Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the 109th Congress ends and I prepare to leave the House of Representatives after 20 years, I wanted to speak with my colleagues about congressional ethics one last time. This is an honorable House and an ethical House. Most House Members desire to serve honorably and ethically, a few do not. Yet, as James Madison observed in the Federalist 51, ``if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary . . . but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' The integrity of this House is important to our Nation and our integrity is not as it should be. As Members of Congress, we will never be perfect, but we can strive to be better. As Members of this House we must do better.

In 1952, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois wrote a small book that had wide influence, ``Ethics in Government.'' Douglas said the book grew out of his experiences on the Chicago City Council and in the Senate, where he served on a committee which investigated the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and chaired a Senate subcommittee which considered the entire range of ethics issues for those involved in public service. His book started with the following words, ``[T]he American public has become increasingly uneasy in recent months about the moral practices of many government officials.'' Sounds familiar, doesn't it? More than 60 years later, Congress is still struggling with many of the issues identified by Senator Douglas. We have made significant progress since the 1950s, but as this past Congress has shown, we have a long way to go.

Before discussing ethics in the Congress while I have served and what I believe we need to do in the future, I think it would be helpful to review some of the conclusions and recommendations of Senator Douglas. After reviewing that state of ethics during the time of the ruling Florentine House of the Medici as described by Machiavelli in ``the Prince,'' Douglas surveyed the state of ethics in Great Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries and of our own Congress during the period before the Civil War and during the Civil War. Despite the evidence of enormous corruption during those times, Douglas stated, ``[M]y own conclusion is, therefore, that there has been an appreciable long-time improvement in the level of political morals.'' However, he also noted that there are frequent periods of ``moral relapse,'' often after wars and that in his own time the standards of behavior were ``by no means good enough and need radical improvement.''

Let's look at what Douglas was concerned about. First, he identified six ``difficulties which

beset public officials and legislators.'' Leading the list was the items of gifts and entertainment. The next issue he described as the ``lure of past and future employment.'' Next, he identified the problem of the use of public office as a means of making money through various private business interests engaged in by members in addition to their congressional duties, such as insurance or practice of law. Douglas was extremely concerned by what he called, ``use . . . of public office to further . . . private business.'' Finally, Douglas identified the abuse of members of government resigning and ``then almost immediately appear[ing] as well-paid legal representatives of private agencies which are doing business with the Government.'' Douglas also identified this issue as the sale of influence. Senator Douglas recommended 2 remedies to these issues; better pay and an ethical code for public officials.

Douglas went on to identify 3 sets of additional ethics issues important to legislators: (1) The expense of campaigning for office, (2) relationships between legislators and administrative agencies, and (3) the conduct of congressional investigations and the treatment of witnesses before congressional committees.

Douglas concluded with 2 final recommendations: disclosure of private income and the suggestion that stocks and investments be sold or placed in trusts not under the control of the owner. Finally, Senator Douglas stated that ``more important than the institutional improvements which I have suggested is our need for a deeper set of moral values.'' He surmised that ``since the state is but the individual writ large, perhaps the disclosures of the past years may reawaken within us a sense of our individual failure to live up to the standards we inwardly cherish.'' Institutional reform begins with self-reform, he suggested.

Since the time of Senator Douglas, we have come a long way towards fulfilling his recommendations and establishing a modem ethics process. The Ethics Committee was established in 1967. Through the years, the committee has provided oversight and enforcement, sanction recommendations and investigations, and importantly, advice and education to Members and staff. Congress adopted Code of Ethics for Government Service was in 1958 and the House adopted a Code of Official Conduct in 1968. Significant campaign finance legislation was adopted in 1971, 1974, 2002 and House Rules now limit personal use of campaign funds. A limited private financial disclosure system was put in place in 1969 and made public in 1978. In 1989, Congress adopted rules limiting outside income and employment, banned honoraria and established post-employment restrictions. Finally, in 1995, strong gift and travel rules were adopted by the House and Congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act to counter public perception that special interests groups maintain undue influence over the legislative process and that Members are granted perquisites and privileges unavailable to average Americans. Each of these steps was significant in and of itself. Taken together they represent real progress.

Through this modem ethics process an established ethics committee has sanctioned Members of the House for inappropriate conduct on a nonpartisan basis. More importantly, the Ethics Committee has provided thousands of letters to Members and staff advising them how to navigate the web of ethics rules and procedures. In my opinion, the advice and education process, though unsung, is the most valuable asset the House has received from the Ethics Committee.

Under the modem ethics system our constituents now have a good idea of our income and assets. Members are restricted from outside income and honoraria of the sort that concerned Senator Douglas and created the potential, the appearance and sometimes the actual existence of a conflict of interest. Gifts have been limited and official business funded by private groups is publicly disclosed.

The tide of power in Washington turned again in November. With power comes great responsibility. Knowing that Congress is an institution, we can find comfort in the fact that faces may change but purpose remains. During the years we as elected officials represent our home districts, our people, our values, we should hold ourselves to higher standards because we have been given the power to change law, to create law, and to fund our government. And when those standards weaken in the House, we monitor each other through the use of the Ethics Committee. Real ethics reform begins and ends with enforcement of the rules and advice and education by the Ethics Committee.

