[House Report 107-799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 500
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-799
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
__________
A REPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington HOWARD L. BERMAN, California,
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois Ranking Minority Member
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri ED PASTOR, Arizona
STEPHEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
GENE GREEN, Texas
Robert L. Walker, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Virginia H. Johnson, Counsel to the Chairman
Bari L. Schwartz, Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member
John E. Vargo, Director, Office of Advice and Education
Carol E. Dixon, Counsel
Kenneth E. Kellner, Counsel
Paul M. Lewis, Counsel
Bernadette C. Sargeant, Counsel
John Sassaman, Jr., Counsel
Reed D. Slack, Counsel
Preston Johnson, Staff Assistant
Christine A. Stevens, Systems Administrator
Joanne White, Administrative Assistant
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2003.
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 107th Congress.
Sincerely,
Joel Hefley,
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................................................ 8
Advisory Opinion Letters................................. 8
III.Financial Disclosure, Foreign Gifts and Decorations, and Travel
Disclosure........................................................8
IV. Committee Rules..................................................10
V. Investigations...................................................10
Representative Earl F. Hilliard.......................... 11
Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.................... 14
Appendix I....................................................... 21
Appendix II...................................................... 28
Union Calendar No. 500
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-799
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hefley 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 XXV, 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 substantiated.
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 XXIII.
(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 XXV, 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.
In addition, a number of provisions of statutory law confer
authority on the Committee. Specifically, for purposes of the
statutes on gifts to Federal employees (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353) and
gifts to superiors (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7351), both the Committee and
the House of Representatives are the ``supervising ethics
office'' of House Members, officers and employees. In addition,
as discussed further in Part III below, for House Members and
staff, the Committee is both the ``supervising ethics office''
with regard to financial disclosure and the ``employing
agency'' for certain purposes under the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations Act. Finally, the outside employment and earned
income limitations are administered by the Committee with
respect to House Members and staff (5 U.S.C. app. 4
Sec. 503(1)(A)).
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 and employees on the laws, rules and
other standards of conduct applicable to them in their
official capacities, including the interpretations and
advisory opinions issued by the Committee;
Drafting 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;
Drafting 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.
The duties of the Office of Advice and Education are also
addressed in Committee Rule 3, and in addition that rule sets
out requirements and procedures for this issuance of Committee
advisory opinions.
As an inducement to Members and staff to seek Committee
advice whenever they have any uncertainty on the applicable
laws, rules or standards, statutory law (2 U.S.C.
Sec. 29d(i)(4)) 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.
A further inducement for Members and staff to seek
Committee guidance is that under Committee Rule 3(i), the
Committee will keep confidential any request for advice from a
Member, officer or employee, as well as any response to such a
request. Inaddition, it is the Committee's understanding 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 a broad, active program for
advice and education is 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
107th Congress are set forth below. In addition, on practically
a daily basis Committee staff attorneys provided informal
advice in response to inquiries received from Members, staff
persons and others in telephone calls and e-mails directed to
the Committee office, and in meetings.
Publications
In December 2001 the Committee issued a major publication,
Laws, Rules and Standards of Conduct on Campaign Activity,
which provides a current statement of the authorities
applicable to House Members and staff when they engage in
campaign or political activity. The booklet superceded the
chapter of the 1992 House Ethics Manual on campaign activity
(Chapter 8), as well as the advisory memoranda on campaign
activity that the Committee had issued since 1992. In April
2000 the Committee had issued a similar booklet on the rules on
gifts and travel.
On subjects other than campaign activity, and gifts and
travel, the major Committee publications are the 1992 Manual
and advisory memoranda that update and expand upon the Manual.
The following advisory opinions were issued during the 107th
Congress:
Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned
Income Limitation, the Outside Employment Limitations,
the Financial Disclosure Requirement, and the Post-
Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar Year 2001
(January 31, 2001),
Prohibition Against Private Subsidy of
Conferences, Meetings and Other Events Sponsored by a
House Office (September 28, 2001),
Classified Information Oath (October 12,
2001),
Olympics Tickets Under the Gift Rule
(December 20, 2001),
Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned
Income Limitation, the Outside Employment Limitations,
the Financial Disclosure Requirement, and the Post-
Employment Restrictions Apply for Calendar Year 2002
(January 24, 2002),
Member Office Activities in Areas Added by
Redistricting (February 15, 2002),
Member Use of Campaign Funds to Pay Food and
Beverage Expenses at Events Sponsored by Their Office
and Other Official House Events (May 8, 2002),
Applicability of the Financial Disclosure
Reporting Requirement, the Outside Employment and
Earned Income Restrictions, and the Post-Employment
Restrictions to House Employees (October 2, 2002),
Gift Rule Provisions on Meals, Entertainment
and Recreational Activities from Lobbyists (November
14, 2002),
Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for
Members and Officers (November 25, 2002), and
Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for
Staff (November 25, 2002).
In addition, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Standards Committee joined the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the House Administration Committee in
issuing a joint Dear Colleague letter of May 24, 2001 on the
use of official resources in connection with activities
relating to congressional redistricting.
The advisory memorandum of May 8, 2002 announced the
establishment of a new policy under which Members are allowed
to use funds of their principal campaign committee to pay food
and beverage expenses at official House events, including, for
example, their town hall meetings and similar events for
constituents, and meetings of congressional caucuses. This
change was a significant one, in that up to then, the Committee
had administered the pertinent House Rules in a manner that
strictly prohibited the use of campaign funds to pay
congressionally related expenses. At the same time that the
Committee approved that change, it also proposed amending
statutory law and the House Rules so as to grant Members
certain additional, albeit limited, authority to use funds of
their principal campaign committee to pay congressionally
related expenses. That proposal was not enacted during the
107th Congress.
The two memoranda on the post-employment restrictions
issued November 25, 2002 supercede similar memoranda that the
Committee had issued on October 22, 1998.
In addition to the campaign activity booklet and the
advisory memoranda listed above, the Committee issued updated
versions of its summary memorandum, Highlights of the House
Ethics Rules, in January 2001 and February 2002.
Briefings
As part of its outreach and educational efforts during the
107th Congress, the Committee conducted numerous briefings for
House Members and staff on the ethics rules. These included
briefings to which all House Members and staff were invited, as
well as briefings for individual Member, committee and other
House offices. Committee staff also participated in briefings
sponsored by the Congressional Research Service for district
office staff members and in briefings sponsored by outside
organizations, and the Committee had an information booth at
the annual House Services Fair held by the CAO.
In addition to briefings on financial disclosure (discussed
further in the next section), Committee staff held five
briefings during 2002 that were open to all House Members,
officers and employees. Three of those briefings, held February
26th, April 16th, and October 15th, provided a general overview
of the ethics rules. The other two briefings, held March 21st
and September 24th, were focused on the rules applicable to
campaign activity. The Committee will continue this outreach
activity in the 108th Congress.
The Committee also made a presentation to the Members-elect
of the 108th Congress as part of the New Member Orientation.
Copies of the Highlights of the House Ethics Rules memorandum
and a memorandum noting points of particular interest to
Members-elect were provided to each new Member as part of the
orientation process, and each was offered an individual
briefing for the Member and his or her staff.
Staff also received numerous requests for briefings from
visiting international dignitaries. Visitors from Great Britain
and from countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia were
particularly interested in the House ethics rules and
procedures.
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 700 private advisory
opinions during the 107th Congress. Opinions issued by the
Committee in the 107th 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 and employment limitations, 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 (Sec. Sec. 101-111), requires certain
officials in all branches of the Federal Government, as well as
candidates for Federal office, to file publicly available
statements that set out financial information regarding
themselves and their families. On May 15th of each year, the
covered officials are required to file a statement that
provides information for the preceding calendar year.
The Act designates the Committee as the ``supervising
ethics office'' of House Members, officers and employees for
purposes of financial disclosure and provides that the
Committee is to administer the Act with regard to those
officials. The Committee establishes policy, issues
instructions, and designs the Financial Disclosure Statements
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.
Each year the Committee publishes a detailed instruction
booklet that is sent to each person required to file with the
Clerk of the House. Prior to the May 15th filing date, the
Committee also provides briefings on the financial disclosure
requirements that are open to all Members, officers and
employees, as well as a briefing for Members only. In addition,
Committee staff members are available to respond to questions
on financial disclosure, and the Committee encourages Members
and staff to submit statements in draft form to staff for
review prior to filing with the Clerk, in order to reduce
errors and the need for amendments.
In calendar years 2001 and 2002, the Legislative Resource
Center referred a total of 5,143 financial disclosure
statements to the Committee for review under the statute,
including statements of candidates for the House. Where the
Committee review indicates that a filed statement has a
deficiency, such as a failure to include required information,
the Committee requests an amendment from the filer. The
Committee also follows up with any filer whose statement
indicates non-compliance with applicable law, such as the
outside employment and earned income limitations. Where the
Committee finds that a Member or staff person has received
income in violation of any of these limitations, the Committee
determines the appropriate remedy for the violation, which may
include a requirement that the individual repay the amount that
was improperly received.
Pursuant to its responsibilities under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342,
the Committee also continued its activities in implementing the
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, including the disclosure and
reporting requirements of the Act, and responded to questions
fromMembers and staff regarding the Act. The regulations that
the Committee has issued under the Act are published in the Committee's
Gifts & Travel booklet. 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. Where a violation of the gift rule is found, the
Committee determines the appropriate remedy, which will usually include
a requirement that the individual pay the full value of the improper
gift with personal funds.
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 XXV, cl. 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 March 14, 2001, the
Committee adopted the Committee Rules for the 107th Congress.
These rules were substantially identical to the Committee Rules
in effect for the 106th Congress, with two amendments. In the
Committee Rules adopted for the 107th Congress a new clause (c)
was added to Committee Rule 8--on ``Subcommittees-General
Policy and Structure''--which new clause provided that ``the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may
consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own
initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have
access to information before a subcommittee with whom they so
consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from serving as
full, voting members of any adjudicatory subcommittee''; former
clauses (c) through (e) of this rule were renumbered
accordingly. This amendment to Committee Rule 8 was consistent
with authorizing language in sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001.
In its rules adopted for the 107th Congress the Committee
also added language to Committee Rule 15--on ``Committee
Authority to Investigate-General Policy''--stating the
Committee's authority to investigate ``certain unauthorized
disclosures of intelligence-related information, pursuant to
House Rule X, clauses 11(g)(4) and (g)(5).'' Under House Rules
the Committee had such authority to investigate in previous
congresses. The language was added to Committee Rule 15 in the
107th Congress to note this authority in the Committee Rules.
V. Investigations
At its organizational meeting on March 14, 2001, the
Committee voted to carry over into the 107th Congress the
formal inquiry regarding Representative Earl F. Hilliard; this
matter ultimately resulted in the Committee issuing a Letter of
Reproval to Representative Hilliard. In addition to this formal
investigation carried over from the 106th Congress, on April
17, 2002, the Committee voted to establish an Investigative
Subcommittee regarding Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.
This matter was subsequently referred to an Adjudicatory
Subcommittee and ultimately to the full House of
Representatives, which, by a vote of 420 to 1, with nine
Members voting Present, expelled Representative Traficant on
July 24, 2002.
