[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5966-H5971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution
(H. Res. 452) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 452
Whereas, clause one of House rule XXIII (Code of Official
Conduct) states, ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the
House.'';
Whereas, on June 4, 2007, the United States Department of
Justice filed an indictment by a grand jury against the
gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable William J. Jefferson,
in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia;
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment of Representative
Jefferson, the grand jury specifies sixteen counts, including
but not limited to Solicitation of Bribes by a Public
Official, Violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,
Money Laundering, Obstruction of Justice and Racketeering;
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment, the grand jury
alleges that Representative Jefferson did knowingly engage in
an unlawful conspiracy ``to provide for the unjust enrichment
of Defendant Jefferson and his family members by corruptly
seeking, soliciting, and directing that things of value be
paid to him and his family members in return for Defendant
Jefferson's performance of official acts'';
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment, the grand jury
further alleges that ``Defendant sought to and did conceal
his and his family members' expected or actual receipt of
things of value by directing congressional staff members,
family members, and others to form nominee companies that
entered into business agreements to receive things of value
sought by Defendant Jefferson while not referencing him or
disclosing his involvement in obtaining the agreements'';
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment, the grand jury
further alleges that ``Defendant Jefferson failed to disclose
his and his family's financial interests in these business
ventures by omitting this material information from travel
and financial disclosure forms required to be filed by the
Rules of the House of Representatives and, in some cases, by
failing to make any of the required filings'':
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment, the grand jury
further alleges that ``On or about July 30, 2005, in
Arlington, Virginia, Defendant Jefferson received $100,000 in
cash from [cooperating witness]'' for use in an illegal
bribery scheme;
Whereas, in the aforementioned indictment, the grand jury
further alleges that ``On or before August 3, 2005, at his
residence in Washington, DC, Defendant Jefferson secreted in
his freezer $90,000 of the $100,000 in cash provided by
[cooperating witness] as part of the front-end bribe to
Nigerian Official A, which was separated into $10,000
increments, wrapped in aluminum foil, and concealed inside
various frozen food containers'';
Whereas, on February 27, 2007 the House Democratic Caucus
unanimously approved the recommendation of House Democratic
leaders that Representative Jefferson be elected to the
Committee on Homeland Security, a position in which he would
have had access to highly sensitive Top Secret information
concerning national security matters;
Whereas, on June 5, 2007 Representative Jefferson resigned
from the Committee on Small Business to which he was elected
by vote of the House on January 23, 2007;
[[Page H5967]]
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States authorizes
the House of Representatives to ``determine the rules of its
Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behaviour,
and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member'';
Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
charged with enforcing the Code of Official Conduct and
related rules of the House governing the Conduct of Members
and staff;
Whereas, during the 109th Congress, on May 17, 2006 the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued a public
statement which noted, ``[t]he Committee has voted to
establish an investigative subcommittee to conduct an inquiry
regarding Representative William J. Jefferson'';
Whereas, absent any subsequent public statements by the
committee concerning Representative Jefferson and in light of
press accounts describing the Jefferson inquiry as ``halted''
and ``stalled'' it is essential that the House act to ensure
that appropriate and timely action is taken to complete the
Jefferson inquiry and protect the integrity of the House;
Whereas, clause 5(a)(4)(A) of House rule X states, ``At the
beginning of a Congress, the Speaker or his designee and the
Minority Leader or his designee each shall name 10 Members,
Delegates or the Resident Commissioner from his respective
party who are not members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to be available to serve on investigative
subcommittees of that committee during that Congress. The
names of Members, Delegates or the Resident Commissioner so
named shall be announced to the House.''
Whereas, Republican Leader Boehner, having chosen ten
Republican Members for the ethics pool for the 110th Congress
earlier this year and Speaker Pelosi only having named the
Democrat Members of the pool earlier today: Now therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct is directed to investigate without further delay
alleged illegal conduct and violations of House rules by
Representative William J. Jefferson and report its findings
and recommendations to the House, including a recommendation
regarding whether Representative Jefferson should be expelled
from the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of
privilege.