Since its inception in 1967, the Committee on Standards for Official Conduct, informally known as the House Ethics Committee, has been unique in the House of Representatives. It is the only standing committee in which membership is equally divided between each party. The make-up of the committee is intended to provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the committee's activities and to help ensure that the committee serves well the people of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees of the House.

I have been in the position to serve on the Ethics Committee as a member and as chairman. During my service, I have come to the conclusion that the process works if leadership allows it to. Having an equally divided committee encourages a working relationship that has rarely been equaled on other committees. While serving as chairman, all of our actions were consensus and most were unanimous. I told each new member to leave his partisanship at the door and they did.

I would be hard pressed to remember a time when Congress was not under scrutiny but in recent times, we have come under a direct dissection and search for credibility. To be a credible ethics process, bipartisanship must exist not only in committee deliberations and actions, but also in the development of the rules under which those deliberations and actions will occur.

I believe some of our credibility disappeared during the 109th Congress, when the House leadership fast-tracked legislation and called on party loyalty to pass rules changes for the Ethics Committee during a party-line vote. This is a misfortune that should be remedied in the 110th Congress.

The vote on the ethics process should be separate and apart from the vote on the House rules. The vote on the House rules is a party-line vote, the vote on the ethics process should not be. I see it as a duty for each member to make an individual vote not a party-line basis but on the basis of what would be the best ethics process for the House. The January 2005 vote signified a major detour from a bipartisan ethics process.

Besides the actual rule changes, which would have weakened the Ethics Committee both in its ability to do its job and as a bipartisan institution, I am troubled by the process leadership engaged in to fast-track the rules changes. Despite numerous requests by the Ethics Committee, leadership did not consult the committee on any of the changes they proposed and publicly released the text of these rules only a few hours before they were to be voted upon. As a result of protest by myself and others, some of the proposed rules changes were dropped immediately. Fortunately, the rest were dropped after months of unnecessary dispute. So the end result was that the rules were not changed permanently, but the process used by the House leadership damaged both the ethics process in the House and the House as an institution.

Prior to this misguided effort, the Ethics Committee has almost 40 years of bipartisan tradition. Sure, the process has not always been perfect, but the House has had a tradition of addressing any imperfections through the use of a bipartisan process. From its very beginning, the rules for the Ethics Committee were the results of a bipartisan panel composed of six Democrats and six Republicans. To continue working without undue influence, it is imperative to develop the rules in a bipartisan manner. All significant changes in the ethics process over the years, principally in 1976-77, 1989-1991 and 1997, were adopted after bipartisan task forces looked at the issues or a bipartisan consensus was reached before passage. As I have stated repeatedly, if the House is to have a meaningful, bipartisan ethics process, ethics reform can be made only after thoughtful, careful consideration on a bipartisan basis.

Why, at this time when partisanship dominates virtually every aspect of political life, is bipartisanship necessary in the ethics process? The reason, quite simply, is that if the ethics process were to be dominated by the majority party, whichever party that might be, it would have no credibility whatsoever. Such an ethics process would almost certainly degenerate into simply another tool of partisan warfare and thereby become a farce.

I also have to note, that both parties in the House are guilty of misusing the ethics process from time to time, most notably during what Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann call the period of ``the politics of scandal.'' During this period in the late 1980's and continuing through 1997, both parties alternatively used the ethics process to attack and eventually destroy one Democratic Speaker, Representative James Wright of Texas and one Republican Speaker, Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia. During the 104th Congress, virtually every member of the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House had an ethics complaint filed against them.

As a result of broad dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle regarding the Gingrich matter, the 1997 task force made positive recommendations that were adopted by the House. As a result both parties disavowed the ``politics of scandal,'' with the result that between 1997 and 2004, only one ethics complaint was filed against a House member, down from a peak of over 26 filed between the Wright case in 1989 and 1996. In 2004, a

complaint was filed against the majority leader, Representative DeLay, and in my opinion, the political use of the ethics process by both parties began again.

Some commentators have called the period between 1997 and 2004 an ``ethics truce.'' I don't believe that is the proper term because the Ethics Committee was clearly engaged in aggressive investigation of misconduct during this time period, with many of the investigations self-initiated by the committee. During this period the Ethics Committee, while the House was under Republican control, followed the facts, investigated both Republicans and Democrats. For instance, the Ethics Committee conducted a thorough and exhaustive investigation of Representative Jay Kim of California during 1997 and 1998. While Representative Kim pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors in court regarding violations of Federal campaign laws, the investigative subcommittee charged him with numerous additional charges, including false statements, improper gifts, improper financial disclosure and an attempt to improperly influence a witness.

In the investigation against another Republican, Representative E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster, while the complaint had been filed in 1996, the Ethics Committee again conducted an exhaustive 4-year investigation into this powerful committee chairman, often working directly with the Department of Justice, which resulted in Representative Shuster being cited for ``serious official misconduct.''

