[House Report 106-1044]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 606
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1044
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     





                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
                       ONE HUNDRED SIX CONGRESS

                               __________

                                A REPORT

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                     STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
                       HOUSE OF REPRESENTEATIVES




January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006                     WASHINGTON : 2001


               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan                Ranking Minority Member
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  ED PASTOR, Arizona
                                     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
                                     ZOE LOFGREN, California
           Robert L. Walker, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
              John N. Lampmann, Assistant to the Chairman
         Bari Schwartz, Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member
        John E. Vargo, Director, Office of Advice and Education

                        Stacey P. Duffy, Counsel
                      Virginia H. Johnson, Counsel
                      Sean Kelley, Staff Assistant
                      Kenneth E. Kellner, Counsel
                         Paul M. Lewis, Counsel
                         Susan J. Pohl, Counsel
                         Reed D. Slack, Counsel
                Christine Stevens, Systems Administrator
                 Joanne White, Administrative Assistant


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, we hereby submit to 
the House a report on the Activities of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct for the 106th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                   Lamar Smith,
                                           Chairman,
                                   Howard L. Berman,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. Introduction......................................................1
II. Advice and Education..............................................5
        Publications.............................................     6
        Briefings................................................     7
        Advisory Opinion Letters.................................     7
III.Financial Disclosure, Foreign Gifts and Decorations, and Travel 
    Disclosure........................................................8
IV. Committee Rules...................................................8
 V. Investigations....................................................9
        Representative Bud Shuster...............................     9
        Representative Corrine Brown.............................    11
        Representative Earl F. Hilliard..........................    12
Appendix I.......................................................    13


                                                 Union Calendar No. 606
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1044

======================================================================



 
           SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Standards of Official 
                    Conduct, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. Introduction

    House Rule XI, Clause 1(d), requires each committee to 
submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-
numbered year, a report on the activities of that committee 
under that rule and House Rule X during the Congress ending on 
January 3 of that year.
    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (``Committee'') is defined in Clauses 1(p) and 11(g)(4) 
of House Rule X, Clause 3 of House Rule XI, and Clause 5(f) of 
House Rule XXVI, which state as follows:

                          Rule X, Clause 1(p)

    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 
4. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (p) Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
          The Code of Official Conduct.

                        Rule X, Clause 11(g)(4)

    (4) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or 
intelligence-related information by a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House in 
violation of subparagraph (3) and report to the House 
concerning any allegation that it finds to be sustained.

                           Rule XI, Clause 3

    3. (a) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
the following functions:
    (1) The committee may recommend to the House from time to 
time such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate 
to establish or enforce standards of official conduct for 
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and 
employees of the House. A letter of reproval or other 
administrative action of the committee pursuant to an 
investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or 
implemented as a part of a report required by such 
subparagraph.
    (2) The committee may investigate, subject to paragraph 
(b), an alleged violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House of the Code of 
Official Conduct or of a law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee in the 
performance of his duties or the discharge of his 
responsibilities. After notice and hearing (unless the right to 
a hearing is waived by the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee), the committee shall report 
to the House its findings of fact and recommendations, if any, 
for the final disposition of any such investigation and such 
action as the committee may consider appropriate in the 
circumstances.
    (3) The committee may report to the appropriate Federal or 
State authorities, either with the approval of the House or by 
an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the 
committee, any substantial evidence of a violation by a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House, of a law applicable to the performance of his duties or 
the discharge of his responsibilities that may have been 
disclosed in a committee investigation.
    (4) The committee may consider the request of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House for an advisory opinion with respect to the general 
propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee. With 
appropriate deletions to ensure the privacy of the person 
concerned, the committee may publish such opinion for the 
guidance of other Members, Delegates, the Resident 
Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House.
    (5) The committee may consider the request of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House for a written waiver in exceptional circumstances with 
respect to clause 4 of rule XXIV.
    (b)(1)(A) Unless approved by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct may not report a resolution, report, recommendation, or 
advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House, or, except as provided in subparagraph (2), undertake an 
investigation of such conduct.
    (B)(i) Upon the receipt of information offered as a 
complaint that is in compliance with this rule and the rules of 
the committee, the chairman and ranking minority member jointly 
may appoint members to serve as an investigative subcommittee.
    (ii) The chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee jointly may gather additional information concerning 
alleged conduct that is the basis of a complaint or of 
information offered as a complaint until they have established 
an investigative subcommittee or either of them has placed on 
the agenda of the committee the issue of whether to establish 
an investigative subcommittee.
    (2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by 
the committee on its own initiative, the committee may 
undertake an investigation relating to the official conduct of 
an individual Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
or employee of the House only.
    (A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in 
writing and under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner and transmitted to the committee by such Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; or
    (B) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in 
writing and under oath, from a person not a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner provided that a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner certifies in writing to the committee 
that he believes the information is submitted in good faith and 
warrants the review and consideration of the committee.
    If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, the chairman and ranking minority member 
shall establish jointly an investigative subcommittee and 
forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that 
subcommittee for its consideration. However, if at any time 
during those periods either the chairman or ranking minority 
member places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish 
an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative 
subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of 
a majority of the members of the committee.
    (3) The committee may not undertake an investigation of an 
alleged violation of a law, rule, regulation, or standard of 
conduct that was not in effect at the time of the alleged 
violation. The committee may not undertake an investigation of 
such an alleged violation that occurred before the third 
previous Congress unless the committee determines that the 
alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation 
that occurred in a more recent Congress.
    (4) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to 
participate as a member of the committee in a committee 
proceeding relating to the member's official conduct. Whenever 
a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member of 
the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker shall 
designate a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from the 
same political party as the ineligible member to act in any 
proceeding of the committee relating to that conduct.
    (5) A member of the committee may disqualify himself from 
participating in an investigation of the conduct of a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House upon the submission in writing and under oath of an 
affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot 
render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in which 
the member seeks to be disqualified. If the committee approves 
and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the chairman 
shall so notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to 
designate a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from the 
same political party as the disqualifying member to act in any 
proceeding of the committee relating to that case.
    (6) Information or testimony received, or the contents of a 
complaint or the fact of its filing, may not be publicly 
disclosed by any committee or staff member unless specifically 
authorized in each instance by a vote of the full committee.
    (7) The committee shall have the functions designated in 
titles I and V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 [on 
financial disclosure and the limitations on outside earned 
income and outside employment], in sections 7342 [the Foreign 
Gifts and Decorations Act], 7351 [on gifts to superiors], and 
7353 [on gifts] of title 5, United States Code, and in clause 
11(g)(4) of rule X.
    (c)(1) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, each 
meeting of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or a 
subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive session unless 
the committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members, opens the meeting to the public.
    (2) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, each hearing 
of an adjudicatory subcommittee or sanction hearing of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall be held in 
open session unless the committee or subcommittee, in open 
session by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, 
closes all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that day 
to the public.
    (d) Before a member, officer, or employee of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, including members of a 
subcommittee of the committee selected under clause 5(a)(4) of 
rule X and shared staff, may have access to information that is 
confidential under the rules of the committee, the following 
oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:

          I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not 
        disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee 
        on Standards of Official Conduct, any information 
        received in the course of my service with the 
        committee, except as authorized by the committee or in 
        accordance with its rules.

Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by the Clerk as 
part of the records of the House. This paragraph establishes a 
standard of conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a)(2). 
Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and appropriate 
action shall be taken.
    (e)(1) If a complaint or information offered as a complaint 
is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the 
committee may take such action as it, by an affirmative vote of 
a majority of its members, considers appropriate in the 
circumstances.
    (2) Complaints filed before the One Hundred Fifth Congress 
may not be deemed frivolous by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.

                      House Rule XXVI, Clause 5(f)

    (f) All the provisions of this clause [the gift rule] shall 
be interpreted and enforced solely by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. The Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct is authorized to issue guidance on any matter 
contained in this clause.

                        II. Advice and Education

    Pursuant to a provision of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 
U.S.C. Sec. 29d(i)), the Committee maintains an Office of 
Advice and Education, which is staffed as directed by the 
Committee's Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. Under the 
statute, the primary responsibilities of the Office include the 
following:
         Providing information and guidance to House 
        Members, officers or employees on the laws, rules and 
        other standards of conduct applicable to them in their 
        official capacities, and the interpretations and 
        advisory opinions issued by the Committee;
         Preparing proposed responses to specific 
        advisory opinion requests received from House Members 
        and staff, and submitting them to the Chairman and 
        Ranking Minority Member for review and approval;
         Preparing proposed advisory memoranda on the 
        ethics rules for general distribution to House Members 
        and staff, and submitting them to the Chairman and 
        Ranking Member, or the full Committee, for review and 
        approval; and
         Developing and carrying out periodic 
        educational briefings for Members and staff.
    As an inducement to Members and staff to seek Committee 
advice whenever they have any uncertainty on the applicable 
laws, rules or standards, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 further 
provides that no information provided to the Committee by a 
Member or staff person when seeking advice on prospective 
conduct may be used as a basis for initiating a Committee 
investigation, if the individual acts in accordance with the 
Committee's written advice. In the same vein, Committee Rule 
3(j) provides that the Committee may take no adverse action in 
regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a 
written opinion of the Committee if the conduct conforms to the 
specific facts addressed in the opinion. As an additional 
inducement for Members and staff to seek Committee advice 
whenever they have any uncertainty, Committee Rule 3(i) 
provides that the Committee will keep confidential any request 
for advice from a Member, officer or employee, as well as any 
response to such a request. Further, the Committee understands 
that courts will consider the good faith reliance of a House 
Member, officer or employee on Committee advice as a defense to 
any Justice Department prosecution regarding the particular 
conduct.
    The Committee believes that these advice and education 
offers are an extremely important means for attaining 
understanding of, and compliance with, the ethics rules. The 
specifics of the Committee's efforts in the areas of 
publications, briefings and advisory opinion letters during the 
106th Congress are set forth below. In addition, Committee 
staff attorneys provided informal advice in response to 
numerous inquiries received from Members, staff persons and 
others in telephone calls and e-mails directed to the Committee 
office, and in meetings.