Under rule IX, the minority leader and the majority leader or his
designee each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The resolution, Mr. Speaker, will instruct the Ethics Committee to
review the serious allegations and evidence against the gentleman from
Louisiana and report back to the House whether the gentleman should be
expelled for conduct that brings dishonor on this institution.
This resolution is not intended to cast innocence or guilt on the
gentleman from Louisiana. It is intended to ensure that the Ethics
Committee process, a process that all the Members of this House want to
see work fairly and honestly, begin its deliberations of this issue.
This Ethics Committee last year, over a period of approximately 6
months, was looking into this matter, but as of today there has not
been a subcommittee established to look at the facts of this case. The
Republican pool was announced several months ago, and we have been
waiting for the majority party to put their pool members onto the
Ethics Committee so, in fact, this investigation could continue. And it
is somewhat of a sad state that these members weren't announced until
today and it took the indictment of Mr. Jefferson for the majority to
outline to the House who the members will be that will make up their
pool.
But the point I make is that all of us have been through a very
difficult period in this House, and I think that I have made clear to
my colleagues on the minority side of the House that I intend to hold
our colleagues to a higher standard. And when we talk about the
standard here, we all know that bringing honor on this House is a
standard that all of us attempt to meet and make sure that there is no
dishonor brought. And we are not talking here about a standard that is
very different from that of a criminal plea or a criminal indictment.
We are talking about behavior that brings dishonor on this institution.
So I believe that the Ethics Committee can, in fact, do its work. I
think they can do it efficiently. And the purpose of this resolution is
to ensure that the House speaks to our Ethics Committee to make sure
that it is doing its job in resolving this case as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, and I agree with
the minority leader. The allegations that have been made are
extraordinarily serious. They, if proven true, should lead to the
expulsion of the Member in question. They, of course, have not been
proved true. They are allegations.
Having said that, I also intend to and have called for a resolution
to be considered tonight under suspension. That resolution speaks not
only to the Jefferson case, to which the gentleman from Ohio limits his
privileged resolution, but also speaks to any allegations of serious
criminal conduct that may be made either through indictment or other
charging documents; and it calls for action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct in any and all of those cases.
We appreciate the sensitivity of the minority leader to this issue at
this time. It is, frankly, the first time I recall such a resolution
being offered by the minority. For over a year, the Ethics Committee
essentially didn't act, didn't operate. In fact, when it did and it
held the former majority leader as having adversely affected the ethics
of the House, the chairman was summarily removed from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct; and, in fact, two of the members that
had the temerity to vote to have a consequence for actions that
reflected on the House were removed from that committee.
But I welcome the minority leader and the minority party's interest
in pursuing this matter. I presume that the gentleman's resolution will
pass unanimously. I also hope that the suspension resolution will also
pass unanimously because there are, of course, unfortunately, a number
of allegations being made publicly about Members of this House; and
irrespective of what party they may fall into or be members of, it is
critically important for us to hold accountable those Members and to
assure the American public that the Ethics Committee is looking at
those allegations, investigating those allegations, and making reports
not only to the House of Representatives but to the people.
{time} 1815
We swear an oath to not only defend the Constitution, but to uphold
the laws of our land. As Members of this House, we have an absolute
obligation to conduct ourselves in a way that does not violate the
standards of official conduct or bring into disrepute the House of
Representatives. Hopefully, we will agree on that proposition.