In addition to these matters, and as previously disclosed
on the public record, on July 13, 2001, the Committee received
a letter from Representative Bob Barr requestingthat the
Committee begin an inquiry regarding Representative Gary Condit. In a
July 19, 2001, letter of response, the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee, after noting that Representative Barr's letter
did not appear to meet the formal requirements of a complaint as set
forth in Committee Rules, informed Representative Barr that, pursuant
to Committee Rules and to longstanding Committee policy, the
determination had been made that it was appropriate for the Committee
to defer action on the allegations contained in his letter because,
based on public accounts, it appeared that relevant law enforcement
entities were reviewing those allegations. The letter of response noted
that the determination to defer should not be taken as any indication
of the Committee's position on the merit, or lack thereof, of the
allegations contained in Representative Barr's letter. Also as
previously disclosed on the public record, the Committee on August 21,
2001, voted to dismiss in full a complaint that had been filed against
Representative Steve Buyer by Representative Peter Deutsch on July 16,
2001; the Committee released to the public its August 1, 2001, letter
completely dismissing this matter as to all allegations against the
Member.
As a general matter, pursuant to Committee Rule 12, unless
otherwise disclosed publicly pursuant to authorization by the
Committee, the Committee maintains the confidentiality of any
information regarding its investigative proceedings, including,
but not limited to, the fact or nature of any complaints and
any other information or allegation respecting the conduct of a
Member, officer or employee.
In the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard
By unanimous vote on June 20, 2001, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct voted to sanction Representative
Earl F. Hilliard 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 Violations consisted of three counts, each setting
forth that Representative Hilliard engaged in a pattern and
practice of conduct in which he expended funds from his
campaign account for purposes not attributable to bona fide
campaign or political purposes and converted campaign
contributions to personal use in violation of Clause 6 of the
Code of Official Conduct, formerly House Rule 43 (now Rule 23);
and which conduct 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 23). The
Committee, through its Letter of Reproval, notified
Representative Hilliard, inter alia, that he ``engaged in
serious official misconduct that brought discredit to the House
of Representatives.''
On September 22, 1999, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct voted, in accordance with House Rule XI,
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 F. Hilliard. The
Investigative Subcommittee was established to investigate
specific matters related to Representative Hilliard that came
to the attention of the Committee following publication of
certain newspaper reports. Specifically, 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 of conduct
applicable to his conduct in performance of his duties or
thedischarge of his responsibilities, with respect to: (1) loans
reportedly made by Representative Hilliard's campaign committee in
1993-1994 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 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 served as Chairman of the
Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Martin Olav Sabo
served as its Ranking Minority Member. The other two members of
the Subcommittee were Representative Kenny C. Hulshof and
Representative James E. Clyburn, who were not members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but were appointed
to the Investigative Subcommittee pursuant to House Rule X,
Clause 5(a)(4).
On June 8, 2000, pursuant to Committee Rule 20(c), the
Investigative Subcommittee voted unanimously to expand its
jurisdiction to encompass the following matters that came to
the Investigative Subcommittee's attention during its inquiry:
Whether Representative Hilliard violated the Code of
Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to his conduct in the
performance of his duties or the discharge of his
responsibilities, with respect to:
1. The use of campaign funds to: (a) pay salaries,
wages, or other compensation to Rita Hall (Patterson),
Elizabeth Redmond (Turner), and Yolanda Williams during
the period of 1992-1996; (b) make loans or other
disbursements to the Alabama Film & Entertainment
Council in 1993; and (c) make reported expenditures for
rent during the period of August through December 1996
in connection with the campaign's use or occupancy of
premises in Montgomery, Alabama; and
2. The financial relationships between, and
transactions relating to, American Trust Corporation,
American Trust Life Insurance Company, Inc.,
Representative Hilliard's campaign organization, and
the African-American Institute, a non-profit
corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
On June 14, 2000, the full Committee voted unanimously to
expand the Investigative Subcommittee's jurisdiction to include
these issues.
During the course of its inquiry, the Investigative
Subcommittee approved the issues of approximately 50 subpoenas
for documents. In addition to subpoenaed materials, documents
were also voluntarily supplied to the Investigative
Subcommittee from public sources such as government agencies.
More than ten thousand pages of documents were obtained and
reviewed by the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter,
including thousands of items from banking institutions. During
its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee also formally
deposed 11 individuals regarding the inquiry, resulting in
approximately 1454 pages of transcribed testimony. In addition,
counsel for the Investigative Subcommittee interviewed or
otherwise received information from approximately 85
individuals.
In December 2000, the Investigative Subcommittee and
Representative Hilliard reached mutually agreeable settlement
terms, which terms were reaffirmed by the parties during the
107th Congress. The Investigative Subcommittee agreed to adopt
the Statement of Violation negotiated by the parties
conditioned on Representative Hilliard's agreement to admit
unconditionally to the charges contained in the document.
Representative Hilliard and the Investigative Subcommittee
agreed as part of their settlement that the Investigative
Subcommittee would recommend to the full Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct that the Committee impose a Letter of
Reproval as a sanction against Representative Hilliard. On
April 4, 2001, pursuant to the settlement agreement with
Representative Hilliard, the Investigative Subcommittee, by
unanimousvote, adopted the Statement of Alleged Violation in
this matter. The Investigative Subcommittee subsequently received
Representative Hilliard's answer, dated April 5, 2001, admitting to the
charges contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation. Representative
Hilliard waived both an adjudicatory hearing and a sanction hearing in
this matter.
The conduct to which Representative Hilliard admitted as
set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation is summarized
as follows:
1. During the period April 1993 to March 1994,
Representative Hilliard engaged in a pattern and
practice of conduct whereby, at his authorization and
instruction, the Hilliard for Congress Campaign
(hereafter ``HFCC''), the political committee
authorized by him to receive contributions or make
expenditures on his behalf, made loans totaling more
than $16,000 to three individuals for purposes not
attributable to any bona fide campaign or political
purpose.
2. During the period July 1992 to August 1996,
Representative Hilliard engaged in a pattern and
practice of conduct whereby, with his knowledge, HFCC
made expenditures to three individuals for salary and
benefits for performing services for corporations owned
or controlled by Representative Hilliard and members of
his family. In this manner, Representative Hilliard
converted campaign funds to personal use in excess of
reimbursement for legitimate campaign expenditures and
expended campaign funds for a purpose not attributable
to bona fide campaign or political purposes.
3. During the period 1993 through 1996,
Representative Hilliard engaged in a pattern and
practice of conduct in which HFCC funds were converted
to personal use by him in excess of reimbursement for
legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures and
expended by him for purposes not attributable to bona
fide campaign or political purposes. Representative
Hilliard's pattern and practice of conduct included (a)
causing HFCC to make expenditures totaling $8,000 to
pay rent owed pursuant to a lease Representative
Hilliard guaranteed for a corporation owned in
substantial part by him and members of his family; (b)
causing HFCC to make expenditures for rent
substantially in excess of fair market value to a
Section 501(c)(3) corporation operated and controlled
by members of Representative Hilliard's family, which
in turn transmitted these funds to a corporation owned
and controlled by him and members of his family; (c)
causing HFCC to make expenditures for rent
substantially in excess of fair market value directly
to corporations owned or controlled by Representative
Hilliard and members of his family; and (d) causing
HFCC to make expenditures to pay utility expenses
incurred by corporations owned or controlled by
Representative Hilliard and members of his family.
By admitting to the Statement of Alleged Violation,
Representative Hilliard agreed that with respect to each
pattern and practice of conduct separately described above, he
violated (1) Clause 6 of the Code of Official Conduct, former
Rule 43 (current Rule 23) of the House of Representatives,
which 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 the campaign
account not attributable to bona fide campaign or political
purposes;'' and (2) Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct,
former Rule 43 (current Rule 23) of the House of
Representatives, which provided that ``[a] Member, officer or
employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself
at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the
House of Representatives.''
By unanimous vote on June 20, 2001, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct adopted the Report of the
Investigative Subcommittee in this matter. By unanimous vote on
that same date, the Committee also voted to sanction
Representative Hilliard by issuing a Letter of Reproval to him
in connection with the Statement of Alleged violation to which
he admitted. The Committee, through its Letter of Reproval,
notified Representative Hilliard that
In knowing violation of the Code of Official Conduct,
you expended funds from your campaign account for
purposes not attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes and you converted campaign
contributions to personal use. Your improper use and
conversion of campaign funds were accomplished through
several distinct means and over a period of years.
Through this extended conduct, monies contributed to
your campaign for your campaign were, instead, put by
you to your personal use and benefit and to the use and
benefit of members of your family.
You engaged in serious official misconduct that
brought discredit to the House of Representatives.
The Report of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct on this matter was transmitted to the House of
Representatives on July 10, 2001. The Report contained the
Letter of Reproval, the Statement of Alleged Violation, and the
103 page Report of the Investigative Subcommittee (including
two attachments and 101 exhibits) which was adopted by the full
Committee. The Investigative Subcommittee's Report included the
results of its inquiry regarding conduct by Representative
Hilliard that was not charged inthe Statement of Alleged
Violation. The full text of the Statement of Alleged Violation and the
Letter of Reproval in this matter is included in Appendix I to this
Summary of Activities.
In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.
By a vote of 420-1, with nine Members voting Present, on
July 24, 2002, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr. was
expelled from the House of Representatives pursuant to H. Res.
495. This action followed the unanimous vote of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct on July 18, 2002 to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt a resolution that
Representative Traficant be expelled. The Committee's
recommendation followed an investigative and adjudicatory
process that began after Representative Traficant was found
guilty by a jury of ten felony offenses on April 11, 2002 in a
criminal trial before the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Ohio. The outcome of Representative
Traficant's criminal trial led to the formation of an
Investigative Subcommittee which ultimately adopted a ten count
Statement of Alleged Violations charging that Representative
Traficant committed multiple violations of the Code of Official
Conduct and of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
Subsequently, an Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that each of
Counts I through IX of the Statement of Alleged Violations were
proven by clear and convincing evidence. In voting to recommend
that Representative Traficant be expelled, the Committee
concluded that the violations committed by Representative
Traficant were of the most serious character and merited the
strongest possible congressional response.
On April 17, 2002, in accordance with Clause 3 of House
Rule XI, Committee Rule 15 and Committee Rule 19(e), which
provides discretion to the Committee to establish an
Investigative Subcommittee prior to sentencing when a Member
has been convicted of a felony, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct voted to establish an Investigative
Subcommittee to conduct a formal inquiry regarding
Representative James A. Traficant, Jr. The Committee gave the
Investigative Subcommittee jurisdiction to determine whether
Representative Traficant violated the Code of Official Conduct,
or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct
applicable to his conduct in the performance of his duties or
the discharge of his responsibilities, with respect to any or
all of the matters for which Representative Traficant stood
trial in United States v. James A. Traficant, Jr., Case No.
4:01CR207 (N.D.Ohio). In that criminal matter, Representative
Traficant was found guilty by a jury of ten felony offenses on
April 11, 2002.
Representative Doc Hastings served as Chairman of the
Investigative Subcommittee, and Representative Zoe Lofgren
served as its Ranking Minority Member. The other two members of
the Subcommittee were Representative Roger Wicker and
Representative John Lewis, who were not members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but were appointed
to the Investigative Subcommittee pursuant to House Rule X,
Clause 5(a)(4).
During its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee obtained
and reviewed a complete certified transcript of Representative
Traficant's trial, as well as certified copies of all exhibits
admitted into evidence during that trial. The Investigative
Subcommittee also obtained and reviewed materials from the U.S.
Department of Justice that that department represented were
furnished to the government by Representative Traficant in
connection with the criminal prosecution.