Publications

    In April 2000, the Committee issued a major publication, 
Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel. 
That booklet provides a detailed explanation of the provisions 
of the gift rule that took effect for House Members, officers 
and employees on January 1, 1996 and was amended in January 
1999. The booklet supercedes the chapter of the 1992 House 
Ethics Manual on gifts and travel (Chapter 2), as well as the 
numerous advisory memoranda that the Committee had issued on 
the new gift rule in the period of late 1995 to 1999.
    On subjects other than gifts and travel, the major 
Committee publications are the House Ethics Manual that was 
issued in 1992 and the advisory memoranda issued since then 
that update and expand upon the Manual. The following advisory 
memoranda were issued during the 106th Congress:
         Amendment of the House Gift Rule (January 22, 
        1999) (This memorandum, which concerned the gift rule 
        amendment approved by the House on January 6, 1999, was 
        superseded by the issuance of the Gifts and Travel 
        booklet in April 2000.),
         Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned 
        Income Limitation, Financial Disclosure Requirement, 
        and Post-Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar 
        year 1999 (February 9, 1999),
           Prohibition Against Linking Official Actions 
        to Partisan or Political Considerations, or Personal 
        Gain (May 11, 1999),
           ``Lump Sum'' Payments to House Employees 
        (October 15, 1999),
           Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned 
        Income Limitation, financial Disclosure Requirement, 
        and Post-Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar 
        Year 2000 (February 2, 2000),
           Rules and Standards of Conduct Relating to 
        Campaign Activity (March 2, 2000),
           Rules and Standards of Conduct Relating to 
        Committee Consultants (April 12, 2000), and
           Gift Rule Applicability at the National 
        Political Conventions (June 14, 2000, with addendum of 
        July 27, 2000).
    The advisory memorandum of October 15, 1999 addresses the 
manner in which ``lump sum'' payments made by House Member and 
committee offices to their employees are to be treated for 
purposes of the House Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 24) 
and other ethics laws, rules and standards, including outside 
employment restrictions, financial disclosure requirements, and 
post-employment restrictions. The memorandum of April 12, 2000 
on House consultants provides guidance on an amendment to the 
House rules approved on January 6, 1999 that subjects those 
consultants to certain basic provisions of the House Code of 
Official Conduct.
    In addition to these advisory memoranda, the Committee also 
issued in January 1999 and February 2000 updated versions of 
its summary memorandum, Highlights of the House Ethics Rules.

Briefings

    As part of its outreach and educational efforts during the 
106th Congress, the Committee conducted numerous briefings for 
House Members and staff regarding the rules and standards 
governing official conduct and financial disclosure. These 
included general briefings for all House Members and staff, as 
well as briefings for individual Member and committee offices. 
Committee staff also participated in briefings sponsored by the 
Congressional research Service for House staff embers who serve 
in district offices and in briefings sponsored by outside 
organizations.
    In addition to the general briefings on financial 
disclosure, Committee staff held five briefings during 2000 to 
which all House Members, officers, and employees were invited. 
Three of those briefings, held February 4th, June 5th and 
September 18th, provided a general overview of the ethics 
rules. The other two briefings, held March 9th and July 27th, 
covered the rules applicable to campaign activity. The 
Committee will continue this outreach effort in the 107th 
Congress.
    The Committee also made a presentation to the Members-elect 
of the 107th Congress as part of the New Member Orientation. 
Copies of the Highlights of House Ethics Rules and a memorandum 
noting points of particular interest to Members-Elect were 
provided to every new member as part of the orientation 
process,a and each was offered an individual briefing for the 
Member and his or her staff.
    Staff also received numerous requests for briefings from 
vising international dignitaries. Visitors from countries in 
Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia were particularly interested in 
our ethics regulations.

Advisory opinion letters

    The Committee's Office of Advice and Education, under the 
direction and supervision of the Committee's Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member, prepared over 900 private advisory 
opinions during the 106th Congress. Opinions issued by the 
Committee in the 106th Congress addressed a wide range of 
subjects, including various provisions of the gift rule, travel 
funded by outside entities, Member or staff participation in 
fund-raising activities of charities and for other purposes, 
the outside earned income limitation and restrictions, campaign 
activity by staff, and the post-employment restrictions.

 III. Financial Disclosure, Foreign Gifts and Decorations, and Travel 
                               Disclosure

    Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. app. 4, Sections 101-111), requires officials in all 
branches of the Federal Government to disclose to the public 
financial information regarding themselves and their families. 
In the House of Representatives, the Committee is responsible 
for administering the Act. The Committee establishes policy, 
issues instructions, and designs the Financial Disclosure 
Statement to be filed by members, officers, legislative branch 
employees, and candidates for the House. After Statements are 
filed with the Legislative Resource Center of the Clerk of the 
House, they are forwarded to the Committee to be reviewed for 
compliance with the law. Accountants from the General 
Accounting Office assist the Committee in its review efforts.
    Prior to the May 15th due date for annual Financial 
Disclosure Statements, the Committee publishes a detailed 
instruction booklet and provides briefings for persons required 
to file, including a briefing for Members only. The Committee 
encourages Members and staff to submit draft filings for review 
by Committee staff, in order to reduce errors and the need for 
amendments. In calendar years 1999 and 2000, Committee staff 
reviewed approximately 4,974 Financial Disclosure Statements, 
including 1,042 Statements from candidates. Where a deficiency 
is found, the Committee requests an amendment from the filer.
    Pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342, the 
Committee also continued its activities implementing the 
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, including the disclosure and 
reporting requirements of the Act, and responded to questions 
from Members and staff regarding the Act. The Gifts & Travel 
booklet that the Committee published in April 2000 includes a 
revised and updated version of the regulations that the 
Committee has issued under the Act. Reports of gifts from 
foreign governments (including travel and travel expenses) that 
Members and staff file in accordance with this Act are 
available for public inspection at the Committee office upon 
reasonable notice. Pursuant to the Act, the contents of those 
reports are published in the Federal Register on an annual 
basis.
    The Committee staff also reviews the Member Travel 
Disclosure Forms and the Employee Travel Disclosure Forms that 
are filed under the gift rule (House Rule XXVI, Clause 5). 
While those forms are filed with and made publicly available by 
the Legislative Resource Center, that office forwards copies of 
the forms as filed to the Committee for review.

                          IV. Committee Rules

    At its organizational meeting on January 20, 1999, the 
Committee adopted the Committee Rules in effect for the 105th 
Congress as the Committee Rules for the 106th Congress; 
however, the Committee anticipated that it would amend its 
rules in light of the Committee's experience during the 105th 
Congress, which had been the first Congress under which the 
Committee operated by the rules proposed in 1997 by the Ethics 
Reform Task Force.
    In an effort to streamline the investigative process, 
without diminishing in any way the rights of respondents 
involved, and to clarify the reporting requirements at the 
conclusion of an investigation, the Committee amended its rules 
on March 10, 1999, on April 14, 1999, and on April 12, 2000.