So I say to my Republican friends, we welcome them to this focus on
holding accountable Members who violate the trust of the American
public. We certainly intend to support it. I hope they will support the
subsequently offered resolution, which says that in every case we will
pursue this focus.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's support of our efforts, and
in support of the Ethics Committee taking up this case and moving as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that the gentleman refers to has been
shown to us just moments ago. The gentleman, the majority leader, is
well aware that legislation does not come to the floor without the
cooperation of both sides. And to have seen this bill just moments ago
strikes me as something that we never, ever, ever would have considered
doing on the floor of the House without clear consultation and
advisement of the minority. And so, I will look at the bill. I'm not
quite sure what it says because, again, we have just received it
moments ago.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Missouri,
the minority whip, for as much time as he may consume.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased that the body will move forward this evening to approve
this resolution that the Republican leaders offered.
The majority leader indicated in the last Congress that the Ethics
Committee didn't meet for a year. I think
[[Page H5968]]
that is because the Members of the minority at that time, now the
majority, wouldn't meet for a year. And now we are in the sixth month
of this Congress, and only today is there a group of Members made
available by the majority to choose a panel from to investigate this
case. Now, maybe that was just an accident. Maybe that's just starting
a new majority. Maybe that's not remembering that this investigation
was stopped at the end of the last Congress and couldn't start in this
Congress unless there was a new panel put in place. Those of us in the
minority, I suppose, have less to worry about, so we put our panel of
Members out immediately at the beginning of Congress, as we have in the
past. We put our panel out there immediately. And now, in June, the
sixth month of the Congress, the majority makes Members available
suddenly to investigate this case as if it just occurred today, or as
if we were just aware of it today. That is almost too big a coincidence
to overlook.
We are going to start looking at this case. I am pleased that our
friends on the other side are going to join us in that effort. This
case has been known to Members of Congress for some time now. It rises
to a level of accusations and an indictment that has seldom been met in
the history of the Congress. A 94-page indictment that alleges
conspiracies on this and at least one other continent that could result
in 230 something years of prison time if the Member is found guilty.
Mr. Speaker, even if all of those things did not turn out to produce
guilt at the end of this pathway, the standards that have been referred
to here on the floor are clearly standards that the Ethics Committee
should have been looking at. Those standards that violate the official
conduct of the House, you don't have to necessarily have violated a law
to violate those standards. You certainly don't have to have violated a
law to have brought disrepute on the House, or whatever language is
used in the code of conduct we attempt to hold each other to.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think it's high time that we did
start this investigation. I think it is unfortunate that we had the
time this entire Congress where nothing has been done to look at this
case. And because of that, I hope that we not only ask the Ethics
Committee to look at the case, but do everything we can to encourage
them to not decide necessarily the legal matters, they will be decided
somewhere else, but to decide whether or not this Member has violated
the ethical code of the House; and if that is the case, what should the
action of the House be in the future.
So not only do I stand as the majority leader just did to join the
Republican leader in supporting this resolution, but also in
encouraging all of our Members to.
Mr. Speaker, if my friend has a quick response, I would be glad to
just yield 1 minute to him for that purpose.
Mr. HOYER. I can do it shorter than that. I just wanted to make one
point, because I checked.
The important issue is going forward. We agree with that. We can
argue about what happened in the past, we certainly have our
perspective. Your panel was named last month, not at the beginning of
the session, not in January or February or March or April, but last
month. So we need to move forward on this, and we are going to. We are
going to support this resolution.
I welcome your support of the suspension resolution, which will
ensure that in these kinds of cases, that we go forward in every
instance as we are going forward today.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield my time back to the gentleman from
Ohio. I think that our panel was available before that, but he is the
one that would know more about the specifics of that than I do.
I do know that going forward is important. And in fact, if we could
set a standard of moving forward we would probably all be better off,
but it is awfully hard in any political environment to not keep looking
backwards.
We do need to move forward. We need a resolution of this. And it
doesn't have to go hand in hand with the resolution of legal matters,
it needs to go hand in hand with the code of conduct of the House and
what happens there.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if I could yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman referred to when our panel members were named, which
was on May 1. The gentleman should be aware that our panel was picked
and members had agreed to serve on the panel by the end of January of
this year. We held the list, trying to work with our colleagues in the
majority so that the panels on both sides could be named as soon as
possible. And finally, right before Easter, we filed our 10 panel names
and they were certified. That occurred on May 1. I am sorry that it is
a fact that your panel members were not named until today, and not
until after the indictment of a sitting Member.