On May 8, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 27(c), the
Investigative Subcommittee provided Representative Traficant
with a copy of a Statement of Alleged Violations it intended to
adopt in this matter. On that date, the Investigative
Subcommittee further advised Representative Traficant, inter
alia, that the copies of certified transcripts and exhibits it
had previously furnished to him constituted all the evidence it
intended to use to prove the charges set forth in the Statement
of Alleged Violations that the Investigative Subcommittee
intended to adopt.
On May 22, 2002, the Investigative Subcommittee unanimously
voted to adopt the Statement of Alleged Violations, finding
substantial reason to believe that Representative Traficant
committed multiple violations of the Code of Official Conduct
and of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Subsequent to
this event, Representative Traficant filed a Motion for a Bill
of Particulars and a Motion to Dismiss, to each of which the
Investigative Subcommittee responded.
On June 27, 2002, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Rules of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the
Investigative Subcommittee transmitted the Statement of Alleged
Violations adopted unanimously by the Investigative
Subcommittee in this matter to the full Committee. Also
transmitted to the full Committee at this time were the Answer
of the Respondent to the Statement of Alleged Violations dated
June 27, 2002 (denying the allegations in all ten counts of the
Statement of Alleged Violations); the Respondent's Motion for a
Bill of Particulars dated June 3, 2002; the Investigative
Subcommittee's response to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars
dated June 4, 2002 (granting the motion in part and denying the
motion in part); the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated June
14, 2002; and the Investigative Subcommittee's response to the
Motion to Dismiss dated June 17, 2002 (denying the motion).
The Investigative Subcommittee also transmitted to the full
Committee the evidence relied upon by the Investigative
Subcommittee to prove the charges set forth in the Statement of
Alleged Violations, which materials consisted of the certified
trial transcript in United States of America v. James A.
Traficant, Jr., Criminal No. 4:01CR207 (N.D. Ohio) (Eastern
Division), and certified copies of exhibits admitted into
evidence in that trial. A letter of transmittal, which
constituted the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee to the
full Committee, also accompanied the aforementioned documents.
Count I of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged that
Representative Traficant agreed to and did perform official
acts on behalf of Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, and companies
they controlled, for which Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci,
companies they controlled, and others acting at their request
agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things
of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or
equipment for use at Representative Traficant's farm.
Count II of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged
that Representative Traficant agreed to and did perform
official acts on behalf of Arthur David Sugar, Sugar's son, and
companies Sugar controlled, for which Arthur David Sugar,
companies he controlled, and others acting at his request
agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things
of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or
equipment for use at Representative Traficant's farm.
Count III of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged
that Representative Traficant agreed to and did perform
official acts on behalf of John J. Cafaro, U.S. Aerospace
Group, LLC, and/or other persons or entities affiliated with
that entity, for which John J. Cafaro, companies he controlled,
and others acting at his request, agreed to and did provide
Representative Traficant with things of value.
Counts IV and V of the Statement of Alleged Violations
charged Representative Traficant in connection with a course of
conduct in which he employed attorney Raymond Allen Sinclair as
a member of his congressional district staff, in exchange for
Mr. Sinclair's agreement to rent additional office space to
Representative Traficant for use as a congressional district
office, and to pay Representative Traficant $2,500 per month of
his congressional salary.
Count VI of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged
that Representative Traficant endeavored to persuade Raymond
Allen Sinclair to destroy evidence and to provide false
testimony and information to a federal grand jury.
Count VII of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged
Representative Traficant with engaging in a course of conduct
in which he defrauded the United States of money and property
(1) by soliciting and accepting payments from the salaries of
congressional employees (including Raymond Allen Sinclair,
former administrative assistant Henry DiBlasio, and former
district director Charles O'Nesti), which salaries were drawn
from the funds of the United States Treasury; (2) by directing
members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor
and services to maintain and repair Representative Traficant's
boat; and (3) by having members of his congressional staff
perform personal labor and services at Representative
Traficant's farm.
Counts VIII and IX of the Statement of Alleged Violations
charged that Representative Traficant filed two false income
tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service that failed to
report the substantial income accrued to him in connection with
the gratuities and/or bribes and salary kickbacks he received
and accepted during the calendar years 1998 and 1999.
Count X of the Statement of Alleged Violations charged that
Representative Traficant engaged in a continuing pattern and
practice of official misconduct, through which he misused his
office for personal gain, and which comprised the following
instances of conduct, or any combination thereof: the instances
of conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VII
of the Statement of Alleged Violations, separately and
inclusive; and/or the course of conduct in which Representative
Traficant agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of
Bernard ``Pete'' Bucheit, for which Bucheit and companies he
controlled agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant
with things of value.
Based on the conduct alleged in the Statement of Alleged
violations, Representative Traficant was charged with violating
multiple provisions of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23), as well as a provision of the Code of Ethics
for Government Service. With respect to the conduct alleged in
each and every one of the ten Counts in the Statement of
Alleged Violations, Representative Traficant was charged with
violating Clause I of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23), which provides that ``[a] Member of the House
shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall
reflect creditably on the House.'' With respect to the conduct
alleged in each of Counts, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and X,
Representative Traficant was charged withviolating Clause 2 of
the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23), which provides
that ``[a] Member of the House shall adhere to the spirit and letter of
the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees
thereof.'' With respect to the conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II,
III, IV, V, VII, and X, Representative Traficant was charged with
violating Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23), which provides that ``[a] Member * * * of the House may not
receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to his
beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of which would occur
by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in
Congress.'' Finally, with respect to Counts VI, VIII, IX, and X,
Representative Traficant was charged with violating Clause 2 of the
Code of Ethics for Government Service, which provides that ``[a]ny
person in Government service should * * * [u]phold the Constitution,
laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments
therein and never be a party to their evasion.''
In its report to the full Committee, the Investigative
Subcommittee stated that through his conduct, Representative
Traficant violated the letter and spirit of each of the
aforementioned standards of conduct, and that in its view, the
charges in the Statement of Alleged Violations were of the most
serious nature. In its report, the Investigative Subcommittee
also noted other violations by Representative Traficant
potentially supported by the evidence in the trial record,
including apparent violations of clause 5(a)(1)(A) of current
House Rule 25 (the ``Gift Rule'') in connection with
Representative Traficant's apparent receipt of gifts in the
form of gratuities, and of Clause 2 of current House Rule 26
and Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, in
connection with Representative Traficant's failure to report
apparent gifts and other information on his annual financial
disclosure statements. For reasons set forth in its report, the
Investigative Subcommittee determined not to pursue separate
allegations based on the aforementioned apparent Gift Rule and
other violations.
On June 27, 2002, after receiving the Statement of Alleged
Violations and associated pleadings and responses from the
Investigative Subcommittee in this matter, and acting pursuant
to Committee Rule 24, the Committee established an Adjudicatory
Subcommittee and set July 15, 2002 as the date for the
Adjudicatory Subcommittee to convene its public hearing.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 24, the members of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct who did not serve on the
Investigative Subcommittee served on the Adjudicatory
Subcommittee. Representative Joel Hefley, Chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, served as Chairman
of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee, and Representative Howard L.
Berman, Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, served as
Ranking Minority Member of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee. Also
serving on the Adjudicatory Subcommittee was Representative
Judy Biggert, Representative Ed Pastor, Representative Kenny C.
Hulshof, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Representative
Steven C. LaTourette, and Representative Gene Green.
On July 15, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 24(c) and
consistent with the other Committee and House Rules governing
these proceedings, the Adjudicatory Subcommittee commenced a
hearing to determine whether any counts in the Statement of
Alleged Violations have been proven by clear and convincing
evidence. The adjudicatory hearing continued through July 17,
2002. At the hearing, Committee counsel presented evidence in
support of the counts in the Statement of AllegedViolations and
Representative Traficant presented evidence in his defense. Committee
counsel relied on certified copies of the transcript and exhibits
entered into evidence at the trial of United States v. James A.
Traficant, Jr., Case No. 4:01 CR207 (N.D.Ohio). Representative
Traficant entered several exhibits, including affidavits, audiotapes,
transcripts and other documentary evidence, into evidence at the
hearing. Representative Traficant called four witnesses who testified
at the hearing: Linda Kovachik, Sandra Ferrante, Michael Robertson and
Richard Detore. Presentation of evidence and argument from Committee
counsel and Representative Traficant ended on July 17, 2002.
After the hearing was adjourned, the Adjudicatory
Subcommittee began its deliberations in executive session. At
the conclusion of several hours of deliberation, the
Subcommittee made findings with regard to the counts in the
Statement of Alleged Violations, pursuant to the vote
requirements of Committee Rule 10. The Adjudicatory
Subcommittee found that each of Counts I through IX of the
Statement of Alleged Violations were proven by clear and
convincing evidence. The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that
Count X was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and
the Adjudicatory Subcommittee dismissed Count X of the
Statement of Alleged Violations. Pursuant to Committee Rule
24(p), the Adjudicatory Subcommittee transmitted a report
containing its findings to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct on July 18, 2002, along with all motions,
transcripts of evidence, correspondence and other relevant
items generated or received by the Subcommittee during the
adjudicatory proceedings.
On that same day, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct held a Sanctions Hearing at which counsel for the
Committee and Representative Traficant made oral submissions
regarding the sanction the Committee should recommend to the
House of Representatives. Following the hearing, the Committee
met in executive session to deliberate on what, if any,
sanction should be recommended to the House of Representatives,
pursuant to Committee Rule 25(c). After carefully considering
the report of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee--which was adopted
by the Committee--the Committee concluded that the violations
committed by Representative Traficant were of the most serious
character and merited the strongest possible congressional
response. Accordingly, the Committee agreed by a unanimous vote
to recommend that the House adopt the following resolution:
House Resolution
Resolved, That pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2
of the United States Constitution, Representative Traficant
James A. Traficant, Jr., be, and hereby is, expelled from the
House of Representatives.
On July 19, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 25(h), the
Committee transmitted a report to the House of Representatives
to accompany the resolution. The report contained a summary of
the evidence and the reasons for adopting the recommended
resolution.
On July 24, 2002, by a vote of 420 to 1, with nine Members
voting Present, Representative Traficant was expelled from the
House of Representatives pursuant to H. Res. 495.
The full text of the July 18, 2002, Report of the
Adjudicatory Subcommittee to the Committee, of the June 27,
2002, Letter of Transmittal from the Investigative Subcommittee
to the Committee, and of the May 22, 2002, Statement of Alleged
Violations adopted by the Investigative Subcommittee in this
matter, are included at Appendix II to this summary of
activities.
APPENDIX I
----------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, April 4,
2001--Statement of Alleged Violation
I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
At all times relevant to the violations hereafter alleged
(except as otherwise noted), the pertinent provisions of law
and House Rules are summarized as follows: Clause 6 of former
House Rule 43 (now House Rule 23) stated, inter alia, 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.'' Clause 1 of former House Rule 43 (now House Rule
23) stated that ``[a] Member, officer or employee of the House
of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a
manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of
Representatives.''
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
For each of the following alleged violations, the
Investigative Subcommittee has determined there is
``substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of
Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official
duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
has occurred.'' See Rule 20(e), Rules of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
At all times relevant to this Statement of Alleged
Violation, Earl F. Hilliard was a Member of the United States
House of Representatives representing the Seventh District of
Alabama. References to the Hilliard for Congress Campaign
(``HFCC'') refer to the authorized committee of Representative
Earl F. Hilliard, i.e. the political committee authorized by
Representative Hilliard under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 432(e)(1) to
receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of
Representative Hilliard. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 431(6).