                           V. Investigations

    At its organizational meeting on January 20, 1999, the 
Committee voted to carryover into the 106th Congress the 
complaint pending against Representative Bud Shuster from the 
105th Congress. In addition to the complaint carried over from 
the 105th Congress, the Committee also acted, pursuant to House 
Rule 11, Clause 3 and Committee Rules 15 and 19 (which 
authorize the Committee to establish an investigative 
subcommittee on its own initiative), to establish two 
additional investigative subcommittees to conduct formal 
inquiries regarding Representative Corrine Brown and 
Representative Earl F. Hilliard.

Representative Bud Shuster

    By unanimous vote on October 4, 2000, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct voted to sanction Representative 
E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster by issuing a Letter of Reproval to him in 
connection with a Statement of Alleged Violation to which he 
admitted as part of a negotiated settlement. The Statement of 
Alleged Violation consisted of one count setting forth that 
Representative Shuster engaged in a pattern of conduct, in five 
specific areas, that did not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of 
Official Conduct, formerly House Rule 43 (now Rule 24). The 
Committee, through its Letter of Reproval, notified 
Representative Shuster, that: ``By your actions you have 
brought discredit to the House of Representatives.''
    On November 14, 1997, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
established an Investigative Subcommittee in this matter 
pursuant to Committee Rule 17(c)(2). Representative Joel Hefley 
served as Chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee and 
Representative Zoe Lofgren served as the Ranking Minority 
Member. Representative Jim McCrery and Representative Chet 
Edwards were the other two Members of the Investigative 
Subcommittee.
    The Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry focused on the 
allegations in a complaint filed by the Congressional 
Accountability Project and expanded to include an examination 
of whether Representative Shuster's campaign committee violated 
House rules and/or federal laws between 1993 and 1998. During 
the course of its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee 
thoroughly investigated the allegations against Representative 
Shuster. The Subcommittee issued over 150 subpoenas, counsel 
interviewed approximately 75 witnesses, and the Subcommittee 
deposed 33 witnesses. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the 
Investigative Subcommittee found substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Shuster had committed violations of House 
Rules within the Committee's jurisdiction. As detailed in its 
Report, the Investigative Subcommittee also resolved a number 
of the allegations against Representative Shuster without 
finding violations.
    On July 26, 2000, the Investigative Subcommittee 
unanimously adopted a Statement of Alleged Violation finding 
that Representative Shuster had engaged in a pattern of conduct 
that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives 
in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct, 
formerly Rule 43 of the House of Representatives. As part of a 
negotiated settlement, Representative Shuster admitted, under 
penalty of perjury, to the Statement of Alleged Violation. By 
voluntarily admitting to the Statement of Alleged Violation in 
this matter, Representative Shuster agreed that his conduct did 
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives. Also as 
part of the negotiated settlement, the Subcommittee agreed that 
it would recommend to the full Committee that the Committee 
impose a Letter of Reproval as the sanction in this matter. 
Representative Shuster waived both an adjudicatory hearing and 
a sanction hearing in this matter.
    The Statement of Alleged Violation to which Representative 
Shuster admitted provides that his conduct did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives in the following 
manner:
     Representative Shuster engaged in a pattern and 
practice of knowingly allowing Ann M. Eppard, his former chief 
of staff, to appear before or communicate with him in his 
official capacity, during the 12-month period following her 
resignation from his staff, in a manner that created the 
appearance that his official decisions might have been 
improperly affected.
     Representative Shuster violated House Gift Rules 
by accepting expenses from two sources related to a trip to 
Puerto Rico with his family in December 1995 and January 1996.
     Representative Shuster violated former House Rule 
45 by authorizing and/or accepting the scheduling and advisory 
services of Ann M. Epard, his former chief of staff, on matters 
that were official in nature for approximately 18 months after 
she resigned from his congressional office.
     While under Representative Shuster's supervision 
and control, employees in his congressional office worked for 
his campaign committee to the apparent detriment of the time 
they were required to spend in his congressional office. While 
under his supervision and control, employees of his 
congressional office performed services for his campaign in his 
congressional office.
     The number and dollar amount of expenditures by 
Representative Shuster's campaign committee for meals 
designated as ``political meetings'' and for transportation on 
chartered aircraft, combined with inadequate recordkeeping 
practices to verify the legitimate campaign purposes of these 
expenditures, created the appearance that between 1993 and 1998 
certain expenditures of his campaign committee may not have 
been attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.
    The Report of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct on this matter was transmitted to the House of 
Representatives. That Report contains the Letter of Reproval, 
the Statement of Alleged Violation, the 147 page Report of the 
Investigative Subcommittee adopted by the Committee (including 
125 exhibits), and the Views submitted by Representative 
Shuster, through counsel, in response to the Subcommittee's 
Report. The full text of the Statement of Alleged Violation and 
the Letter of Reproval in this matter are included at Appendix 
I to this Summary of Activities.