So the fact that almost 6 months have gone by in this Congress
without any work on the part of the Ethics Committee with regard to Mr.
Jefferson's case I think is a sad record.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. I am pleased to yield for as much time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the leader for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, this is a very sad debate. I was one of
the members of the Ethics Committee that was not reappointed that was
referenced to in the distinguished majority leader's presentation. I
will tell you this; before coming to Congress I was a prosecuting
attorney in my hometown.
I served on the Ethics Committee for 4\1/2\ years. I found the Ethics
Committee to be a place where five Members of each party came together
and treated the rules fairly, treated the Members fairly, and treated
the rules of this House more than fairly.
I sat through and listened to only the second time since the American
Civil War that a Member of this House was expelled, my friend, James
Traficant of Ohio, but the evidence warranted it.
These competing resolutions, in my opinion, continuing the dumbing
down of the House. Now, I don't know whether Representative Jefferson
is guilty or not guilty of the things that he has been indicted for by
the Justice Department. But even Members of Congress, ladies and
gentlemen, are entitled to a presumption. And there was a reason that
in the Traficant case the Ethics Committee waited until the judicial
process worked its will, and that is two things; one, you've got to
find out whether the person is guilty or not guilty of what they are
accused of. Two, when you have competing investigations, you can
actually impede the prosecution of someone who has committed a crime
with the Department of Justice.
Your side started this ``culture of corruption'' last year; we're
going to start the ``House of hypocrisy'' this year. Stop dumbing down
the institution.
Members of Congress are human beings. When they are charged with a
crime, they should get the full weight of the law. If they are guilty,
they should suffer the penalty not only of going to prison or jail, but
they should be expelled from the House. But to rush to judgment and to
permit the United States Department of Justice or some rogue district
attorney, like I happen to believe in Tom DeLay's case, I know you guys
aren't big fans of Tom DeLay, but you are sending a message that a
common prosecutor in my district, your district, your district, your
district can indict you tomorrow, and on the basis of that you are
removed from your leadership position, you are removed from your
committees, and you may not have done a darn thing.
I think this is a sad day for this House. And I know that I am going
to be in the minority tonight, I'm actually in the minority, so it will
be a double minority, but I intend to vote against both of these
resolutions. I am sorry we've come to this.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) for as much time as he may consume.
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for us to have sort of a status report
of how we got here.
Two years ago, it was publicly revealed that one of our Members of
this
[[Page H5969]]
House, a gentleman from New Orleans, had an FBI raid on his home and
had discovered 90,000 in cash wrapped up in aluminum foil and in
Tupperware containers in that freezer. It was also publicly revealed
that that same gentleman used National Guard assets that were then
being used as part of the rescue and recovery efforts after Hurricane
Katrina to go to his home and recover something resembling the boxes
that were later found in his freezer to be containing $90,000 in cash.
Since that time, he continued to serve on the Ways and Means
Committee for some period of time, which was the committee that he is
alleged to have used to conspire on a continent-wide basis in bribery
and racketeering of several African nations to profit himself, his
family and bring shame and discredit upon this institution. He later
left that committee and was unanimously approved by the Democratic
Caucus to go to the Homeland Security Committee, that committee being
the committee that has jurisdiction over a number of the assets that he
misappropriated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to retrieve the boxes
that resembled the ones that had the cash of $90,000 in the freezer.
When it was brought to light that the Republicans would demand a
public vote on that Democratic Caucus action, that vote was never
called for. He remained on the Small Business Committee until today,
several days after the actual indictment.