Count I: Pattern and Practice of Conduct in Violation of Former House
Rule 43, Clause 6 and Former House Rule 43, Clause I
Circumstances Relating to Alleged Violation: Loans of
Campaign Funds to Three Individuals.
During the period approximately April 1993 to March of
1994, with the authorization and at the instruction of
Representative Hilliard, HFCC made at least nine loans totaling
approximately $16,205.04 to three individuals. Approximately
$13,205.04 of the loans was to one individual, and of this
amount, $7,452 has not been repaid.
The remaining $3,000 in loans by HFCC were made to two
individuals employed in the Congressional District office of
Representative Hilliard located in Birmingham, Alabama. Each of
the remaining two loan recipients received $1,500. One of the
loan recipients fully repaid the $1,500 loan from HFCC. The
other loan recipient has repaid only $35 of the $1,500 loan.
None of the above-described loans was attributable to any bona
fide campaign or political purpose. Although the Investigative
Subcommittee received no evidence that Representative Hilliard
benefited financially from any of the disbursements in
question, each of the loans was for the personal purposes of
the recipient and was therefore improper.
Alleged Violation
As described above, with the authorization and at the
instruction of Representative Hilliard, HFCC made loans
totaling approximately $16,205.04 to three individuals for
purposes not attributable to any bona fide campaign or
political purpose of Representative Hilliard. In this manner,
Representative Hilliard expended campaign funds for purposes
not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes,
in violation of former Rule 43, Clause 6 of the House of
Representatives, and through this described patter and practice
of conduct, Representative Hilliard acted in a manner which did
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in
violation of former House Rule 43, Clause I.
Count II: Pattern and Practice of Conduct in Violation of Former House
Rule 43, Clause 6 and Former House Rule 43, Clause 1
Circumstances Relating to Alleged Violation: Expenditures
of Campaign Funds for Wages, Salaries, and or Benefits to Three
Individuals for Work Performed for Corporations Owned or
Controlled by Representative Earl F. Hilliard and Members of
His Family.
From approximately July 1992 until August 1996, with the
knowledge of Representative Hilliard, HFCC made expenditures
for salary and benefits to three individuals for performing
services for corporations owned or controlled by Representative
Hilliard and members of his family; while receiving these
salary and benefit expenditures these individuals did also
perform certain functions for HFCC. One of the three
individuals received regular expenditures from HFCC from
approximately July 1992 until January 1994. The disbursements
to this individual totaled approximately $23,961.67. Another of
the three individuals received regular expenditures from HFCC
from approximately August 1993 until May 1994. The
disbursements to this individual totaled approximately
$7,945.12. The third of the three individuals received regular
disbursements from HFCC from approximately April 1994 until
August 1996. The disbursements to this individual totaled
approximately $25,242.30. Including disbursements for health
care benefits, HFCC made over $60,000 in disbursements related
to these individuals during approximately July 1992 until
August 1996.
While paid by HFCC, these three individuals did perform
certain functions for HFCC; however, at the same time, these
three individuals also routinely performed administrative,
secretarial, bookkeeping, and other services for corporations
owned or controlled by Representative Hilliard, for which
services the payments from HFCC were also intended as
compensation. The corporations involved included American Trust
Life Insurance Company, American Trust Corporation, and
American First Bonding Corporation (also known as American
First Bail Bonding Corporation).
Alleged Violation
From approximately July 1992 until August 1996, HFCC made
expenditures to three individuals for performing services for
corporations owned or controlled by Representative Hilliard and
members of his family. In this manner, RepresentativeHilliard
converted campaign funds to personal use in excess of reimbursement for
legitimate campaign expenditures and expended campaign funds for a
purpose not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes,
in violation of former Rule 43, Clause 6 of the House of
Representatives, and through this described pattern and practice of
conduct, Representative Hilliard acted in a manner which did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of
former House Rule 43, Clause 1.
Count III: Patter and Practice of Conduct in Violation of Former House
Rule 43, Clause 6 and Former House Rule 43, Clause 1
Circumstances Relating to Alleged Violation: Expenditures
of Campaign Funds Relating To Use and/or Occupancy or Purported
Use and/or Occupancy of Office Space by the Campaign.
During approximately 1993 through 1996, Representative
Hilliard engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct in which
HFCC funds were converted to personal use by Representative
Hilliard in excess of reimbursement for legitimate and
verifiable campaign expenditures and expended by Representative
Hilliard for purposes not attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes.
First, during September through December 1996, at the
direction of Representative Hilliard, HFCC made expenditures of
$8,000 of HFCC funds to pay rent for office space in
Montgomery, Alabama owed pursuant to a lease Representative
Hilliard guaranteed for a private corporation, the American
Management and Marketing Corporation, that was owned in
substantial part by corporations owned or controlled by
Representative Hilliard and his family. While Representative
Hilliard stated through counsel that HFCC occupied this office
space on a part-time basis and provided to the Investigative
Subcommittee copies of brief declarations from two individuals
for the purpose of corroborating that statement, there is
substantial reason for the Investigative Subcommittee to
believe that HFCC did not lease, sublease, or occupy this
office space during the relevant period.
Second, during October 1993 through April 1995, at the
direction of Representative Hilliard, HFCC made expenditures
for rent substantially in excess of fair market value to the
African American Institute, a Section 501(c)(3) corporation
operated and controlled by members of Representative Hilliard's
family, which in turn transmitted these funds to a corporation
owned or controlled by Representative Hilliard and members of
his family.
Specifically, as early as 1992, HFCC began to make
expenditures of $600 per month for rent of space within a
building located in Birmingham, Alabama owned by the American
Trust Life Insurance Company (``ATLIC''), a corporation owned
and controlled at the time by Representative Hilliard and
members of his family. Beginning in April 1993, HFCC began to
make rent payments of $1,000 per month for rent of space in the
Birmingham, Alabama building; however no rent payments were
made in July or September 1993. Thereafter, in September 1993,
ATLIC sold the building at issue to the African American
Institute, a 501(c)(3) operated and controlled by members of
his family. There was no exchange of money in connection with
the sale of the building, and the sale was not an arms length
transaction.
Following the sale of the building, HFCC began to make
monthly payments of rent to the African American Institute of
$1,500 per month, an amount that substantially exceeded fair
market value for rent. The fair market value for space utilized
by HFCC within the building at issue was as low as $290 per
month depending on the amount and quality of space utilized by
HFCC. In addition, following the sale of the building to the
African American Institute, there was a pattern of sets of
payments between HFCC, ATLIC and the African American Institute
relating to monthly rent and mortgage payments. HFCC would
issue a check for $1,500 to the African American Institute for
rent; ATLIC would also issue a check for $1,500 to the African
American Institute rent; and the African American Institute
would issue a check to ATLIC for $3,000 for payment on the
mortgage note held by ATLIC. Per this pattern, while ATLIC
would write a check to the African American Institute for
$1,500 for a month's rent, these funds were returned to ATLIC
as part of a $3,000 mortgage payment paid by the African
American Institute.
Third, at the direction of Representative Hilliard,
following the resale of the building from the African American
Institute back to the American Trust Life Insurance Company in
April 1995 and continuing through July 1996, HFCC continued to
make expenditures for rent substantially in excess of fair
market value, but made such payments directly to corporations
owned and controlled by Representative Hilliard and members of
his family.
The aforementioned payments of rent by HFCC to the African
American Institute and to corporations owned and controlled by
Representative Hilliard and members of his family were not the
result of arms length negotiations by independent parties with
independent interests in the ordinary course of business.
During the period approximately October 1993 through July 1996
alone, HFCC made approximately 29 expenditures of rent that
totaled at least $53,100, a substantial portion of which
represented rent payments in excess of fair market value. To
the extent that rent payments in excess of fair market value
were paid by HFCC directly to corporations owned or controlled
by Representative Hilliard, and to the extent that such rent
payments were made indirectly to ATLIC through the African
American Institute, these payments represent a conversion of
HFCC funds to entities owned or controlled by Representative
Hilliard and members of his family.
Fourth, at the direction of Representative Hilliard, during
the time period that HFCC paid rent in connection with the
building purchased by the African American Institute from the
American Trust Life Insurance Company, HFCC subsidized the
other occupants in the building by paying utility expenses
incurred for the entire building. Those other occupants were
corporations owned and controlled by Representative Hilliard
and members of his family. Specifically, at least during the
period October 1993 through December 1994, no occupant of the
building other than HFCC made payments to the Alabama Power
Company, the Alabama Gas Company, Birmingham Water Works, or
BellSouth for utility services for the building in Birmingham,
Alabama. During that time period, HFCC made expenditures of
over $11,0000 to the aforementioned utility companies for which
HFCC received no reimbursement from any of the other occupants
of the building.
Alleged Violation
As described above, during approximately 1993 through 1996,
Representative Hilliard engaged in a pattern and practice of
conduct in which HFCC funds were converted to personal use by
Representative Hilliard and members of his family in excess of
reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable campaign
expenditures and were expended by Representative Hilliard for
purposes not attributable to bona fide campaign or political
purposes. This conduct included (1) the expenditure of $8,000
of HFCC funds to pay rent owed pursuant to a lease
Representative Hilliard guaranteed for the American Management
and Marketing Corporation in Montgomery, Alabama; (2)
expenditures for rent substantially in excess of fair market
value by HFCC made to a Section 501(c)(3) corporation, operated
and controlled by members of Representative Hilliard's family,
which in turn transmitted these rent expenditures to a
corporation owned and control by Representative Hilliard and
members of his family; (3) expenditures for rent by HFCC
substantially in excess of fair market value made directly to
corporations owned or controlled by Representative Hilliard and
members of his family; and (4) the expenditure of HFCC funds to
pay utility expenses incurred by corporations owned or
controlled by Representative Hilliard and members of his
family. In this manner, Representative Hilliard converted
campaign funds for personal use in excess of reimbursement for
legitimate campaign expenditures and expended campaign funds
for purposes not attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes, in violation of former Rule 43, Clause 6 of
the House of Representatives, and through this described
pattern and practice of conduct, Representative Hilliard acted
in a manner which did not reflect creditably on the House of
Representatives in violation of former House Rule 43, Clause 1.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, June 20, 2001.
Hon. Earl F. Hilliard,
Longworth House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Hilliard: By this letter, the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct formally and publicly reproves
you for violations of the Code of Official Conduct of the House
of Representatives.
Your conduct in violation of the Code of Official Conduct
is described in detail in the Statement of Alleged Violation
adopted by the Investigative Subcommittee and in the Report of
the Investigative Subcommittee. You have admitted to the
Statement of Alleged Violation, and to the factual allegations
therein, under penalty of perjury.
The conduct for which you are hereby sanctioned is
summarized below:
1. During the period April 1993 to March 1994, you engaged
in a pattern and practice of conduct whereby, at your
authorization and instruction, the Hilliard for Congress
Campaign (hereafter ``HFCC''), the political committee
authorized by you to receive contributions or make expenditures
on your behalf, made loans totaling more than $16,000 to three
individuals for purposes not attributable to any bona fide
campaign or political purpose.
2. During the period July 1992 to August 1996, you engaged
in a pattern and practice of conduct whereby, with your
knowledge, HFCC made expenditures to three individuals for
salary and benefits for performing services for corporations
owned or controlled by you and members of your family. In this
manner, you converted campaign funds to personal use in excess
of reimbursement for legitimate campaign expenditures and
expended campaign funds for a purpose not attributable to bona
fide campaign or political purposes.
