[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5971-H5976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO RESPOND TO 
               THE INDICTMENT OF ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 451) directing the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct to respond to the indictment of, or the filing of 
charges of criminal conduct in a court of the United States or any 
State against, any Member of the House of Representatives by empaneling 
an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations not later than 
30 days after the date the Member is indicted or the charges are filed.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 451

       Whereas on June 4, 2007, Representative William Jefferson 
     was indicted on 16 criminal counts by a grand jury in the 
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Virginia;
       Whereas recent credible media accounts indicate that the 
     Department of Justice is investigating the conduct of other 
     Members of the House of Representatives, and these 
     investigations may lead to further indictments;
       Whereas the One Hundred Tenth Congress, in its first day of 
     session, strengthened the rules concerning the ethical 
     behavior of Members of the House;
       Whereas the House has approved on an overwhelming and 
     bipartisan basis H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open 
     Government Act of 2007, to establish strict standards and 
     penalties concerning the relationship between lobbyists and 
     Members; and
       Whereas these actions by the One Hundred Tenth Congress 
     demonstrate that illegal, unethical, or inappropriate conduct 
     by Members of the House will not be tolerated: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved,  That whenever a Member of the House of 
     Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress, is indicted or otherwise 
     formally charged with criminal conduct in a court of the 
     United States or any State, the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall, not later than 30 days after the date 
     of such indictment or charge--
       (1) empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the 
     allegations; or
       (2) if the Committee does not empanel an investigative 
     subcommittee to review the allegations, submit a report to 
     the House describing its reasons for not empaneling such an 
     investigative subcommittee, together with the actions, if 
     any, the Committee has taken in response to the allegations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority leader, in closing on the resolution that 
will be voted on in a short time, correctly observed that every Member 
of the House needs to be held accountable for conduct which undermines 
the faith, respect and confidence that the American public has in this 
institution. We agree with that. In fact, we have been saying that for 
years and we have acted to effect that objective. This resolution, we 
believe, furthers that effort.
  Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what this resolution says, it directs the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to respond to an indictment 
of or the filing of charges of criminal conduct in a court of the 
United States of any State against any Member of the House by 
empaneling an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations not 
later than 30 days after the date the Member is indicted or charges are 
filed.
  As I said in my statement with reference to the previous resolution, 
this will be a general process of the House so that every Member knows 
that this process will be employed, not on a partisan basis, but on the 
basis of conduct and on the basis of actions that have been taken.
  It also says, however, to the committee that if they find that such 
an investigative committee, under the circumstances that the bipartisan 
committee reviews, do not feel that going forward is appropriate, they 
can report that back. That, I think, responds to the concerns properly 
raised by the gentleman from California. This resolution under this 
suspension is the general of what the other resolution is on the 
specifics.
  Mr. Speaker, I said that Nancy Boyda from the State of Kansas came 
here and offered legislation which essentially said that if Members 
were found guilty of a crime that adversely affected their service in 
the Congress of the United States, that their pensions would be at 
risk. That legislation was overwhelmingly adopted. I congratulate the 
gentlelady from Kansas for her focus on ensuring the ethics of this 
body and that the public is not subsidizing criminal or unethical 
behavior which subjects a Member to removal.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume in 
support of the suspension to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, last November, voters charged a 
new congressional majority with a clear mandate: End the scandals and 
clean up Congress. At first, we embraced the voters' charge. The 
Democratic majority passed an ethics reform package that banned Members 
from accepting gifts from lobbyists, we blocked Representatives from 
flying on corporate jets, and we prevented Congressmen from pressuring 
private businesses to hire or fire for political reasons.
  Now the time has come for another step, and our actions in the next 
days will determine the strength of our resolve. Did we mean it last 
November when we said we would change Congress, or were our words just 
mere election-year slogans?
  If we meant what we said, then it is clear what must happen next. 
First, the House Ethics Committee must launch investigations into 
public reports of congressional corruption, including accusations that 
Mr. William Jefferson committed crimes such as racketeering, soliciting 
bribes and money laundering. This committee must investigate. No 
excuses and no delays. And if the Ethics Committee proves unable to 
complete this, its most basic responsibility, then Congress must create 
a more independent Ethics Committee, capable of the initiative and 
oversight that the American people deserve.
  But that isn't enough. Although Mr. Jefferson should and must enjoy 
the presumption of innocence granted to all American defendants, as a 
Member of Congress he has a special pact with the American people. If 
Mr. Jefferson left Congress today, if he were to resign today, as I 
know many of us wish that he would, then tomorrow he will begin drawing 
a Federal pension for his service in Congress. According to the 
National Taxpayers Union, that pension will exceed $40,000 a year.
  This, and I mean this word literally, is an outrage. Taxpayers should 
not fund the pensions of Members of Congress who had to resign or have 
resigned in disgrace, and Congress has the responsibility to end this 
state of affairs.