That same individual, for the first time in the history of the
Republic, had his congressional office raided by the FBI. Now, in the
course of all those events did the House Ethics Committee, now led by
Democrats, ever open an investigation into his behavior in this
Congress? The answer is no. Now why is that? Because if an FBI
investigation, $90,000 in cash, an FBI raid on a congressional office,
and misappropriation of National Guard assets isn't enough to merit an
ethics investigation in this body then perhaps the majority leader
could share with us what is. And he could also explain to us why, if
there had been an ethics investigation, it could not have proceeded
because the Speaker had not appointed Members to the investigative pool
until today.
{time} 1830
So even if they had been proactive, there would have been no one to
look into the allegations that have brought shame and discredit upon
the People's House.
So it takes a peculiar rhetorical bravado to come to this House floor
and say with a straight face that they have been moving forward with
these investigations, when for over half of the 109th Congress the
Ethics Committee could not function because the Democratic members
refused to show up; and in the 110th Congress the ethics investigative
pool could not function because no Members had been nominated by the
Speaker until today. That undermines this institution; and it is the
reason why it requires a very rare motion, the privileged motion that
the minority leader is offering today.
Now, Mr. Hoyer has offered a suspension bill. Suspension bills are
typically used to name post offices. They are typically used to
designate National Fishing and Boating Month, National Jewish History
Month, National Smoke-Free Awareness Week. That is typically the route
that suspension bills are pursued. And suspension means that they enjoy
broad, noncontroversial support in this House. So while it is, I hope,
broadly supported that we would refer the Jefferson case to Ethics, it
seems as though that in this new open and accountable House Chamber
that the language of such a suspension that would suspend the rules
would have been shared by all the Members. The rare motion that is
afforded the Republican leader was available in the public domain for
days, which presumably has led to the timing of the suspension vote
also being offered today.
As we move forward with this I think it's important that we recognize
that the real losers here are the constituents in a Louisiana
congressional district who have been denied representation by someone
who has brought shame and discredit upon this House, potentially,
depending on the outcome of a 16-count indictment that could result in
235 years in prison. And I hope that the majority leader in his haste
to craft the suspension bill that we will consider today has included
in it improvements to the existing law as it relates to Member
pensions. Because nothing drives the American taxpayer more crazy than
to know that potentially, if the gentleman from Louisiana is convicted
and if the gentleman from Louisiana is sentenced to prison, he would
still have his family entitled to a pension. That is a watered-down
version of what the House Republicans passed last year that would deny
a pension to Members who use their office to engage in criminal
activity. And in this particular case, the people who would be eligible
to continue collecting the pension are in the public domain as having
been coconspirators, beneficiaries of the illegal activity.
So I hope that in his haste to craft a suspension bill, he would
bring the pension issue back up for this body to put the teeth back
into it that Republicans put in a year ago and add to that additional
language that perhaps the majority leader, Mr. Reid, would find
acceptable in the Senate so that we can actually get it to the
President's desk so that the American taxpayer doesn't have to foot the
bill for convicts, thieves, racketeers and people who engage in bribery
by abusing their office.
This is a very serious issue for this institution, and it should be
treated as such, and we should have the highest possible standard for
all Members who enjoy the trust in public service, and that includes
the issues that follow all of us, including access to the pension,
including enforcing the House rules on earmarks that have been
routinely abused, and maintaining all of the other rules that we have
passed and taken a victory lap for allegedly making this the most open
and honest and accountable place. And yet when the rubber meets the
road, the path chosen is to airdrop in earmarks, cover up misbehavior
on the House floor in terms of threats and intimidation, and
unanimously affirm someone who is now under a multi-page indictment,
unanimously affirm that person to have a position on the Homeland
Security Committee.
I urge this body to endorse, support and vote for the Republican
leader's motion that will begin the process of restoring the dignity
and honor and respect that this institution deserves.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Chutzpah is a wonderful word. Chutzpah is the position of a person
who has been involving themselves in activities for a long period of
time and then accusing somebody else of doing the same and being
sanctimonious in the process.