3. During the period 1993 through 1996, you engaged in a
pattern and practice of conduct in which HFCC funds were
converted to personal use by you in excess of reimbursement for
legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures and expended by
you for purposes not attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes. Your pattern and practice of conduct
included (a) causing HFCC to make expenditures totaling $8,000
to pay rent owed pursuant to a lease you guaranteed for a
corporation owned in substantial part by you and members of
your family; (b) causing HFCC to make expenditures for rent
substantially in excess of fair market value to a Section
501(c)(3) corporation operated and controlled by members of
your family, which in turn transmitted these funds to a
corporation owned and controlled by you and members of your
family; (c) causing HFCC to make expenditures for rent
substantially in excess of fair market value directly to
corporations owned or controlled by you and members of your
family; and (d) causing HFCC to make expenditures to pay
utility expenses incurred by corporations owned or controlled
by you and members of your family.
With respect to each pattern and practice of conduct
separately described above, you violated Clause 6 of the Code
of Official Conduct, former Rule 43 (current Rule 23) of the
House of Representatives, which 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 the
campaign account not attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes.'' With respect to each pattern and practice
of conduct separately described above, you also violated Clause
1 of the Code of Official Conduct, former Rule 43 (current Rule
23) of the House of Representatives, which provided that ``[a]
Member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives
shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.''
In knowing violation of the Code of Official Conduct, you
expended funds from your campaign account for purposes not
attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes and
you converted campaign contributions to personal use. Your
improper use and conversion of campaign funds were accomplished
through several distinct means and over a period of years.
Through this extended conduct, monies contributed to your
campaign for our campaign were, instead, put by you to your
personal use and benefit and to the use and benefit of members
of your family.
You engaged in serious official misconduct that brought
discredit to the House of Representatives. The Investigative
Subcommittee and the full Committee duly considered that
misconduct. The Members of both bodies determined that you
should be publicly sanctioned. Your willingness, ultimately, to
admit to the misconduct set forth in the Statement of Alleged
Violation, summarized above, and to enter into a settlement of
this matter was significant in the Committee's determination to
accept the recommendation of the Investigative Subcommittee and
sanction you through a Letter or Reproval. We emphasize that a
Letter of Reproval is a formal sanction 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.
Sincerely,
Joel Hefley,
Chairman.
Howard L. Berman,
Ranking Minority Member.
APPENDIX II
----------
In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct submits this Report to the full Committee
pursuant to Committee Rule 24(p). This Report summarizes the
Subcommittee's findings in In the Matter of Representative
James A. Traficant, Jr. The Subcommittee is transmitting with
this report all motions, transcripts of evidence,
correspondence and other relevant items generated or received
by the Subcommittee during these adjudicatory proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 27, 2002, after receiving the Statement of Alleged
Violations (SAV) and associated pleadings and responses from
the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter, and acting
pursuant to Committee Rule 24, the Committee established an
Adjudicatory Subcommittee and set July 15, 2002, at 10 a.m. as
the date and time for the Adjudicatory Subcommittee to convene
its public hearing. By letter to Mr. Traficant on June 27,
2002, the Subcommittee notified Mr. Traficant of the
designation of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee and gave him
notice of procedures for the adjudicatory hearing as set forth
in Committee Rule 24.
On July 15, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 24(c) and
consistent with the other Committee and House Rules governing
these proceedings, the Adjudicatory Subcommittee commenced a
hearing to determine whether any counts in the SAV have been
proved by clear and convincing evidence. The adjudicatory
hearing continued through July 17, 2002. At the hearing,
Committee counsel presented evidence in support of the counts
in the SAV and Mr. Traficant presented evidence in his defense.
Committee counsel relied on certified copies of the transcript
and exhibits entered into evidence at the trial of United
States v. James A. Traficant, Jr., Case No. 4:01 CF 207
(N.D.OH). Mr. Traficant entered several exhibits, including
affidavits, audiotapes, transcripts and other documentary
evidence, into evidence at the hearing. Mr. Traficant called
four witnesses who testified at the hearing, Linda Kovachik,
Sandra Ferrante, Michael Robertson and Richard Detore.
Presentation of evidence and argument from Committee counsel
and Mr. Traficant ended on July 17, 2002.
After the hearing was adjourned, the Adjudicatory
Subcommittee began its deliberations in executive session. At
the conclusion of several hours of deliberation, the
Subcommittee made the following findings with regard to the
counts in the SAV, pursuant to the vote requirements of
Committee Rule 10. The Subcommittee determined that, as to the
counts which were proven by clear and convincing evidence,
those violations are of the most serious nature.
Count I
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count I was proven
by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that
from approximately December 1986 through approximately October
1996, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct
in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf
of Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, and companies they controlled,
for which Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, companies they
controlled, and others acting at their request agreed to and
did provide Representative Traficant with things of value,
including free labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use
at Representative Traficant's farm. Through this course of
conduct--for which Representative Traficant was convicted of
conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(b)(1)(A), 201(b)(2)(A), and 371--
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation
of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules
of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official
Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation
and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial
interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation
of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23).
Count II
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count II was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that from approximately April 1999 through approximately late
April 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on
behalf of Arthur David Sugar, Mr. Sugar's son, and companies
Mr. Sugar controlled, for which Arthur David Sugar and
companies he controlled, and others acting at his request,
agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things
of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or
equipment for use at Representative Traficant's farm. Through
this course of conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute
(see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(c) and 371)--Representative
Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably
on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the
Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to
adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in
violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted
compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt
of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted
from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the
Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).
Count III
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count III was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that from approximately November 1997 through approximately
March 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on
behalf of James J. Cafaro, U.S. Aerospace Group, LLC
(``USAG''), and/or other persons or entities affiliated with
USAG, for which James J. Cafaro, companies he controlled, and
others acting at his request, agreed to and did provide
Representative Traficant with things of value. The
aforementioned things of value included numerous meals, the
loan or provision of automobiles, and/or the payment for
repairs, slip fees, and related expenses for Representative
Traficant's boat. As part of the aforementioned course of
conduct, Representative Traficant, John J. Cafaro, and others
engaged in a scheme under which John J. Cafaro would use his
own or company funds to purchase Representative Traficant's
boat, but make it falsely appear that an employee of USAG was
purchasing the boat in his individual capacity. In connection
with this scheme, John J. Cafaro provided the funds necessary
to reimburse the employee for thousands of dollars in funds
expended for boat repairs and slip fees, and gave
Representative Traficant an envelope containing $13,000 in
cash, representing approximately one-half of the purchase price
of the boat. Through this course of conduct--for which
Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate
the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(c) and
371)--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in
violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter
of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his
beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of
influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in
violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23).
Count IV
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count IV was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that from approximately November 1998 through approximately
January 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course in
which he agreed to and did employ Raymond Allen Sinclair as a
member of Representative Traficant's congressional district
staff, for which Raymond Allen Sinclair agreed to and did
provide Representative Traficant with things of value,
including (1) an agreement to rent additional office space to
Representative Traficant for use as a congressional district
office, and (2) the payment by Raymond Allen Sinclair of $2,500
per month of his congressional salary to Representative
Traficant. Through this course of conduct--for which
Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate
the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(c) and
371)--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in
violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter
of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his
beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of
influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in
violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23).
Count V
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count V was proven
by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that
from approximately November 1998 through approximately January
2000, Representative Traficant demanded, sought, received,
accepted and agreed to receive and accept $2,500 per month from
the congressional salary of Raymond Allen Sinclair for or
because of Representative Traficant's official acts of hiring
and continuing to employ Raymond Allen Sinclair on his
congressional staff and of renting and continuing to rent space
used by Representative Traficant as a congressional office.
Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of receiving an illegal gratuity in violation of the
federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)(1)(B))--
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation
of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules
of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official
Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation
and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial
interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation
of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23).
Count VI
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VI was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that from approximately January 21, 2000 until approximately
February 29, 2000, Representative Traficant endeavored to
persuade Raymond Allen Sinclair to destroy evidence and to
provide false testimony and information to a federal grand
jury. Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant
was convicted of violating the federal obstruction of justice
statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503)--Representative Traficant (1)
acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House
of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of
Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere
to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation
of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); and (3) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of
the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service.
Count VII
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VII was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that from approximately the late 1980's until approximately
early 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he defrauded the United States of money and
property (1) by soliciting and accepting paymentsfrom the
salaries of congressional employees (including Raymond Allen Sinclair),
which salaries were drawn from funds of the United States Treasury; (2)
by directing members of his congressional staff to perform personal
labor and services to maintain and repair Representative Traficant's
boat, and which personal labor and services were performed by members
of his congressional staff for no compensation other than their
congressional salaries; and (3) by having members of his congressional
staff perform personal labor and services at Representative Traficant's
farm, which personal labor and services were performed by members of
his congressional staff for no compensation other than their
congressional salaries, and which labor and services included baling
hay, running and repairing farm equipment, maintaining and repairing
structures on the farm, building a horse corral, converting a corn crib
to another use, electrical repair, or plumbing repair. Through this
conduct--for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy
to defraud the United States (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371)--Representative
Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the
House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of
Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the
spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of
the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial
interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause
3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).
Count VIII
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VIII was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found
that on approximately April 15, 1999, Representative Traficant
made and subscribed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
Form 1040 on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar
year 1998, which income tax return was verified by a written
declaration by Representative Traficant that was made under the
penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue
Service. Representative Traficant did not believe the
aforementioned income tax return to be true and correct as to
every material matter in that he knew and believed that the
true and correct amount of his and his wife's total income was
in excess of the reported amount of $138,985. Through this
conduct--for which Representative Traficant was convicted of
filing a false tax return (see 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1))--
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation
of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); and (2) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of
the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service.
Count IX
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count IX was
proven by clear and convincing evidence. On approximately
October 16, 2000, Representative Traficant made and subscribed
a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040 on behalf
of himself and his wife for the calendar year 1999, which
income tax return was verified by a written declaration by
Representative Traficant that was made under the penalties of
perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Representative Traficant did not believe the aforementioned
income tax return to be true and correct as to every material
matter in that he knew and believed that the true and correct
amount of his and his wife's total income was in excess of the
reported amount of $140,163. Through this conduct--for which
Representative Traficant was convicted of filing a false tax
return (see 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1))--Representative Traficant
(1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the
House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (2) acted to
evade the laws and legal regulations of the United States in
violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government
Service.
Count X
The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count X was not
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee
dismissed Count X of the SAV.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 24(p), the Adjudicatory
Subcommittee reported its findings to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct on July 18, 2002, which concluded
the work of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee.
------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., May
22, 2002--Statement of Alleged Violations
I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
At all times relevant to the violations hereafter alleged,
the following provisions of law and House Rules, as summarized,
are relevant:
Clause 1 of Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23) provides that ``[a] Member . . . of the House shall conduct
himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably
on the House.''
Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House
Rule 23) provides that ``[a] Member . . . of the House shall
adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House
and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.''
Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House
Rule 23) provides that ``[a] Member . . . of the House may not
receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue
to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of
which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted
from his position in Congress.''
Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service
provides that ``[a]ny person in Government service should . . .
[u]phold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the
United States and of all governments therein and never be a
party to their evasion.''