Representative Corrine Brown

    On June 9, 1999, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct voted, pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 3 and 
Committee Rules 15 and 19, which authorize the Committee to 
establish an investigative subcommittee on its own initiative, 
to establish an investigative subcommittee to conduct a formal 
inquiry regarding Representative Corrine Brown, and the 
Committee gave the Investigative Subcommittee jurisdiction to 
determine whether Representative Brown violated the Code of 
Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to her conduct in the 
performance of her duties or the discharge of her 
responsibilities, with respect to: (1) lodging provided in 1997 
to Representative Brown or other persons at premises owned or 
controlled by Foutanga Dit Babani Sissoko; (2) the gift of a 
Lexus automobile to Representative Brown's adult daughter, 
Shantrel Brown, in 1997; and (3) the relationship, if any, 
between the lodging or car and Representative Brown's status or 
actions as a Member of Congress.
    As a result of information obtained through its informal 
fact-finding prior to the establishment of the investigative 
subcommittee, the Committee concluded that no further 
investigative action was warranted with respect to other issues 
raised regarding Representative Brown.
    Representative Dave Camp served as Chairman of the 
Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Chaka Fattah 
served as the Ranking Minority Member. The other two members of 
the Subcommittee were Representative Mac Thornberry and 
Representative Mike Doyle, who were not members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but who were 
appointed to the Investigative Subcommittee pursuant to House 
Rule X, Clause 5(a)(4).
    For over a year, the Subcommittee investigated the matters 
within its jurisdiction. Although the evidence developed by the 
Subcommittee raised concerns as to whether Representative Brown 
may have violated standards of conduct by her conduct in 
connection with Foutanga Dit Babani Sissoko, the Subcommittee 
did not obtain sufficient evidence to enable the Subcommittee 
to meet the standards of proof required by Committee rules 
either to adopt or to prove a Statement of Alleged Violation. 
This was due in large part to the fact that key witnesses who 
had actual knowledge of the events within the Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction were beyond the reach of the Committee's subpoena 
power and could not be compelled to give testimony.
    Although the Subcommittee, as noted above, lacked 
sufficient evidence to adopt and prove a Statement of Alleged 
Violation, the Subcommittee believed that Representative 
Brown's actions and associations in connection with Sissoko 
demonstrated, at the least, poor judgment and created 
substantial concerns regarding both the appearance of 
impropriety and the reputation of the House of Representatives.
    For the reasons cited, the Subcommittee recommended that no 
further action be taken against Representative Corrine Brown 
regarding the matters within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. 
On September 20, 2000, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct accepted the recommendation of the Subcommittee.

Representative Earl F. Hilliard

    On September 22, 1999, the Committee voted, in accordance 
with House Rule 11, Clause 3 and Committee Rules 15 and 19, to 
establish an investigative subcommittee on its own initiative 
to conduct a formal inquiry regarding Representative Earl 
Hilliard. The investigative subcommittee was charged with 
jurisdiction to determine whether Representative Hilliard 
violated the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, 
regulation or other standard conduct applicable to his conduct 
in performance of his duties or the discharge of his 
responsibilities, with respect to: (1) loans reportedly made by 
Representative Hilliard's campaign committee in 1993-94 to 
certain individuals; (2) occupancy of office space in 
Birmingham, Alabama, by Representative Hilliard's campaign 
during the period of 1992-1998, including expenditures by the 
campaign for rent and utilities; and (3) Representative 
Hilliard's compliance with financial disclosure requirements 
during the period of 1992-1999 regarding ownership interests in 
Hilliards & Company, Inc. and the Birmingham Greater Golf 
Associates, Inc. or its successor, Birmingham Recreation, Inc.
    Representative Rob Portman was named as Chairman of the 
Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Martin Sabo was 
named Ranking Minority Member. The other two members of the 
Subcommittee are Representative Kenny Hulshof and 
Representative James Clyburn, who are not members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but who were 
appointed to the Investigative Subcommittee pursuant to House 
Rule X, Clause 5(a)(4).
    This matter is ongoing.
                               APPENDIX I

                              ----------                              


House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct In 
  the Matter of Representative E. G. ``Bud'' Shuster, July 26, 2000--
                     Statement of Alleged Violation

    1. At all times relevant to this Statement of Alleged 
Violation, Representative E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster 
(``Representative Shuster'') was a Member of the United States 
House of Representatives representing the 9th District of 
Pennsylvania.
Count I: Representative Shuster Engaged In A Pattern Of Conduct That 
        Did Not Reflect Creditably On The House Of Representatives In 
        Violation Of Former Rule 43, Clause 1, Of The House of 
        Representatives

                    summary and applicable standards

    2. The Investigative Subcommittee found that Representative 
Shuster's conduct as set forth in this Statement of Alleged 
Violation did not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives. The Investigative Subcommittee found that the 
conduct set forth in paragraph 4, below, did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives and violated former 
House Rule 43, Clause 1.
    3. Former House Rule 43, Clause 1 (current House Rule 24, 
Clause 1) provides that each Member of the House of 
Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner 
which reflects creditably on the House of Representatives.

                 conduct constituting alleged violation

    4. Representative Shuster's conduct did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives between 1993 and 
1998, inclusive, in the following manner:
          (a) Representative Shuster engaged in a pattern and 
        practice of knowingly allowing Ann M. Eppard to appear 
        before or communicate with him in his official 
        capacity, during the 12-month period following her 
        resignation as his chief of staff, on occasions and in 
        a manner that created the appearance that his official 
        decisions might have been improperly affected;
          (b) Representative Shuster violated House Gift Rules 
        [former Rule 43(4) for 1995 and Rule 52 for 1996] by 
        accepting expenses from the Outdoor Advertising 
        Association of America (``OAAA'') and Daniel, Mann, 
        Johnson and Mendenhall (``DMJM'') related to a trip 
        with his family to Puerto Rico in December 1995 and 
        January 1996;
          (c) Representative Shuster violated former House Rule 
        45 by authorizing and/or accepting the scheduling and 
        advisory services of Ann M. Eppard on matters that were 
        official in nature for approximately 18 months after 
        she resigned from his congressional office;
          (d) While under the supervision and control of 
        Representative Shuster as their employing Member, 
        employees in Representative Shuster's congressional 
        office worked for the Bud Shuster for Congress 
        Committee (``BSCC'') to the apparent detriment of the 
        time they were required to spend in the congressional 
        office and performed services for the BSCC in his 
        congressional offices;
          (e) The number and dollar amount of expenditures by 
        the Bud Shuster for Congress Committee (``BSCC'') for 
        meals designated as ``political meetings'' and for 
        transportation on chartered airplane flights, as 
        reported in Federal Election Commission reports filed 
        by the BSCC between 1993 and 1998, combined with 
        record-keeping practices followed by the BSCC 
        inadequate to verify the legitimate campaign purposes 
        of these expenditures, created the appearance that 
        certain expenditures may not have been attributable to 
        bona fide campaign or political purposes.

