[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.

                                