18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(1)(A) provides, in pertinent part,
that ``[w]hoever . . . directly or indirectly, corruptly gives,
offers or promises anything of value to any public official or
person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers
or promises any public official or any person who has been
selected to be a public official to give anything of value to
any other person or entity, with intent . . . to influence any
official act'' shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as
provided in Title 18 of the United States Code.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(1)(A) provides, in pertinent part,
that ``[w]hoever . . . being a public official or person
selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly,
corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to
receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other
person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the
performance of any official act'' shall be fined or imprisoned,
or both, as provided in Title 18 of the United States Code.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that
Whoever . . . otherwise than as provided by law for
the proper discharge of official duty--
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises
anything of value to any public official, former public
official, or person selected to be a public official,
for or because of any official act performed or to be
performed by such public official, former public
official, or person selected to be a public official;
or
(B) being a public official, former public official,
or person selected to be a public official, otherwise
than as provided by law for proper discharge of
official duty, directly or indirectly demands seeks,
receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
anything of value personally for or because of any
official act performed or to be performed by such
official or person;
shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as provided in Title 18
of the United States Code.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 provides that ``[i]f two or more persons
conspire to commit any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner
or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act
to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.''
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 provides, in pertinent part, that
``[w]hoever
. . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening
letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or
endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in''
Title 18 of the United States Code.
26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206 provides in pertinent part that ``[a]ny
person who . . . [w]illfully makes and subscribes any return,
statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by
a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of
perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct
as to every material matter . . . shall be guilty of a felony
and'' shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as provided in
Title 18 of the United States Code.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
For each of the following alleged violations, the
Investigative Subcommittee has determined there is
``substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of
Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official
duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
has occurred.'' See Rule 20(e), Rules of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
At all times relevant to this Statement of Alleged
Violation, James A. Traficant, Jr. was a Member of the United
States House of Representatives representing the 17th District
of Ohio. References to Representative Traficant's farm refer to
a farm located in or in the vicinity of Greenford, Ohio,
operated by Representative Traficant and owned by
Representative Traficant or a member or members of his family.
References to Representative Traficant's convictions of a
criminal offense refer to the jury verdict in United States of
America v. James A. Traficant, Jr., Criminal No. 4:01CR207, in
the United States Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division.
Count 1: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23)
From approximately December 1986 through approximately
October 1996, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on
behalf of Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, and companies they
controlled, for which Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, companies
they controlled, and others acting at their request agreed to
and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value,
including free labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use
at Representative Traficant's farm. Through this course of
conduct--for which Representative Traficant was convicted of
conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18
U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(1)(A), 201(b)(2)(A), and 371)--
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditablly on the House of Representatives in
violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter
of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of theCode
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial
interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause
3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House rule 23).
Count II: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23)
From approximately April 1999 through approximately late
April 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on
behalf of Arthur David Sugar, Mr. Sugar's son, and companies
Mr. Sugar controlled, for which Arthur David Sugar and
companies he controlled, and others acting at his request,
agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things
of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or
equipment for use at Representative Traficant's farm. Through
this course of conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute
(see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(c) and 371)--Representative
Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably
on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the
Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to
adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in
violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted
compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt
of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted
from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the
Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).
Count III: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23)
From approximately November 1997 through approximately
March 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on
behalf of James J. Cafaro, U.S. Aerospace Group, LLC
(``USAG''), and/or other persons or entities affiliated with
USAG, for which James J. Cafaro, companies he controlled, and
others acting at his request, agreed to and did provide
Representative Traficant with things of value. The
aforementioned things of value included numerous meals, a
welder, a generator, the loan or provision of automobiles, and/
or the payment for repairs, slip fees, and related expenses for
Representative Traficant's boat. As part of the aforementioned
course of conduct, Representative Traficant, John J. Cafaro,
and others engaged in a scheme under which John J. Cafaro would
use his own or company funds to purchase Representative
Traficant's boat, but make it falsely appear that an employee
of USAG was purchasing the boat in his individual capacity. In
connection with this scheme, John J. Cafaro provided that funds
necessary to reimburse the employee for thousands of dollars in
funds expended for boat repairs and slip fees, and gave
Representative Traficant an envelope containing $13,000 in
cash, representing approximately one-half of the purchase price
of the boat. Through this course of conduct--for which
Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate
the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201(c) and
371)--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in
violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter
of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his
beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of
influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in
violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23).
Count IV: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23)
From approximately November 1998 through approximately
January 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he agreed to and did employ Raymond Allen
Sinclair as a member of Representative Traficant's
congressional district staff, for which Raymond Allen Sinclair
agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things
of value, including (1) an agreement to rent additional office
space to Representative Traficant for use as a congressional
district office, and (2) the payment by Raymond Allen Sinclair
of $2,500 per month of his congressional salary to
Representative Traficant. Through this course of conduct--for
which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to
violate the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 201(c) and 371)--Representative Traficant (1) acted
in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of
Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of
Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere
to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation
of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation
to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which
occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his
position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of
Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).
Count V: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23)
From approximately November 1998 through approximately
January 2000, Representative Traficant demanded, sought,
received, accepted and agreed to receive and accept $2,500 per
month from the congressional salary of Raymond Allen Sinclair
for or because of Representative Traficant's official acts of
hiring and continuing to employ Raymond Allen Sinclair on his
congressional staff and of renting and continuing to rent space
used by Representative Traficant as a congressional office.
Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of receiving an illegal gratuity in violation of the
federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)(1)(B))--
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation
of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules
of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official
Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation
and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial
interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation
of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23).
Count VI: Conduct in Violation of Clause I and Clause 2 of the Code of
Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23), and Clause 2 of the
Code of Ethics for Government Service
From approximately January 21, 2000 until approximately
February 29, 2000, Representative Traficant endeavored to
persuade Raymond Allen Sinclair to destroy evidence and to
provide false testimony and information to a federal grand
jury. Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant
was convicted of violating the federal obstruction of justice
statute (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503)--Representative Traficant (1)
acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House
of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of
Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere
to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation
of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); and (3) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of
the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service.
Count VII: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of
the Code of Official Conduct (Current House Rule 23)
From approximately the late 1980's until approximately
early 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of
conduct in which he defrauded the United States of money and
property (1) by soliciting and accepting payments from the
salaries of congressional employees (including Raymond Allen
Sinclair), which salaries were drawn from funds of the United
States Treasury; (2) by directing members of his congressional
staff to perform personal labor and services to maintain and
repair Representative Traficant's boat, and which personal
labor and services were performed by members of his
congressional staff for no compensation other than their
congressional salaries; and (3) by having members of his
congressional staff perform personal labor and services at
Representative Traficant's farm, which personal labor and
services were performed by members of his congressional staff
for no compensation other than their congressional salaries,
and which labor and services included baling hay, running and
repairing farm equipment, maintaining and repairing structures
on the farm, building a horse corral, converting a corn crib to
another use, electrical repair, or plumbing repair. Through
this conduct--for which Representative Traficant was convicted
of conspiracy to defraud the United States (see 18 U.S.C.
371)--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did
not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in
violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter
of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code
of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received
compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his
beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of
influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in
violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23).
Count VIII: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official
Conduct (Current House Rule 23), and Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service
On approximately April 15, 1999, Representative Traficant
made and subscribed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
Form 1040 on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar
year 1998, which income tax return was verified by a written
declaration by Representative Traficant that was made under the
penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue
Service. Representative Traficant did not believe the
aforementioned income tax return to be true and correct as to
every material matter in that he knew and believed that the
true and correct amount of his and his wife's total income was
substantially in excess of the reported amount of $138,985.
Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of filing a false tax return (see 26 U.S.C.
Sec. 7206(1))--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner
that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives
in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct
(current House Rule 23); and (2) acted to evade the laws and
legal regulations of the United States in violation of Clause 2
of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
Count IX: Conduct in Violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official
Conduct (Current House Rule 23), and Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service
On approximately October 16, 2000, Representative Traficant
made and subscribed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
Form 1040 on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar
year 1999, which income tax return was verified by a written
declaration by Representative Traficant that was made under the
penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue
Service. Representative Traficant did not believe the
aforementioned income tax return to be true and correct as to
every material matter in that he knew and believed that the
true and correct amount of his and his wife's total income was
substantially in excess of the reported amount of $140,163.
Through this conduct--for which Representative Traficant was
convicted of filing a false tax return (see 26 U.S.C.
Sec. 7206(1))--Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner
that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives
in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct
(current House Rule 23); and (2) acted to evade the laws and
legal regulations of the United States in violation of Clause 2
of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
Count X: Continuing Pattern and Practice of Conduct in Violation of
Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 3 of the Code of Official
Conduct (Current House Rule 23), and Clause 2 of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service
Representative Traficant engaged in a continuing pattern
and practice of official misconduct, through which he misused
his office for personal gain, and which comprised the following
instances of conduct, or any combination thereof: the instances
of conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II, III, IV, V and VII,
above, separately and inclusive, and/or the course of conduct,
during approximately 1990 through approximately 1998, in which
Representative Traficant agreed to and did perform official
acts on behalf of Pete Bucheit, for which Bernard ``Pete''
Bucheit and companies he controlled agreed to and did provide
Representative Traficant with things of value, including free
labor and materials for use at Representative Traficant's farm.
Through this continuing pattern and practice of misconduct
Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation
of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules
of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official
Conduct (current House Rule 23); (3) received compensation and
permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest,
the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly
exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3
of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and
(4) failed to uphold the laws and legal regulations of the
United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics
for Government Service.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2002.
Hon. Joel Hefley,
Chairman,
Hon. Howard L. Berman,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Re In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.
Dear Chairman Hefley and Ranking Minority Member Berman:
Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Rules of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, we herewith transmit the
attached Statement of Alleged Violations adopted unanimously by
the Investigative Subcommittee in the above-captioned matter.
Also attached is the Answer of the Respondent to the Statement
of Alleged Violations, and the following pleadings of the
Respondent and related responses of the Investigative
Subcommittee: the Respondent's Motion for a Bill of Particulars
dated June 3, 2002; the Investigative Subcommittee's response
to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars dated June 4, 2002
(granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part);
the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated June 14, 2002; and the
Investigative Subcommittee's response to the Motion to Dismiss
dated June 17, 2002 (denying the motion).
We also herewith transmit the evidence relied upon by the
Investigative Subcommittee to provide the charges set forth in
the Statement of Alleged Violations, which materials consist of
the certified trial transcript in United States of America v.
James A. Traficant, Jr., Criminal No. 4:01CR207 (N.D. Ohio)
(Eastern Division), and certified copies of exhibits admitted
into evidence in that trial.
In addition to memorializing the transmittal of the
aforementioned documents, this letter also constitutes the
Report of the Investigative Subcommittee to the full Committee
regarding this inquiry.
Background
This Investigative Subcommittee was established on April
17, 2002, and was given jurisdiction to determine whether
Representative Traficant violated the Code of Official Conduct,
or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct
applicable to his conduct in the performance of his duties or
the discharge of his responsibilities, with respect to any or
all of the matters for which Representative Traficant stood
trial in United States of America v. James A. Traficant, Jr.,
Criminal No. 4:01CR207 (N.D. Ohio) (Eastern Division).
During its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee obtained
and reviewed a complete certified transcript of Representative
Traficant's trial, as well as certified copies of all exhibits
admitted into evidence during that trial. The Investigative
Subcommittee also obtained and reviewed materials from the U.S.