                           alleged violation

    5. Based on the foregoing paragraph 4, the Investigative 
Subcommittee found that between 1993 and 1998, inclusive, 
Representative Shuster conducted himself in a manner that did 
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of former Rule 43, Clause 1 of the House of 
Representatives.

                                   Joel Hefley,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Zoe Lofgren,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.
                                   Jim McCrery.
                                   Chet Edwards.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Representative Shuster: By a unanimous vote on October 
4, 2000, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting 
on behalf of the House of Representatives, voted to issue to 
you this Letter of Reproval. The Committee unanimously voted to 
adopt the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee concerning 
its investigation of the numerous allegations of misconduct 
lodged against you.
    By your actions you have brought discredit to the House of 
Representatives.
    On November 14, 1997, the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
established an Investigative Subcommittee pursuant to Committee 
Rule 17(c)(2) in the matter of Representative Bud Shuster. The 
Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry focused on the allegations 
in a complaint filed by the Congressional Accountability 
Project and expanded to include an examination of whether your 
campaign committee violated House Rules and/or federal laws 
between 1993 and 1998. During the course of its inquiry the 
Investigative Subcommittee thoroughly investigated the 
allegations against you. The Investigative Subcommittee issued 
over 150 subpoenas, counsel interviewed approximately 75 
witnesses and the Investigative Subcommittee deposed 33 
witnesses. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Investigative 
Subcommittee found substantial reason to believe that you had 
committed violations of House Rules within the Committee's 
jurisdiction. On July 26, 2000, the Investigative Subcommittee 
unanimously adopted a Statement of Alleged Violation finding 
that you engaged in a pattern of conduct that did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of 
Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct, former Rule 43 (now 
Rule 24) of the House of Representatives. As part of a 
negotiated settlement you admitted, under penalty of perjury, 
to the Statement of Alleged Violation. By voluntarily admitting 
to the Statement of Alleged Violation, you agreed that your 
conduct did not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives through five areas of conduct.
    The Statement of Alleged Violation to which you admitted 
provides that your conduct did not reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives in the following manner:
     You engaged in a pattern and practice of knowingly 
allowing your former chief of staff to appear before or 
communicate with you in your official capacity, during the 12-
month period following her resignation from your staff, in a 
manner that created the appearance that your official decisions 
might have been improperly affected.
     You violated House Gift Rules by accepting 
expenses from two sources related to a trip to Puerto Rico with 
your family in December 1995 and January 1996.
     You violated former House Rule 45 by authorizing 
and/or accepting the scheduling and advisory services of your 
former chief of staff on matters that were official in nature 
for approximately 18 months after she resigned from your 
congressional office.
     While under your supervision and control, 
employees in your congressional office worked for your campaign 
committee to the apparent detriment of the time they were 
required to spend in your congressional office. While under 
your supervision and control employees of your congressional 
office performed services for your campaign in your 
congressional office.
     Expenditures for ``political meetings'' and 
expenditures for transportation on chartered aircraft by your 
campaign committee, combined with inadequate record-keeping 
practices to verify the legitimate campaign purposes of these 
expenditures, created the appearance that between 1993 and 1998 
certain expenditures of your campaign committee may not have 
been attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.
    After considering the Report of the Investigative 
Subcommittee and your Views regarding the Report, the Committee 
determined that the five separate areas of misconduct that you 
admitted to in the Statement of Alleged Violation constitute a 
significant violation of former Rule 43, Clause 1 of the House 
of Representatives. Further, the Committee determined that each 
of the five separate areas of conduct you admitted to 
constituted misconduct which cannot be described accurately 
either as technical or de minimis, as you attempt to do in your 
Views submitted in response to the Subcommittee's Report. We 
address the five areas of conduct below.
    The first area of misconduct to which you admitted, 
constituting conduct that did not reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives, involved your pattern and practice of 
knowingly allowing your former chief of staff, Ann M. Eppard, 
to appear before or communicate with you in your official 
capacity, during the 12-month period following her resignation, 
in a manner that created the appearance that your official 
decisions might have been improperly affected. The 
Investigative Subcommittee determined that this pattern of 
conduct by you involved numerous and regular communications and 
appearances by Ms. Eppard that created the appearance that your 
official decisions might have been improperly affected. The 
public elects Congress to do the public good and to act in the 
public interest. Confidence in this institution is damaged if 
Members of the House create even the appearance that special 
access or influence on official matters has been granted to 
employees who have recently left their employ to represent 
private interests for profit.
    We note that in your Views submitted in response to the 
Investigative Subcommittee's Report you state that the 
``Subcommittee concluded that Representative Shuster did not 
violate Section 207.'' This is not accurate. In fact, the 
Investigative Subcommittee actually stated in its Report that 
it had ``not here determined,'' and had ``not here reached the 
issue of,'' whether you or any other person violated or 
participated in the violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 207.
    The second area of misconduct to which you admitted 
involved your violation of former House Gift Rules in December 
1995 and January 1996 in connection with your acceptance from 
private parties of expenses incurred by you and your family 
during a trip to Puerto Rico. The record establishes that the 
primary purpose of this trip was recreational. Your 
participation in extremely limited officially related duties 
during this trip did not reasonably justify your acceptance of 
the expenses received from private sources in connection with 