A third investigation, involving Democratic Representative Corrine Brown of Florida, which was self-initiated by the committee, did not result in any charges, but the committee noted her actions demonstrated poor judgment and ``created substantial concerns regarding. . . appearance of impropriety and the reputation of the House.''

Also during the period of so-called ``truce,'' the Ethics Committee self-initiated a second investigation against a Democrat, Representative Earl Hilliard of Alabama, in 1999. In 2001, Representative Hilliard admitted ``serious official misconduct.''

In 2001, the committee received the one complaint filed against a Member during this period. On July 16, 2001, Representative Peter Deutsch of Florida filed a complaint against Representative Steve Buyer of Indiana, alleging improper use of official resources for political purposes. The committee unanimously dismissed the complaint on August 1, 2001.

On April 11, 2001, Representative James Traficant of Ohio was convicted in Federal court of conspiracy to violate Federal bribery and gratuities statutes, receipt of an illegal gratuity, obstruction of justice, defrauding the Government, racketeering and tax evasion. The committee self-initiated an investigation and after a 3-day public hearing, recommended expulsion. On July 24, 2002, the House voted to expel Representative Traficant. The peer review process contemplated by the Constitution was truly in play during this process, as a very close friend of Representative Traficant served on the Ethics Committee during this period and felt duty-bound to cast a vote to expel his friend. This member, a former county prosecutor and defense counsel, while voting to expel Representative Traficant, ensured the committee held meticulously to its rules and afforded the respondent every ounce of due process mandated by the committee's procedures. Another peer of Representative Traficant from Ohio, a former judge and county prosecutor, also judged her colleague in this process. The committee was ably served during this process by the experience of another member, who tried numerous death-penalty cases before coming to Congress.

Another matter investigated by the committee during this period was the investigation into allegation of bribery during the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Act. The committee also self-initiated this investigation. During this investigation the committee deposed the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and numerous other senior Members of the House. The investigation ultimately resulted in the admonishment of three Republican Members, Representative Tom DeLay, Representative Candace Miller of Michigan and Representative Nick Smith of Michigan on September 30, 2004. It is important to note that the committee admonished Representative Smith for public statements that threatened to impugn the integrity of the House and for failure to cooperate with the committee investigation.

In summary, during the period of so-called truce, the committee self- initiated serious investigations. To me, this demonstrates not a truce, but a return to a committee dedicated to the investigation of serious matters in a nonpartisan way. As an additional note, during the 108th Congress, the committee noted it either commenced or carried over 10 investigations from the 107th Congress.

From 1997, when I served my first term until 2004 while serving my last, we as a committee gave mostly unanimous or overwhelmingly bipartisan conclusions. The committee worked. Deadlock never reared its ugly head. Partisanship was left at the door. And careful deliberation carried us to our conclusions.

This was true even with the diverse nature of the committee's membership. While I served on the committee the chairmen were from Utah, Texas and Colorado and the ranking minority members were from California and West Virginia. Members of the committee were from Ohio, Washington, Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and California. We had lawyers, non- lawyers, former judges, former prosecutors, former defense counsels, businessmen, big-city members and members from rural America. We also had liberals and conservatives. Still, almost every decision was unanimous and every decision was nonpartisan.

This past Congress was noted for scandal, further emphasizing the need for a strong ethics process in the House. While ultimately the criminal justice system and the voters addressed most of these cases, the lack of a functioning Ethics Committee during most of this Congress was glaring. At a time when Representative Tom DeLay of Texas was indicted and Representatives Duke Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio were convicted of bribery, the Ethics Committee was not functioning. This was also the period of the Abramoff scandal and the search warrant of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana's office. Only at the end of the Congress was the committee able to effectively investigate allegations involving former Representative Mark Foley of Florida. An ongoing investigative subcommittee inquiry into Representative Jim McDermott of Washington was also continued during the Congress but no result has been reached.

Finally, this past Congress lost credibility by failing to adopt significant ethics reform. The ethics and lobbying reform package proposed by the House leadership was so weak that I actually voted against it, believing it was designed to make people believe we were doing something when we really were not. Denying former Members access to the House gym and the House floor did not address the real ethical issues confronting the 109th Congress.

The Senate did little better. I believe the public took note of this failure.

H.R. 4975, the legislation narrowly adopted by the House, while addressing lobbying reform, did not go far enough, and was silent on reforming the rules that govern the ethics process in the House itself. We had a serious opportunity to implement comprehensive ethics reform in the House, but we did not take advantage of it.

The importance the new Congress places on ethics will define its character. Congress has the duty to protect the integrity of the institution and within that duty, every member must hold himself accountable for his own actions as well as those of our colleagues. I also recommend that once members on the Ethics Committee are appointed, the leadership should stay out of the ethics process.