That aside, Mr. Speaker, this House was told in November of last year
by the people of this country, clean up your House, get rid of the
culture of corruption. That's what they said in 2006, on November 7;
and that's what we're doing. We adopted one of the strongest rules
packages dealing with ethics in the history of this House, eliminating
all meals and gifts from lobbyists. Arm's-length transactions. No
travel. We just passed a lobbying disclosure bill 2 weeks ago, which
most of us voted for because we want to be in on the effort of cleaning
up this House.
My young friend from Florida apparently forgets that in January we
passed a pension bill which says that if you're convicted and expelled,
you won't get your pension. That was the Boyda bill, Nancy Boyda from
Kansas, who came to Congress on a pledge to clean up the Congress. And
she was elected to do just that.
Earmarks. Earmarks were quadrupled over the last 14 years. We have
now adopted a rule that says they're going to be transparent. You're
going to know who made the request for earmarks, that there is going to
be some check on those earmarks.
Now, my young friend from Florida says that our resolution, which
will be on suspension, was just seen. I will tell him, and there is no
way he would know this, I saw the leader's resolution just minutes ago.
But that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is the American
public did indeed send us here to act ethically, honestly and openly
and do the people's business, not the special interests'. And that's
why they made a change in this House in November of 2006, that's why we
unanimously on our
[[Page H5970]]
side are going to support this resolution, and that's why we're going
to support the suspension bill.
Because not only do we believe it ought to be done in this instance,
but there are a lot of Members publicly under investigation in this
House whose homes have been raided by Federal officials, but they're
not in this resolution. They have not been indicted.
Mr. Speaker, we need to act. The public needs to know we're acting,
and we need to hold accountable those who fail to meet their public
duty and trust to the American people. This leadership is committed to
making sure that we do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) so much time as he may consume.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Republican leader
for yielding.
I would like to begin by engaging my very good friend and classmate,
the distinguished majority leader, in a colloquy, if I might; and I
would be happy to yield to him to respond.
Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has just referred to the fact
that, on May 1, we saw the appointment of the pool of those on the
Ethics Committee who would in fact be responsible, or they will be
impaneled to deal with this question, and he referred to the fact that
we have gone for, really, almost the first half of this year without
any action taking place. And as he correctly said, a decision was made
to empanel that group on the majority side today.
We got the news yesterday of this very unfortunate indictment. I
would just like to inquire of my friend exactly why it is that it took
us this long to see action taken, when, in fact, so much other action
was taken in the 109th Congress.
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. HOYER. Well, I don't have a specific answer for that. But let me
say this. You gave your list last month. We have given our list this
month. The minority leader is correct on that time frame. We heard
about this indictment. We determined to take specific action. The
minority leader also determined to take specific action. We believe
they complement one another, but the real issue is that we need to take
decisive action and we intend to do so.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, and I thank the distinguished
majority leader, Mr. Speaker, for his comments and for being forthright
in saying that they really don't have an answer in response to the fact
that this has been open for literally months, this entire year. A very
serious question was carried over from the 109th Congress to the 110th
Congress, and I listened to my friend just a few minutes ago provide a
great campaign speech about the message that was sent last November and
the fact that we've got this great degree of openness and transparency
and all, the likes of which didn't exist in past Congresses.
But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I am really very troubled when I
look at this resolution that as our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner,
said was just provided to us.
Now, let me state very clearly for the record, this falls within the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Rules. This has not been
referred to the Rules Committee, and with our first look at it, again
it was just handed to us, it would be an understatement to say that
we're very troubled with the potential ramifications of what this
resolution would do, Mr. Speaker.
One of the staff members just said to me, it would be possible that
one of our Members could be protesting at the Sudanese Embassy. We know
that there is a great deal of controversy and question around policy
that takes place in Sudan as it relates to Darfur and other things, and
conceivably if a Member of this institution were protesting and were
arrested, it would have to be referred to the House Committee on
Ethics, and they would be required to empanel an investigative
committee to look at this or report back as to why it didn't take
place.