Department of Justice that that department represented were
furnished to the government by Representative Traficant in
connection with his criminal prosecution. Those materials
included audio tapes, apparent bank records, and other
documents.
In accordance with Committee Rule 20(a)(3), the
Investigative Subcommittee provided Representative Traficant
with ``an opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a
statement, which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding
the allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of
the inquiry.'' By letter dated April 24, 2002, Representative
Traficant was invited to appear before the Investigative
Subcommittee at the offices of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct on May 1, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. As an alternative,
Representative Traficant was invited to submit a written
statement to the Investigative Subcommittee by May 1, 2002.
Representative Traficant did not provide any written
notification to the Subcommittee as to whether he would decline
his opportunity to submit a written statement or make an oral
statement, and in fact he did not submit a written statement by
May 1, 2002.\1\ Absent any notification or response from
Representative Traficant, and in the event that he would appear
to make an oral statement at the time scheduled, the
Investigative Subcommittee convened at 3:00 p.m. on May 1, 2002
for the purpose of hearing from Representative Traficant. As
the record of that meeting reflects, Representative Traficant
did not appear that day to make an oral statement, nor did he
submit a written statement pursuant to Committee Rule 20(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It was requested of Representative Traficant, in writing, that
he inform the Investigative Subcommittee by April 30, 2002 if he did
not intend to present a statement (either orally or in writing)
pursuant to Committee Rule 20(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a time after the adjournment of the aforementioned
meeting of the Investigative Subcommittee, the Investigative
Subcommittee received a letter from Representative Traficant
requesting that the Investigative Subcommittee furnish him with
a copy of the transcript of his criminal trial, and further
that he be granted a ``a 30-day extension from the time [he]
receive[d] the transcript to respond.'' \2\ After considering
his letter and the circumstances presented, the Investigative
Subcommittee determined to deny Representative Traficant's
request for a 30-day extension. The Investigative Subcommittee
determined, however, the particular interests of proceeding
expeditiously in this matter would be well-served by granting
his request for a copy of the trial transcript. Accordingly, on
May 3, 2002, the Investigative Subcommittee transmitted to
Representative Traficant a complete set of copies of the
certified trial transcript in United States of America v. James
A. Traficant, Jr., Criminal No. 4:01CR207 (N.D. Ohio) (Eastern
Division), as well as a complete set of copies of certified
copies of the exhibits admitted into evidence during the
trial.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Absent from Representative Traficant's request was a specific
indication as to what aspect of the Investigative Subcommittee's
proceedings his requested extension would apply.
\3\ The Investigative Subcommittee also provided Representative
Traficant with a compact disc containing uncertified copies of the
trial transcripts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 27(c), the
Investigative Subcommittee provided Representative Traficant
with a copy of a Statement of Alleged Violations (``SAV'') it
intended to adopt in this matter.\4\ On that date, the
Investigative Subcommittee further advised Representative
Traficant, inter alia, that the copies of certified transcripts
and exhibits it had previously furnished to him constituted all
the evidence it intended to use to prove the charges set forth
in the SAV that the Investigative Subcommittee intended to
adopt.\5\ In addition, although not obligated to do so under
any Committee or House Rule, in the interest of full
disclosure, the Investigative Subcommittee also determined to,
and did, make the materials furnished by the U.S. Department of
Justice in this matter available for inspection by
Representative Traficant at the offices of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In its accompanying letter to Representative Traficant, the
Investigative Subcommittee also notified him that it was considering
proceeding pursuant to Committee Rule 23(e)(2), which permits an
investigative subcommittee to reduce the time periods set forth in
Committee Rule 23 for a respondent to file an answer or motions. After
consideration of the issue and after receipt of a letter from
Representative Traficant objecting to a reduction in the aforementioned
time periods, the Investigative Subcommittee determined not to alter
the time periods set forth in Committee Rule 23.
\5\ The Investigative Subcommittee waived the requirement under
Committee Rule 27(f) that evidence provided pursuant to Committee Rule
27(c) shall be made available to a respondent only after the respondent
(and the respondent's counsel, if any) agrees in writing that none of
the evidence shall be made public until the time specified under
Committee Rule 27(f). The fact that the evidence in this matter was
already publicly known and available was a factor considered by the
Investigative Subcommittee in waiving Committee Rule 27(f) in the
instant matter.
\6\ The Investigative Subcommittee similarly offered to make
available to Representative Traficant the copies of the publicly
available motions, court orders, and other filings it possessed from
Representative Traficant's criminal trial. Representative Traficant was
further advised that although the Investigative Subcommittee did not
make a determination that it possessed any exculpatory evidence in this
matter, by providing him with, or making available to him, all the
evidentiary records in its possession, the Investigative Subcommittee
had complied with Committee Rule 26, concerning exculpatory evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2002, the Investigative Subcommittee voted to
adopt the attached SAV. Subsequent to this event,
Representative Traficant filed the aforementioned Motion for a
Bill of Particulars and Motion to Dismiss, to each of which the
Investigative Subcommittee responded. Representative Traficant
filed an Answer to the SAV on June 27, 2002.
Discussion of Statement of Alleged Violations
Dozens of witnesses gave sworn testimony during
Representative Traficant's criminal trial, and hundreds of
pages of documentary evidence were admitted into evidence
during that proceeding. Although the Investigative Subcommittee
took noticeof the fact that Representative Traficant was
indicted and found guilty of ten felony offenses, the charges in the
SAV are based on the certified transcript of and the certified copies
of the exhibits from his trial. We note for your information that under
Committee Rules, an investigative subcommittee may adopt a Statement of
Alleged Violations only if it determines ``that there is a substantial
reason to believe that a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or
of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
the performance of official duties or the discharge of official
responsibility by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives has occurred.'' See Committee Rule 20(e) (emphasis
added). It is the unanimous opinion of the Investigative Subcommittee,
however, that the trial testimony and other evidence far exceeded this
evidentiary standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We note that it was upon the same evidence that Representative
Traficant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of ten felony
offenses in his criminal trial, a higher burden of proof than either
``substantial reason to believe'' or ``clear and convincing evidence,''
which is the standard that would be applicable in an adjudicatory
hearing in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the counts in the SAV alleges egregious conduct
that reflects directly on Representative Traficant's official
and representative responsibilities. As charged in Count X of
the SAV, and as shown by the trial testimony and evidence,
during the time periods alleged in the SAV, Representative
Traficant engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of
official misconduct, through which he misused his office for
personal gain. To illuminate the nature of Representative
Traficant's conduct in this matter, several specific examples
of his conduct are summarized below.
First, as set forth in Count I of the SAV, Representative
Traficant agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of
Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, and companies they controlled, for
which Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, companies they controlled,
and other acting at their request agreed to and did provide
Representative Traficant with things of value, including free
labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use at
Representative Traficant's farm. Among other official acts, on
behalf of the Buccis and companies they controlled,
Representative Traficant intervened in matters pending before
the Ohio Department of Transportation and the United States
Department of Labor. David Dreger, a former deputy director
within the Ohio Department of Transportation testified that at
a meeting with Representative Traficant, Representative
Traficant communicated to him that there would be trouble for
that department if, in its enforcement of a contract with the
Buccis, it ``caused the Bucci brothers to lose their
business.'' Indeed, Anthony Bucci testified that in exchange
for the things of value provided by him and his brother to
Representative Traficant (including forgiveness of a nearly
$13,000 debt owed by Representative Traficant to the Buccis),
``we were going to own him.''
As set forth in Count II of the SAV, Representative
Traficant agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of
Arthur David Sugar, Sugar's son, and companies Sugar
controlled, for which Arthur David Sugar, companies he
controlled, and other acting at his request agreed to and did
provide Representative Traficant with things of value,
including free labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use
at Representative Traficant's farm. Among other official acts
performed by Representative Traficant for the Sugars,
Representative Traficant took actions in connection with the
incarceration of Arthur David Sugar's son following a DUI
conviction. For example, Representative Traficant wrote a
letter for attachment to a bond motion to be filed with the
Licking County Court for Common Pleas, and directed a staff
member to contact the director of a Youngstown half-way house
regarding Arthur David Sugar's son. After learning he was under
investigation, Representative Traficant gave Sugar an
unsolicited check for $1,142 and took other steps to conceal
his request for and acceptance of free labor and materials from
the Sugars.
As described in Count III of the SAV, Representative
Traficant agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of
John J. Cafaro, U.S. Aerospace Group, LLC (``USAG''), and/or
other persons or entities affiliated with USAG, for which John
J. Cafaro, companies he controlled, and others acting at his
request, agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant
with things of value. The aforementioned things of value
included numerous meals (worth approximately $3,675), a welder
and related supplies (worth approximately $3,050), a generator
(worth approximately $2,700), the loan or provision of four
automobiles, and/or the payment for repairs, slip fees, and
related expenses for Representative Traficant's boat (worth
approximately $26,000). As part of the aforementioned course of
conduct, Representative Traficant, John J. Cafaro, and others
engaged in a scheme under which Mr. Cafaro would use his own,
or company funds to purchase Representative Traficant's boat,
but make it falsely appear that an employee of USAG was
purchasing the boat in his individual capacity. In connection
with this scheme, Mr. Cafaro provided the funds necessary to
reimburse the employee for thousands of dollars in funds
expended for boat repairs and slip fees. Moreover, in addition
to the other expenditures he made or authorized regarding
Representative Traficant's boat, Mr. Cafaro gave Representative
Traficant an envelope containing $13,000 in cash, representing
approximately one-half of the purchase price of the boat. In
exchange for the aforementioned things of value, Representative
Traficant took numerous official actions to promote the laser-
guided technology marketed by USAG, including facilitating a
meeting between USAG officials and the Chairman of the Federal
Aviation Administration during which this technology was
flight-tested. When John J. Cafaro was asked during the trial
``[w]hat, if any, promises was the Congressman making with
regard to Army--the potential for Army contracts for USAG?'',
he testified that Representative Traficant ``said he had great
relationships with the military and armed forces subcommittee,
and that it was possible to get funding for this type of
equipment through that particular subcommittee.''
Counts IV and V of the SAV each relate to a course of
conduct by Representative Traficant in which he employed
attorney Raymond Allen Sinclair as a member of his
congressional district staff, in exchange for Mr. Sinclair's
agreement to rent additional office space to Representative
Traficant for use as a congressional district office, and to
pay Representative Traficant $2,500 per month for his
congressional salary. In his testimony, Mr. Sinclair described
in detail how he placed $2,500 in an envelope each month which
he deposited under the door of Representative Traficant's
private office, and how he continued to maintain his full-time
private law practice while a salaried congressional employee of
Representative Traficant. Also in connection with thisconduct,
Count VI of the SAV addresses Representative Traficant's effort to
persuade Mr. Sinclair to destroy evidence of salary kickbacks and to
provide false testimony to a federal grand jury. Mr. Sinclair detailed
in his testimony how at the direction of Representative Traficant and
in Representative Traficant's presence, envelopes used to transmit such
funds to Representative Traficant were burned in a tub in the basement
of Mr. Sinclair's office building. The partially burned envelopes were
admitted into evidence during Representative Traficant's trial.