I further urge the new Congress to use a different process than used in January 2005 to adopt the new ethics rules for the House. We have done a great disservice to ourselves by injecting partisanship in the ethics process and the consequences of that vote show in the form of stalemate during most of the last Congress. It is my hope that a real analysis of the rules is undertaken when deciding on changes.

Based on my experience on the Ethics Committee, I, along with Representative Hulshof, have suggested reforms to the House ethics procedure that were not included in H.R. 4975. Our bill, H.R. 4988, did three things the passed legislation does not. Our proposal gave the Ethics Committee broader subpoena power during informal investigations, which is when the key decision is made whether to fully investigate a potential violation. Our bill would strengthen the independence of the chairman and ranking member by giving them presumptive 6-year terms like other chairmen. And our bill would strengthen the independence of the Ethics Committee staff by making this a career office, like the Parliamentarians office, yet with the accountability all staff should have.

The House should also consider the earmark reform adopted late in the 109th Congress. We need more accountability and transparency in the appropriations process.

Another unnecessary and unfortunate act by leadership during this past Congress was the replacement of two very good members of the committee before the end of their terms. One of them had chaired an investigative subcommittee that recommended the admonishment of Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader, and both had participated in subsequent committee admonishments of Representative Delay. This gave the appearance and in my opinion, the reality of retribution. They, I believe, were being punished for doing the right thing.

The third unnecessary and unfortunate act in the past Congress was to weaken the independence and nonpartisanship of the Ethics Committee staff. One of the reforms instituted in 1997 was the requirement that the committee staff be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. From 1997 through 2005, the committee started the process of developing an independent, career staff. Many of the staff hired during that period of time were hired from off the Hill, including several with backgrounds at the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia, the Federal Election Commission, the District of Colombia Bar Association, and related agencies. While the staff of the committee has to have a strong understanding of how Congress works, I think it was a good tradition to include on the staff nonpolitical career attorneys who are able to step back from the intense political nature most congressional staff bring to their positions. In February 2005, the incoming chairman removed the committee's chief counsel and a member of the nonpartisan investigative staff. These actions, in my opinion violated the spirit and tradition of the Ethics Committee's charge to assemble staff in a professional and nonpartisan way. I hope the incoming leadership of the committee sees fit to return to the tradition of an independent and nonpartisan staff.

Turning to reform proposals again, one idea that is repeatedly suggested by many is the concept of an ethics commission or an ethics counsel. Some describe the office as an independent office of public integrity. As noted by Ornstein and Mann in their book, ``The Broken Branch,'' the ethics bills passed in 2006 failed to include adequate enforcement mechanisms. These proposals are one way to fill this gap. Another way, is to strengthen the Ethics Committee itself. Under these proposals an outside group of non- members, most likely former members or retired judges or other ``wise men'' of some sort, would either make recommendations to the Ethics Committee or actually conduct investigations for the Ethics Committee. Certainly the names mentioned for these positions are the sort of people who would be fair and nonpartisan. Similar procedures are used by the House of Commons in London and by the Kentucky and Florida legislatures here in the United States. I have given this concept great thought. While I believe there is some merit to having a system where conduct is judged by officials who are removed from the political process, thus removing the temptation of partisanship from the ethics process, I am not convinced we need to do this. While peer review is extraordinarily difficult, in fact one of the most difficult duties I faced as a Member of Congress, I think only an internal policing system using fellow members judging the ethical conduct of members of the House is important. I believe this for two reasons. First, the Constitution requires it. Second, I believe it is important for fellow members to decide whether House rules have been violated and whether a specific act of conduct is appropriate or not. The Justice Department is the external mechanism when laws have been broken.

The source of the power of the committee to recommend and the House to impose sanctions on the conduct of members is in the Constitution, which provides that each House may ``punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' Art. I, &5, cl. 2. Unless the Constitution is altered, I can see no way Congress can place this responsibility on other shoulders.

The key provision in the Code of Official Conduct adopted by the House in 1968, is House Rule 23, clause 1. It states, ``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.'' Combined with House Rule 23, clause 2, which mandates Members to ``adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House,'' these two rules have the practical effect of allowing Members to judge using the current standards of the House. While subjective, the standard is certainly one that every member should be able to meet. It needs to be subjective because what the House considers to be inappropriate conduct changes over time. For example, in the 1980's two Members were censored for sexual conduct with pages. I believe that a Member found to have committed the same conduct in the current Congress would be expelled.

Another component of standards of conduct used to judge Members is the appearance standard that has been used by the Ethics Committee with increasing frequency in recent Congresses. Based on rule 23, clause 1 and other standards of conduct, the committee has long cautioned members ``to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action.'' The primary concern regarding the appearance of misconduct is that it undermines public confidence in the integrity of the House. The committee has specifically endorsed a rule by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics directing that Senators should avoid the appearance that campaign contributors receive special access and instructed that members of the House should adhere to the same rule with regard of official access. In 1989, the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics articulated the concern that gifts to Members may create an appearance of impropriety that may undermine the public's faith in government. The Ethics Committee has cited this concern in both the Ethics Manual and its Gift and Travel Booklet and members were publicly sanctioned or cautioned under this standard in 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1995. Any judgment of a Member under the appearance standard can only be done by another Member of the House. It would not be fair or right to have outsiders, even former members, judging a current Member for the appearance of their actions.