this trip. Your attempts, in your Views, to minimize the 
expenses you accepted on this trip are not well founded. 
Specifically, you state in your Views that, while your family 
accompanied you on the trip, ``the cost of the accommodations 
provided was comparable to the cost of a hotel room at an area 
resort, and thus [the sponsors] did not incur any significant 
additional expense as a result of the family members sharing 
his accommodations.'' According to the Subcommittee's Report, 
however, your sponsors paid for not just a single room but for 
lodgings that included both a four-bedroom villa and a two-
bedroom villa; we find it telling that in your Views you do not 
actually deny this description of the accommodations provided 
to your family during this trip.
    The Committee determined that this was a significant 
violation of former Rule 43, Clause 4 of the House of 
Representatives and former Rule 52 of the House of 
Representatives. Members of the House are paid an annual salary 
and are prohibited from accepting gifts other than as outlined 
in the House Gift Rule (now Rule 26). When Members violate this 
rule it undercuts public faith in the institution most 
important to American representative government. The American 
people should not be made to question whether, through gifts or 
favors, the public interest has been subordinated to those with 
business before the House.
    The third area of misconduct to which you admitted, and 
which constitutes conduct by you that did not reflect 
creditably on the House of Representatives, involved your 
violation of former House Rule 45 by authorizing and/or 
accepting Ms. Eppard's scheduling and advisory services 
involving your official schedule for approximately 18 months 
after she resigned from your congressional office. The repeated 
and prolonged nature of this conduct merits the determination 
that this violation was significant. The Committee determined 
that 18 months is not a transitional period, as you suggested 
in your Views to the Investigative Subcommittee's Report, but 
instead extends far beyond any reasonable period of transition. 
Further, we emphasize that the Statement of Alleged Violation 
to which you have admitted states unequivocally that you 
authorized and/or accepted Ms. Eppards' scheduling and advisory 
services, not that you ``supposedly'' did so, as you suggest in 
your Views.
    The fourth area of misconduct to which you have admitted 
involved the conduct of your congressional employees while 
under your supervision and control. The Committee determined 
that this was a significant violation of former Rule 43, Clause 
1 of the House of Representatives. We address later in this 
letter some of the erroneous assertions made in your Views 
regarding this violation.
    The fifth area of misconduct to which you have admitted, 
and which constitutes conduct that did not reflect creditably 
on the House of Representatives, concerned the appearance that 
certain expenditures by your campaign committee may not have 
been attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes. 
The laws and standards applicable in this area appropriately 
allow great deference to the decisions made by individual 
Member candidates in the conduct of political campaigns. These 
decisions often involve political speech protected under the 
First Amendment; further, the conduct of campaigns is an 
essential part of our representative democracy. Nevertheless, 
federal laws and House Rules do impose some restrictions on the 
use of campaign funds by Member candidates. Clause 6 of the 
Code of Conduct of the House of Representatives, Rule XLIII at 
the time of the conduct at issue, provided, in pertinent part, 
that a ``Member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use 
in excess of reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable 
campaign expenditures and shall expend no funds from his 
campaign account not attributable to bona fide campaign or 
political purposes.'' (Emphasis added.) Thus, while, as noted 
in the House Ethics Manual, at 271, Members generally have wide 
discretion as to what constitutes a bona fide political 
purpose, they may not convert campaign funds to personal uses 
exceeding reimbursement for campaign expenditures that are not 
only legitimate, but that are also capable of being verified as 
such.
    The Committee has found nothing in your views submitted in 
response to the Investigative Subcommittee's Report that 
gainsays the Subcommittee's underlying factual findings in this 
area, that is, that between January 1993 and December 1998, you 
and/or representatives of your campaign committee used campaign 
funds to pay for disbursements, described as ``political 
meetings'' or with related terms, on more than 675 occasions, 
totaling approximately $300,000. In addition, the Investigative 
Subcommittee determined that during the period in question you 
and/or representatives of your campaign committee used 
approximately $400,000 in campaign funds to pay for private 
chartered airplane flights for transportation. We have also 
found no support in the record before us for your claim that 
the Investigative Subcommittee faulted you for failing to 
maintain ``detailed documentation regarding each political 
expense'' by your campaign committee during the years in 
question. First, far from applying a requirement of 
``detailed'' documentation, the Subcommittee noted that your 
campaign committee did not make ``even the most minimal effort 
to document or verify that the expenditures were related to 
legitimate campaign activity. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) Second, 
as the Subcommittee's report makes clear, this clause of the 
Statement of Alleged Violation is based only on the 
expenditures by your campaign committee ``for meals designated 
as `political meetings' and for transportation on chartered 
airplane flights,'' not for any other political or 
transportation expenses incurred by your campaign committee 
during the period at issue. The Subcommittee deferred to your 
judgment regarding other disbursements made by your campaign 
committee.
    The Committee determined that through your campaign 
committee you engaged in significant misconduct by failing to 
keep records adequate to verify the legitimacy of an 
extraordinarily high number and dollar amount of expenditures 
for certain ``political meetings'' and/or ``political meetings 
and meals'' and for certain chartered airplane flights. 
Reasonable people--members of the public and Members of the 
House alike--reviewing the hundreds of thousands of dollars 
spent by your campaign in expensive restaurants and on 
chartered air travel, might well ask whether such expenditures 
were for personal purposes rather than for bona fide campaign 
purposes. The Subcommittee clearly and forthrightly states in 
its Report that the evidence before it did not meet the burden 
of proof--that is, substantial reason to believe--that these 
campaign funds actually were converted to personal use (thus 
proving false the claim in your Views that the Subcommittee has 
unfairly shifted the burden of proof on this issue to you). 
However, and just as clearly in our view, in admitting to the 
Statement of Alleged Violation in this matter you admitted that 
