury to the 
truth of those statements. Both statements are available, in their 
entirety, in the Committee's public report. Based in part on those 
statements, the Committee found no evidence to conclude that the facts 
regarding Representatives Tiahrt and Visclosky differed substantially 
from the facts regarding the other five Members--for whom both the 
Committee and OCE recommended dismissal. Accordingly, the Committee 
concluded that the matters of the two other Members should also be 
dismissed.
  In reaching its unanimous conclusion, the Committee relied not only 
on the findings provided by OCE, but its own investigation. During the 
course of its investigation in this matter, the Committee's staff 
reviewed close to one-quarter of a million pages of documents. The 
Committee investigation covered more than 40 companies with ties to 
PMA. OCE's findings included summaries of interviews with five Members' 
offices. The Committee investigation included interviews with 33 
Members' offices. The Committee investigation involved interviews with 
chiefs of staff, military legislative aides, other Members' staff, and 
Appropriations Committee staff. In reaching its conclusions, the 
Committee relied on the totality of this large magnitude of 
information.
  As in other investigations, although the Committee has discussed in 
general terms the scope of its investigation, it did not address more 
specific details of various investigative steps taken by the Committee. 
To do so would compromise the investigative capabilities of the 
Committee in this and future matters by chilling voluntary cooperation. 
Requiring the disclosure of the details of any investigative body's 
activities would damage its ability to conduct its activities. Ethics 
investigations, in particular, rely not only upon subpoenas, but upon 
voluntary cooperation. Success in such an investigation usually comes 
because people connected to the matter choose to cooperate with the 
investigators and volunteer information. In many cases, their decision 
to cooperate is based, in part, on their belief that their identity or 
the details of their cooperation will not be publicly disclosed.
  Moreover, disclosing specific investigative steps taken in the PMA 
matter could compromise any ongoing criminal investigations; harm the 
ability of the Committee to investigate any additional allegations of 
wrongdoing in this or related matters; discourage those who might bring 
credible allegations to the Committee in the future from doing so; and 
chill the voluntary cooperation of those called before the Committee in 
various investigations.
  Prior to the House referral of the resolutions to the Committee, on 
February 26, 2010, the Committee unanimously voted to release a public 
report in the PMA matter. By a unanimous and bipartisan vote, the 
Committee concluded that, based upon the totality of current 
information gathered during a nine-month investigation, no House Member 
or employee violated provisions of the Code of Official Conduct or 
laws, rules, regulations, or other standards of conduct applicable to 
his or her conduct in the performance of his or her duties or the 
discharge of his or her responsibilities relating to proposed 
appropriations requests and activities of PMA.
  In addition, we note that policy decisions--whether about the current 
appropriations process, including earmarks, or about the campaign 
finance system--are not within the jurisdiction of the Committee. 
Whether these policies should be changed is a subject that should be 
taken up in the appropriate venue.
  The task before the Committee in the PMA matter was to determine 
whether House Members and staff complied with the current law and House 
rules. In a unanimous and bipartisan manner, the Committee concluded 
the evidence presently before the Committee merited dismissal of all 
seven matters. The Committee's action to date does not preclude future 
Committee action related to these matters should new information 
warranting action become available.

                          ____________________