Finally, as Senator Douglas stated so long ago, and many colleagues and commentators have echoed since, we must clean up campaign financing. Thus, I introduced a bill in this Congress to ban leadership PACs. Watching our prospective committee leaders scramble for money in order to buy their positions demeans all of us. Fundraising is also nearly a full time job for many members of both parties. Lobbyists, the backbone of the process, are even tired of the obligation, the requirement, of giving, giving, giving to the politicians. The question of impropriety can not help but be raised when the amount of money solicited and poured into other's campaigns determines whether a Member attains a leadership position or committee chairmanship. Money cannot be the price of admission into leadership.

In concluding, I want to thank the Members of the House of Representative who served with me on the Ethics Committee while I was chairman. These include Representatives Doc Hastings of Washington, Judy Biggert of Illinois, Representative Hulshof, Representative LaTourette, former Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, former Representative Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Representative Tubbs Jones, Representative Gene Green of Texas, Representative Lucille Royball Allard of California, Representative Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Representative Martin Sabo of Minnesota, and Representative Ed Pastor of Arizona. In particular I want to thank Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, who served as the ranking minority on the Shuster investigative subcommittee and came back to serve on the investigative subcommittee for Representative Traficant. Finally, I must thank the two distinguished ranking minority members I served with, Representative Howard Berman of California and Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Each served with honor during difficult times and each never acted or mentioned a partisan issue to me while we were involved in committee matters.

I also want to thank the fine professional staff of the Ethics Committee. Starting with Joanne White, our administrative assistant who insured the committee functioned so efficiently; other assistants Christine Stevens, Sean Kelley, Preston Johnson, Peter Johnson, and Amelia Snider; our counsels Kenneth Kellner, Bernadette Sargeant, John Sassaman, Reed Slack, Susan Pohl, Stacey Duffey, Peter van Hartesfeldt, Susan Olson, and Carol Dixon. Special thanks goes to Representative Berman's counsel Bari Schwartz and Representative Mollohan's assistant, Colleen McCarty. The committee was further assisted by two distinguished chief counsels during this period, Robert Walker and John Vargo. Finally, I want to thank my two counsel's while I was chairman, Virginia Johnson and Paul Lewis. Rob Walker and Virginia Johnson provided vital support and assistance during the Traficant matter and John Vargo and Paul Lewis did the same during the complaint filed against Representative DeLay at the end of my tenure.

When I began my service in this House 20 years ago, I never thought I would serve on the Ethics Committee. I certainly never thought I would serve as its chairman. Yet, I now believe it is my duty to speak to you one last time regarding ethics. Ethics advice in this House must be fair, impartial, and nonpartisan. Ethics reform in this House must be fair, impartial, and bipartisan. Ethics enforcement in this House must be fair, impartial and bipartisan. The leadership of both parties should keep their hands off the ethics process once the rules are adopted and the members are assigned to the Ethics Committee. I hope a strong ethics reform package is passed on the first day of this new Congress. But we must do more. I urge the next Congress on the first day to also establish a bipartisan task force to draw on proposals adopted on that first day but to do more and to do better. The work of the 1997 Bipartisan Ethics Reform Task Force is instructive on how major changes in the ethics rule should be made. The task force labored on its recommendations for 4 months, taking testimony from House Members and outside experts in public hearings as well as executive session. It is evident from the task force's final report that it spent hours and days in studying, discussing

and voting upon a variety of rules changes. With so much at stake in the ethics rules for both individual Members and the House as an institution, such open, careful consideration of rules changes is absolutely necessary.

John Barry, the author of ``The Ambition and Power,'' about ethics investigation of Representative Wright, described our Capital as the grandest building in this Nation. I believe our grandest building should also be a cathedral. A cathedral of integrity. Senator Douglas urged each member of Congress to consider the need for a deeper set of moral values. I ask each of my colleagues and the incoming Members of the House to consider the same.

Mr. Speaker, as the 109th Congress ends, and I prepare to leave the House after 20 years, I want to speak with my colleagues one last time about ethics, and I have here 32 pages of analyses and recommendations, which I will not bore you with, nor do we have the time.

But I have had the if not unique experience, at least the unusual experience of being on the committee and being chairman of the committee for 8 years, and I have seen the best and the worst of this House of Representatives. I can tell you that my analysis is that this is an honorable House, and it is an ethical House. Most House Members desire to serve honorably and ethically. A few do not.

The integrity of this House is important to our Nation, and our integrity is not as it should be. As Members of Congress, we will never be perfect, but we can strive to be better.

As Members of the House, we must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

And I would like to thank the chairman of this committee and the ranking member of the committee both. You have earned your pay all the way through, but particularly in the last few weeks as we have struggled to get this conference report through and actually bring this bill to the floor; and I appreciate the yeomen effort that both of you have put in.