the reasonable questions raised about your campaign's 
expenditures may and should be ascribed to your failure to 
properly verify the campaign purposes of these expenditures.
    As we have stated, the Committee has adopted the Report of 
the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter. The Committee 
has also, of course, given full consideration to the Views 
submitted by you in response to the Subcommittee's Report. 
Those Views call for more direct attention and discussion.
    The Committee finds the Views submitted by you, through 
your counsel, to be rife with patently inaccurate and 
misleading statements of the applicable laws, rules, standards 
of conduct and Committee guidance. For example, the discussion 
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 207 in your response cites to a regulation of 
the Office of Government Ethics (5 CFR Sec. 2637.204(d)) which 
was superceded in 1991 and which interprets Sec. 207(c) of the 
statute not as it was worded at the time of your conduct in 
this matter but as it was worded before 1991; the differences 
in wording are significant and material and your discussion is, 
as a result, grossly misleading. You also cite an ``11/5/96 OGE 
Letter'' which interprets subsection (a) of Sec. 207, not 
subsection (e), the subsection discussed by the Investigative 
Subcommittee. Even a cursory reading of the OGE letter you 
cite, together with a reasonably attentive reading of the law, 
would show that the letter cited simply does not apply to the 
concerns raised by your and Ms. Eppard's conduct. You invoke 
the untimeliness of an October 1998 Memorandum issued by the 
Committee on post-employment concerns, yet fail to note that 
substantially and materially similar guidance appears in the 
House Ethics Manual, published in 1992, well before Ms. Eppard 
left her position in your office. You attempt to confuse the 
entirely irrelevant standards set forth in the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act with the relevant standards, discussed in the 
Subcommittee's Report, applicable in situations raising 
concerns as to potential post-employment conflicts of interest.
    You incorrectly assert in your response that there is no 
clearly phrased prohibition against congressional employees 
performing campaign work in a congressional office. We refer 
you again to the Ethics Manual, 1992, at 216, which contains 
the following clear and straightforward language: ``Anything 
supported with official funds is an official resource, 
including congressional offices. * * * [A]s is true of all 
official resources, congressional offices may not be used for 
the conduct of campaign activity.'' In the testimony of 
witnesses, cited in the Investigative Subcommittee's Report, as 
well as in your response, it was asserted that your 
congressional employees took so-called ``administrative leave'' 
to work on your political campaigns. Upon inquiry the 
Subcommittee discovered that in your office the term 
``administrative leave'' simply described the situation where 
employees working on your campaign nonetheless received full 
pay from your congressional office. This political work by your 
congressional employees occurred both outside of the premises 
of the House of Representatives and within the House itself. 
Despite the attempt to do so in your Views, unacceptable 
conduct cannot be made acceptable simply by labeling it as 
such.
    Lastly, as to this portion of the Statement of Alleged 
Violation, your assertion that it is ``unfair'' to hold you 
responsible for the activities of your employees as set forth 
in the Statement of Alleged Violations simply ignores the 
following plain statement in the Ethics Manual, at 320 and 
citing to two Committee reports: a ``Member is responsible for 
assuring that his or her employees are aware of and adhere to 
these and other rules, and for assuring that resources provided 
for support of official duties are applied to the proper 
purposes.''
    Your response also contains irrelevant or misleading 
discussions of other matters investigated and/or reported upon 
by the Committee in the past. The absence of specific mention 
in this letter of those discussions, or of the many other 
distortions of the findings of the Investigative Subcommittee 
or of the other incorrect statements about applicable standards 
which fill your Views, should not be taken in any way as a sign 
of this Committee's agreement. Indeed, the Committee here 
cautions all other Members, Officers and employees of the House 
that they should not look to your Views in any way for guidance 
as to the standards applicable to their conduct. Members, 
Officers and employees should turn to the Office of Advice and 
Education of this Committee for accurate and authorized 
guidance.
    The Committee is disturbed not only by the content of your 
response but by its tone. It is one of blame-shifting about and 
trivializing of misconduct to which you have admitted and which 
this Committee does not and can not characterize as de minimis 
or technical, either in whole or in part. You committed 
substantial violations. That the Committee has decided, 
nonetheless, to accept the Investigative Subcommittee's 
recommendation and resolve this matter by imposition of the 
sanction of a Letter of Reproval is due in part to the 
Committee's respect for the thorough, fair and thoughtful work 
done by the Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee believes 
that the House of Representatives and the public are best 
served by the repudiation of your conduct and that this Letter 
of Reproval accomplishes that goal efficiently. Further, you 
have agreed that your misconduct did not reflect creditably on 
the House of Representatives.
    A Letter of Reproval is a Committee imposed sanction. 
Unlike a reprimand, or other more severe sanction, a vote of 
the entire House of Representatives is not required for a 
Letter of Reproval to be imposed and published. You should 
understand, however, that the Investigative Subcommittee was 
accurate when, in its Report, it stated: ``[I]t should be 
emphasized that a Letter of Reproval itself is intended to be a 
rebuke of a Member's conduct issued by a body of that Member's 
peers acting, as the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, on behalf of the House of Representatives.''
    In our free and democratic system of republican government, 
it is vital that citizens feel confidence in the integrity of 
the legislative institutions that make the laws that govern 
America. Ultimately, individual Members of Congress can 
undermine respect for the institutions of our government when 
they engage in official misconduct. You have engaged in serious 
official misconduct through the violations to which you have 
admitted under penalty of perjury. Those violations cause this 
Committee formally and publicly to reprove you for conduct that 
reflected discredit on the House of Representatives and 
violated former House Rule 43, Clause 1.
            Sincerely,
                                   Lamar Smith,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Howard L. Berman,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.

                                