Count VII of the SAV relates to a course of conduct in
which Representative Traficant defrauded the United States of
money and property (1) by soliciting and accepting payments
from the salaries of congressional employees (including Raymond
Allen Sinclair, former administrative assistant Henry DiBlasio,
and former district director Charles O'Nesti), which salaries
were drawn from the funds of the United States Treasury; (2) by
directing members of his congressional staff to perform
personal labor and services to maintain and repair
Representative Traficant's boat; and (3) by having members of
his congressional staff perform personal labor and services at
Representative Traficant's farm. The personal labor and
services of Representative Traficant's congressional staff were
performed at his farm and/or boat for no compensation other
than their congressional salaries. The labor and services on
behalf of Representative Traficant at his farm included baling
hay, running, and repairing farm equipment, maintaining and
repairing structures on the farm, building a horse corral,
converting a corn crib to another use, among other labor and
services. Among other witnesses that testified on this subject,
one former member of Representative Traficant's congressional
district staff, George Bucella, testified that be termed going
to the farm as ``going south,'' and that he did so to perform
work at Representative Traficant's farm between 100 and 300
different days. Richard Rovnak, a part-time employee in
Representative Traficant's district office, testified that at
Representative Traficant's direction, he spent most of his time
at Representative Traficant's farm doing work that included
plumbing, wiring, and other ``handyman'' work. Rovnak also
spent time in Washington, D.C. as part of his part-time
employment for Representative Traficant, but he performed no
duties at Representative Traficant's congressional office.
Instead, he performed work on Representative Traficant's boat
that included painting, varnishing, and replacing brass
fittings.
Counts VIII and IX relate to federal income tax returns for
the calendar years 1998 and 1999, which were made and
subscribed by Representative Traficant on behalf of himself and
his wife, and which income tax returns were verified by written
declarations by Representative Traficant that were verified
under penalties of perjury, and were filed with the Internal
Revenue Service. As set forth in these Counts, Representative
Traficant did not believe the income tax returns to be true and
accurate as to every material fact in that he knew he and his
wife's total income was substantially in excess of the amounts
reported in those returns. In essence, Representative Traficant
filed two false income tax returns with the Internal Revenue
Service that failed to report the substantial income accrued to
him in connection with the gratuities and/or bribes and salary
kickbacks he received and accepted during the calendar years
1998 and 1999.
Finally, as noted, Count X of the SAV charges
Representative Traficant with engaging in a continuing pattern
and practice of official misconduct, through which he misused
his office for personal gain, and which comprised the following
instances of conduct, or any combination thereof: the instances
of conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VII
of the SAV, separately and inclusive; and/or the course of
conduct in which Representative Traficant agreed to and did
perform official acts on behalf of Bernard ``Pete'' Bucheit,
for which Bucheit and companies he controlled agreed to and did
provide Representative Traficant with things of value. On
behalf of Bucheit, Representative Traficant intervened with
United States government authorities with respect to a contract
dispute between Bucheit's company and Prince Mishaal of Saudi
Arabia, and/or with respect to an investment in the Gaza Strip.
Officials contacted by Representative Traficant on behalf of
Bucheit included Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State
Madeline Albright, Secretary of State James Baker, United
States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Friedman, and United
States Ambassador to Kuwait Ryan Crocker, among other high
ranking United States officials. In exchange for these official
acts, Representative Traficant received free labor and
materials for use at Representative Traficant's farm. Among
others who testified they performed work at Representative
Traficant's farm at at the expense of Bucheit, David Manevich
testified that he repaired a wooden deck at Representative
Traficant's farm, as well as constructed a privacy fence,
enclosed a room on the deck, and built a gazebo, for which he
was paid $26,994 by Bucheit.
Based on the conduct alleged in the SAV, Representative
Traficant is charged in that document with violating multiple
provisions of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule
23), as well as a provision of the Code of Ethics for
Government Service. As charged in the SAV, with respect to the
conduct alleged in each and every one of the ten Counts in the
Statement of Alleged Violations, Representative Traficant
violated Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23), which provides that ``[a] Member of the House
shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall
reflect creditably on the House.'' In addition, with respect to
the conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI,
VII, and X of the SAV, Representative Traficant is charged with
violating Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current
House Rule 23), which provides that ``[a] Member of the House
shall adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House
and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.'' With
respect to the conduct alleged in each of Counts I, II, III,
IV, V, VII, and X of the SAV, Representative Traficant is
charged with violating Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct
(current House Rule 23), which provides that ``[a] Member . . .
of the House may not receive compensation and may not permit
compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any
source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence
improperly exerted from his position in Congress.'' Finally,
with respect to Counts VI, VIII, IX, and X of the SAV,
Representative Traficant is charged with violating Clause 2 of
the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which provides that
``[a]ny person in Government service should . . . [u]phold the
Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States
and of all governments therein and never be a party to their
evasion.''
In the view of the Investigative Subcommittee,
Representative Traficant violated the letter and spirit of each
of the aforementioned standards of conduct. Indeed, as noted
previously, the examples of Representative Traficant's
misconduct set forth in this letter are only a partial list of
the egregious misconduct for which Representative Traficant is
charged in the Statement of Alleged Violations. The charges in
the Statement of Alleged Violations are of the most serious
nature and are abundantly supported by the evidence in the
record, and which evidence demonstrates that Representative
Traficant continually traded his office and the duties he swore
to uphold for money and a wide range of other things of value.
Violations Not Charged in the Statement of Alleged Violations
As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee's jurisdiction
encompassed any and all of the matters for which Representative
Traficant recently stood trial. To the extent possible, in the
interests of clarity and in conducting its inquiry
expeditiously, the Investigative Subcommittee focused its
examination of the evidence to that relating to matters for
which Representative Traficant was indicted by a grand jury
and, subsequently, found guilty by a jury.
Specifically, the Investigative Subcommittee examined the
record to determine whether the evidence abduced during the
trial that resulted in Representative Traficant's conviction of
ten felony offenses also supported findings that Representative
Traficant committed violations of the Code of Official Conduct,
or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct
applicable to his conduct in the performance of his duties or
the discharge of his responsibilities. See Committee Rule
19(a). Although Representative Traficant was convicted of all
ten felony offenses for which he was indicted, with respect to
Count 10 of the indictment--the ``racketeering'' count--the
jury found that Representative Traficant committed only eight
of the 11 ``racketeering acts'' alleged.\8\ While the
Investigative Subcommittee reviewed the evidence pertaining to
the remaining three ``racketeering acts,'' and considered
whether the evidence regarding those acts supported independent
findings that Representative Traficant violated the Code of
Official Conduct (among other violations for which he could be
sanctioned by the House), it ultimately determined not to
charge those acts in the SAV. This determination was made not
because the evidence would not support a finding of a
violation, but to avoid any unnecessary controversy that may
have arisen as a result of the Investigative Subcommittee
charging a violation for the same acts that a jury did not
conclude Representative Traficant committed based upon the same
evidence. The Investigative Subcommittee made this
determination notwithstanding the different standards,
precedents, and burden of proof applicable to this ethics
process. In brief, the Investigative Subcommittee was satisfied
that the Statement of Alleged Violations it adopted more than
amply describes and encompasses, even without additional
charges, the wide range of ongoing official misconduct engaged
in by Representative Traficant, through which he repeatedly
misused his office for personal gain. The fact that additional
charges were not adopted should not preclude consideration or
charging of similar matters in future Committee inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ According to the ``Special RICO Verdict Form'' executed by the
jury, Representative Traficant committed numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
and 11 of the 11 alleged racketeering acts in the indictment. In order
to reach its finding of guilt, the jury had to conclude that
Representative Traficant committed a minimum of two of the 11
racketeering acts alleged by the federal grand jury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, again in the interest of expediting proceeding
where a Member has been found guilty of ten felony offenses,
the Investigative Subcommittee did not pursue to conclusion
other violations by Representative Traficant potentially
supported by the evidence in the trial record. For example,
clause 5(a)(1)(A) of current House Rule 25 (the ``Gift Rule'')
provides that a Member may not knowingly accept a gift except
as provided in clause 5 of House Rule 25. Clause 5(a)(2)(A)
defines the term ``gift'' as ``a gratuity, favor, discount,
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item
having monetary value,'' as well as ``gifts of services,
training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided
in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or
reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.'' In the
view of the Investigative Subcommittee, the same evidence in
the trial record that supported the charges in the SAV, in all
likelihood, could have supported a finding that Representative
Traficant received scores of gifts in violation of the Gift
Rule in the form of money, meals, automobiles, farm equipment,
free labor at his farm, and/or free labor to repair and
maintain his boat, among other gifts.\9\ The record did not
support a finding that Representative Traficant's acceptance of
these items fell within any exception contained in the Gift
Rule. Compounding the mere receipt of these apparent gifts--
potential violations in and of themselves--was the fact that
the gifts were often solicited by Representative Traficant, and
were in connection with official favors he performed for those
who gave him the gifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The trial record evinces other apparent gifts that may have
been received by Representative Traficant. For example, a licensed
private investigator who was a defense witness for Representative
Traficant testified that while his standard fee to clients was as high
as $150 per hour, he was only charging Representative Traficant a total
of one dollar. The Investigative Subcommittee was also concerned that
Representative Traficant may have received free or discounted aid from
one or more attorneys during his criminal trial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with his apparent receipt of gifts, and in
apparent violation of Clause 2 of current House Rule 26, and of
Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and despite
the instructions provided to him, Representative Traficant
failed to disclose the source, a brief description, and the
value of the aforementioned gifts on his annual financial
disclosure statements. We note that Representative Traficant
certified on each of his annual financial disclosure statements
that his statements thereon and on all attached schedules were
``true, complete and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and
belief.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The failure to disclose his receipt of gifts was not
Representative Traficant's only apparent violation of Clause 2 of
current House Rule 26. For example, during trial testimony it was
revealed that Representative Traficant had liabilities, such as a debt
of approximately $13,000 owed to Anthony Bucci or a company controlled
by him, that were not disclosed on his annual financial disclosure
statements as required by Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other possible violations of the Code of Official Conduct
or other rules stem from testimony indicating that
Representative Traficant may have lived in his congressional
district office with the rent for that office being borne by
taxpayers, and indicia in the trial record that a member of
Representative Traficant's congressional staff may have
provided Representative Traficant with trial assistance,
possibly in lieu of her official duties.\11\ This list is not
intended to be exhaustive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pending before the trial judge is a motion by the government
to find Representative Traficant in contempt of court for his conduct
during his criminal trial. While not explored by the Investigative
Subcommittee, conduct that would constitute contempt of court is also a
matter for which the House could sanction Representative Traficant. See
Clause 1 of current House Rule 23 (providing that ``[a] Member . . . of
the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall
reflect creditably on the House.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we noted, the Investigative Subcommittee determined not
to pursue separate allegations based on the aforementioned
apparent Gift Rule and other violations. The core conduct of
Representative Traficant for which he stood trial and which the
Investigative Subcommittee was established to investigate--that
is, his misuse of his official office for personal gain--is
fully encompassed in the Statement of Alleged Violations. To
pursue other avenues further would have required the
Investigative Subcommittee to undertake new and time-consuming
avenues of inquiry, and possibly to seek expansion of its
jurisdiction. It was the unanimous opinion of the Investigative
Subcommittee that the interests of the House would be best
served by proceeding as rapidly as possible to the adjudicatory
stage of the ethics process with respect to the matters alleged
in the Statement of Alleged Violations.
Recommendation
In light of the need to preserve public confidence in the
legislative process when a Member of Congress has been
convicted of ten felony offenses relating directly to his
misuse of public office, the Investigative Subcommittee
recommends that this matter proceed to an adjudicatory hearing
as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
Zoe Lofgren,
Ranking Minority Member.
Roger F. Wicker,
Member.
John Lewis,
Member.