I don't know if I should, but I guess I will.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Thank you, Mr. McHugh. I appreciate that very much and the kind words Mr. Skelton said earlier.

You know, there is a lot that I am going to miss about Congress; and more than anything else is my service on this committee. Because you felt every day you were working on this committee that you were doing something worthwhile, something that was important for America. I am so privileged to have done this with the wonderful people that are on the committee and also on the staff. We do have an absolutely outstanding staff that we are very proud of.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Skelton, thank you so much. You have been such a good friend over the years.

And I also would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Ortiz, Solomon Ortiz. He and I have been teammates leading the Readiness Committee but before that leading the Military Construction Committee.

I would guess that we have agreed on 95 percent or more of everything we have dealt with during this period of time. In fact, I can't think of anything, Solomon, that we have not agreed on, but there might have been something. But, obviously, if we did not agree, we disagreed in a professional, pleasant, friendly way and moved on to try to do what is best for our troops and for the defense of this country. Solomon, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you.

Mr. Speaker, you know, despite 5 years of demanding combat operations, our Nation's military remains the most effective, most powerful, most ready force in the world. However, it comes as no surprise that the wear and tear of the years of wartime activities have resulted in increased funding requirements for training, operations, equipment and maintenance.

Recognizing this, the Readiness Subcommittee has conducted rigorous oversight on military readiness through hearings, classified briefings, and visits with military personnel in the field. Our oversight efforts led the committee to include in this conference report both funding and policy actions intended to further enhance the readiness of our military forces.

The most striking example is the inclusion of nearly $24 billion within the supplemental budget accounts for the repair, modernization, and replacement of equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money will satisfy all past and current reset requirements of the Army and Marine Corps.

I suspect, Mr. Hunter, you have probably already mentioned this, but this is the high point of our bill. This is so important.

The conference report also includes important policy initiatives that will improve readiness and allow Congress to better monitor readiness- related developments within the services, such as:

A requirement that the Secretary of Defense fully fund equipment reset for all of the services, equipment for Army mobility, modality, and Army prepositioned stocks;

A requirement for the Department of Defense to create a uniform strategy policy for the prepositioning of materiel and equipment; and

A mandate for continued capital investment into our depot maintenance facilities.

In addition to such efforts, this conference report also authorizes more than $13 billion for military construction projects, more than $4 billion for family housing, and $5.6 billion for implementation of the 2005 base closure rounds. These funds are critical for both quality of life and military readiness.

I would like to add here that I hope we will not use these base closure moneys to do other things, because it is important if we are going to do base closure procedures that we do it and we get these properties back into some useful use.

In conclusion, this conference report provides the necessary funding and policy changes to improve our Nation's military readiness. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for this very important bill.

You know, in 20 years that I have been here, Mr. Skelton, I am not proud of everything we have done. I am proud of some things we have done, but I am not proud of everything we have done. But I can tell you I am very proud of this bill. It is a good bill, as you said and as Mr. Hunter said. We need to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Upstate New York (Mr. McHugh), who works absolutely tirelessly as chairman of our Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), a great member of our committee and a distinguished Vietnam War veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is chairman of our Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a friend who came to Congress at the same time I did and who does such an enormously important job on our committee.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Weldon, thank you very much. I thank all of you for the kind words that you said about my service on this committee. But it is really my great pleasure and honor to have been able to serve with all of you, both staff and Members.

Curt has been as tireless as anybody. As I introduced people going through this exercise here, each one I wanted to say so much more about, because I have been there with them through the late nights and long hearings and so forth as we struggle. Sometimes we disagree about details between ourselves. Even on the Democrat side or the Republican side, there is some disagreement sometimes, but our hearts are all together and our focus is all together, and that is the defense of this Nation, and our hearts are with the troops.

I want to particularly thank our chairman, Duncan Hunter. Golly, I couldn't have served with a better chairman than Duncan Hunter. Duncan came to my district when he didn't know me, when I was running, Curt, as you were in the summer of 1987, and he came and helped me in my election effort. Little did I know that these 20 years later, we would be serving together in this very important job.

Mr. Hunter, you are a great chairman, and I appreciate it so much.

Mr. Skelton, of course, you and I have been friends for a long time. I kid you that I have named everything in your part of Missouri after you. I probably haven't gotten everything done, but whatever we have gotten done, you deserve it. I appreciate your work too.

Isn't it something to see how bipartisan this effort is when we get to this stage? It is nice to see that here. You don't see that very much. It is because we all have the same goals and the same purpose. Sometimes we have different roads to get there, but the same purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage strong support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5122), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in the gentleman from Texas' home State, when you have struck oil, stop drilling.

And you have struck oil here, and we are not objecting. Trying to take care of our veterans in the best way we possibly can is not a Democrat or a Republican thing. It is not a partisan thing. It is a thing that I think both sides of the aisle feel very, very strongly about.

With that, I don't think I have any further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time, unless you are ready to wind this up.

I may have one speaker who has just arrived.