In this resolution, it says any Federal or State court. I don't know
if someone possibly might be exceeding the speed limit and pulled over
and ticketed. I don't know whether or not that Member would have to be
referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and see an
investigative committee empaneled to investigate that speeding ticket.
The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is we continue to hear about
this great new openness and transparency and the deliberative nature of
this institution, when we have a resolution that the majority leader
correctly has introduced, and he is certainly entitled to do that, to
say it is to be referred to the Committee on Rules. Yet from what the
majority leader has said, Mr. Speaker, we're scheduled to vote on this
in just a matter of a few minutes, and we've just looked at this three-
page measure, and those are the questions that we have initially that I
would have certainly raised if we had had a hearing up in the Rules
Committee on this measure.
Everyone wants to make sure that this institution is held to the
highest possible ethical standard. I believe that we all sincerely want
to do that.
{time} 1845
The issue of ethics and lobbying reform and all has been greatly
politicized by our friends in the majority; greatly politicized by our
friends in the majority. We had a debate on this just before we
adjourned before Memorial Day, and to me it was just outrageous to hear
the kind of rhetoric that was used, pointing the finger of blame on
this issue.
I think it is very sad. We are here responding to an indictment, the
likes of which has not been seen for a Member in a long, long period of
time, and I hope very much that as we do seek greater deliberation that
we will take resolutions like this and run them through the regular
order process.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know when Mr. Cunningham was indicted
and convicted, but ``a long, long time'' seems not to be my
recollection of how long ago it was.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are entitled to see this
institution held to the highest ethical standards. They clearly expect
more of us than maybe they have in the past. And the reason to bring
this resolution here tonight is to not profess innocence or guilt. It
is to make sure that the process that we have in this House for
protecting the House and protecting the institution and protecting our
Members, we want to make sure that that process works the way it was
intended.
So I appreciate the support of my colleagues for this resolution.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, my love of the Constitution of the
United States of America, and my hatred of unfair precedents, equals my
vote against the Minority Leader's resolution.
Mr. Speaker, today, I was one of the 26 Members of Congress who voted
against the privileged resolution offered by Minority Leader John
Boehner. My opposition to this resolution has little to do with the
serious allegations against Congressman William Jefferson, and
everything to do with the oath that each and every Member of Congress
took in this very chamber--to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States of America. In America, we have a Constitutional
principle of innocence before being proven guilty and that no citizen
shall be ``deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.'' The resolution by the Minority Leader will not allow our
system of justice to work. If the system of justice is not allowed to
work for a Member of Congress, for whom should the system work?
I also oppose this measure because of the horrible precedent it
establishes. Instead of illustrating and penalizing those instances of
law breaking and working toward establishing higher standards for all
Members of Congress, the Minority Leader's resolution puts the behavior
of one individual under a microscope. Instead of seeking an opportunity
to improve the behavior of all Members of Congress, this resolution
makes the political low blow of focusing on the behavior of one.
Members of Congress certainly know, or should know, that the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the Ethics
Committee, has traditionally deferred criminal matters to the
Department of Justice. This makes perfect sense. The Department of
Justice will carry out an investigation, offer a platform for the
proving of innocence or guilt, and allows the adjudication of
[[Page H5971]]
citizens before their peers. The resolution offered by the Majority
Leader allows this process to occur, and upon its conclusion, for
Congress to then make a decision based on the merit of the facts. The
Minority Leader's resolution reaches a conclusion before the facts have
even come to court. Indeed, it reaches a conclusion before Congressman
Jefferson is even formally arraigned.
The disrespect this resolution has for our Constitution that we have
all sworn to uphold and defend by not allowing our system of justice to
work its will; the absolute terrible precedent this resolution makes in
establishing guilt based not on facts but politics; and by focusing on
only one Member of Congress instead of seeking to reform or address the
behavior of all Members of Congress, are the reasons why I cast my vote
against this measure.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________