I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Buyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just point out something here today. I think we have seen something we rarely see on this floor with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Buyer; we have seen an actual discussion of the issue where we actually debate the issue, and on both sides, you have intelligent comments being made rather than people getting up and reading a statement and talking past each other. I just want to commend both of these gentlemen for the quality of debate that we have just heard on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to commend Mr. Buyer and Mr. Edwards on their sincere concern for the welfare of our veterans. They see things differently on this particular issue, but that doesn't take away from the concern that both have. They are good friends, and I know where their heart is on this, and it is in the right place.

As I said earlier, we have had the kind of debate I wish we could have

more often here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is enough blame to go around. The minority leadership of the House has politicized the ethics process for partisan political gain. Likewise, the majority party has tried to take control of the ethics process again for partisan reasons.

I have been encouraged recently that the House Ethics Committee is again taking action in investigative matters. I am disappointed, however, that Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the former ranking minority member, is being given blame by some for inactivity of the committee over the last 16 months.

If I put myself in Representative Mollohan's position, I am not sure I would have acted any differently. The House Ethics Committee is the only House committee that has an even number of Republicans and Democrats. Due to the nature of the committee and the important work it conducts, all committee activity should be conducted on a bipartisan basis.

As I review the events at the start of the 109th Congress, it leads me to the conclusion that several important actions were conducted by the majority without consulting the minority. These partisan actions were contrary to the nature and spirit of the way business has been, and should be, conducted by the Ethics Committee. If I had been the ranking member of the Ethics Committee and the majority party had arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the rules I would have had an obligation to react, just as Representative Mollohan did. If I had been the ranking member and the majority party unilaterally fired the senior committee staff in contradiction to rules which say both the majority and minority must agree, I would have had to react, just as Representative Mollohan did. If I had been the ranking member and the majority party tried to put a partisan chief of staff in as the staff director for the Ethics Committee in contradiction to the standards of a nonpartisan staff I would have had to react, just as Representative Mollohan did.

In other words, I feel Representative Mollohan did exactly what was expected of him as the ranking minority member when the bipartisan nature of the ethics process was unilaterally challenged by the majority. He had the courage to stand up to partisan actions when he should have.

My experience with Representative Mollohan when we served together on the Ethics Committee during the 108th Congress is that he was completely nonpartisan and that he would absolutely take no instructions from his leadership on the conduct of the Ethics Committee. That was my philosophy as well, and should be the stance of all who serve on this important committee.

Representative Mollohan has recently been dealing with some other issues that I know nothing about and won't speak to, but as the committee chairman I couldn't have asked for a more thoughtful and considerate ranking member to work with.

His successor as ranking minority member on the Ethics Committee, Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), is an excellent choice. I have also worked with Representative Berman on the committee and I have the highest respect for him.

In conclusion, it is apparent to me that the leadership of both parties have forgotten the importance of a bipartisan ethics process in the House. The Ethics Committee proved during the 108th Congress that, working in a bipartisan manner, it could handle politically sensitive and difficult cases.

Both parties need to return to a bipartisan Ethics Committee and bipartisan ethics process or the House as a whole will continue to suffer.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This amount equals more than $598 million, which is one penny off of every dollar appropriated in this bill.

As you know, I have offered these kinds of amendments for most of the appropriation bills that we have considered so far this year, and if they had all been accepted, one penny off a dollar, we would have saved $2.2 billion.

The appropriations made in this particular bill represent an increase of approximately $140 million more than the administration's request for 2007. In addition, this bill also reflects an increase of more than $2.6 billion over last year's appropriations bill, an increase that I think is just unacceptable in light of our deficit.

Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that these amendments are couched in such a way that they are not 1 percent across the board in every program in any of these bills. It is 1 percent total out of the bottom line or the top line, whichever way you want to say it, in the bill. And that means that the administration, the Department, can look at it and decide what is really needed and what is not. And if you will notice from some of the amendments we have had in the last day or two, this bill is riddled with earmarks for special little projects across the country in various districts. And, frankly, I don't know why the people of Colorado should have to pay for things in other districts that are strictly for those other districts like we had in some of the Flake amendments yesterday.

So we are not talking about a 1 percent. You can always mention, in every bill there is lot of good stuff. I have great respect for the chairman and the ranking member here. They have worked hard on this. There is much that is very, very good that I too would not want cut in this bill. But if we can't find one cent out of every dollar, then I think there is something very wrong.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 7. At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, we have been at this for about 6 hours, I guess, and I think everything that has been said on the subject has been said. Not everybody has said it, and so we will continue for another 6 hours on it.

But I have seen many people today who seem to have used this as an opportunity to insist that the mission in Iraq has been a failure, and that our presence in Iraq has not been properly run, and that we are not winning the peace. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think this is absolutely a wrong assertion and only serves to lower the morale of the men and women fighting in Iraq, while encouraging the terrorists who aim to harm both America and Iraq.

The other day I was rushing to Chair a meeting in the Armed Services Committee. I was running a little late so I was kind of frustrated and in a hurry. Someone stopped me out in the hall and said, Congressman Hefley, Congressman Hefley, would you like to meet a marine from your district? And, of course, I would like to meet a marine from my district, but I was in a hurry. I did stop, and I went over to this young marine. They introduced him to me, and there he stood in his starched shirt and red and blue striped pants, straight as a string, and strong as could be.

I introduced myself and he introduced himself, and then someone said, Sergeant So and So lost both legs in Iraq. I would never know it from looking at him, but he lost both legs in Iraq. I said, oh, I am sorry to hear that, but thank you. He said oh, no, no, no, since then I have gone to jump school. I would not go to jump school with two good legs. Since then, I have gone to jump school and I am going back to Iraq. The job's not done.

I have been to Germany, as many of you have, to see where we bring the wounded into Germany. There was one young man laying on his bed, and I said, well, when were you wounded? He said about 4:30 this morning. About 4:30 this morning, we had gotten him off the battlefield. We had stabilized him and had him in an airplane and had him to Germany where he had already had successful surgery before the end of the day. The main desire of his heart was to get back with his unit in Iraq. That is good morale.

I talked to another young man that was just coming out of the operating room, and he had his arm up in a cast. I asked him, well, soldier, do you plan to stay in the service? He said, oh, I plan to stay in if they will let me. He said the job is not done.

And the point I make with these stories is that they see that they are doing something important. They see that they are doing something meaningful. They see they are doing something that helps America and they want to continue to do it.

We are fighting the war on terror on our terms, and we are winning.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by approximately 1 percent. The amount equals approximately $678 million.

While the total spending in this bill is significantly less than last year's bill, and I want to commend the chairman on that, this bill is still over $250 million more than the President requested.

Let me just give you an example. I mean, Amtrak for instance, we are going to put $1 billion, more or less, into Amtrak again in this bill. I do not know when we are going to come to the realization that Amtrak just is not going to work. It is not going to survive with the present way we handle it.

We have to draw the line somewhere, and I feel strongly that the projected deficit for next year is too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. It will not solve it, but at least symbolically it says we are interested in trying to get to that goal.

By voting for my amendment, you are stating for the record that the budget deficit is too large and the American taxpayers should not be burdened in the future because we cannot control our spending today.

I have no doubt that some of the good programs in this bill will take a cut. While that is unfortunate, our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budget at home. When you have less money, you simply spend less money. It is really that simple.

Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to echo the comments of Mr. Hinchey on the prior amendment concerning the chairman, and I have enormous respect for the work that you have done and wish you well in whatever you do after this, but you are a conscientious legislator, and we are to be proud of you for that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $213 million. It is only one penny off of every dollar spent.

I have several pages here of brilliant explanation of why. I am not going to go through all of that because I do not think I am going to change any minds, and yes, I know this will not balance

the budget. It is symbolic, but at least it shows that we are thinking about it and that we are serious about it. In my budget at home and your budget at home or any department's budget, if they cannot find one penny out of a dollar, then I think something is very, very wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent but the committee rose before I could get here. This amount equals $30.3 million.

I have offered many amendments like this over the past several years. I understand the difficulty appropriators must have in narrowing down the requests from members and the administration for money, and I applaud them for bringing us a bill that reflects an amount that is less than that which the administration has requested for FY07.

However, this appropriations bill still reflects a budget increase of nearly $110 million over last year's Legislative Branch budget. I strongly believe that this appropriations bill, as well as the projected deficit for next year, is still much too large.

The Capitol Visitor's Center, which receives funding in this bill, is long past its deadline and has been grossly over budget. This is a prime example of our inability to effectively control spending, even on projects in our own backyard. It is projects such as this that have greatly contributed to our Nation's lack of trust in their government's ability to manage spending responsibly.

Fiscal responsibility should start in this chamber, and by voting for this amendment, you are stating for the record your belief that the budget deficit is much too large and that the American taxpayers should not be burdened in the future because we can not control our spending today.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

reduction in appropriations

Sec. 5xx. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby

reduced in the amount of $213,000,000.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 1: Page 44, insert after line 18 the

following:

Sec. 211. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated

or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby

reduced by 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is similar to others that I have offered over the past 4 years. It would cut total spending in the bill by 1 percent, one penny on the dollar, or $300,170,000.

Now, I do not need to go into great explanation about this because everybody knows exactly what it is, and we also know pretty much the result.

I would also like to say Mr. Hobson's argument would be that he has already done a good deal of cutting in here, and indeed, he has, and I commend him for it. He is extremely conscientious when it comes to the spending of government money, but I would point out that we just started the appropriations process, but if we had passed the Hefley amendments that I have offered on the few bills that we have had so far we would have saved $747,350,000. Three-quarters of $1 billion we would have saved already.

We have just started the appropriations process. So it is not insignificant, even though it is only a penny on the dollar, and for these reasons, I offer this amendment and urge its support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand those arguments, but if you don't have the money, we need to stop spending or at least cut down the spending. This is 1 percent. I would encourage support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.