[[Page H5972]]

  We must strip the pensions of any Member of Congress who commits a 
major Federal crime while in office. I offered a bill, the Pensions 
Forfeiture Act, to do precisely that, and it passed the House of 
Representatives earlier this year. A similar bill has passed the 
Senate, and now it must be sent to the floor as a reconciled bill that 
we can finally send to the President.
  Let's not permit committee delays or needless procedure to interfere 
one more day with real, meaningful ethics reform. Let's pass the 
Pensions Forfeiture Act into law, and, what's more, let's end the 
revolving door. Let's establish an independent ethics commission, and 
let's begin to rebuild the trust of the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, but I have to say 
that I am very, very troubled that we are where we are.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
my very good friend from Detroit, Mr. Conyers, on the floor. Just 
before we adjourned for the Memorial Day break, he and I were in a 
lengthy exchange, both upstairs in the Rules Committee and then here on 
the House floor dealing with the issue of lobbying reform, and I was 
very pleased that Mr. Conyers supported an amendment that I offered 
dealing with disclosure of post-employment plans for Members. It was a 
very thoughtful process. Concern had been raised about that, and Mr. 
Conyers was very, very generous in looking at that issue, in dealing 
responsibly with it, and accepting the amendment that I proposed to 
that issue.
  When we were in the midst of debate, and I will have to say when he 
stood there, I was somewhat concerned over the fact that we saw gross 
politicization from some of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, who have continued to try to make campaign speeches on this 
issue of lobbying and ethics reform, talking about the message that was 
sent last November.
  We all know that the American people want an institution, a United 
States House of Representatives, that is above reproach. We all know 
that Members of this institution should in fact be held to the highest 
possible standards.
  But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about where we are 
at this moment. I just today looked at a report that was issued on the 
great new openness and the way this institution has been run and how 
dramatically improved it is. And then we are given, with this 
resolution, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, a very, very poorly 
drafted resolution. That is the reason that we have a referral process.
  In the 109th Congress, we had many, many issues that we had to 
address. And original jurisdiction matters that were referred to the 
Committee on Rules in fact were addressed in hearings, were addressed 
in markups, and in fact were resolved.
  We listened to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Speaker, talk about all of these great reforms that were implemented on 
the opening day of the 110th Congress and these great changes that have 
taken place. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we also have 
been spending time in the 110th Congress cleaning up the poorly worded, 
messy language that we dealt with.
  One example: In a rule that was passed by this House we self-executed 
a provision which actually allowed Members to once again attend 
charitable events. In the opening day rules package that was put into 
place on this issue, Mr. Speaker, there was a provision that actually 
denied Members, it denied Members, the opportunity to attend charitable 
events.
  Now, that was rectified. But I use that one example, Mr. Speaker, to 
point to the fact that if we had handled this issue the way Mr. Conyers 
had handled the issue of lobbying ethics reform, which we supported in 
a bipartisan way, we would not be dealing with a resolution that 
creates the potential, Mr. Speaker, for Members of this House who face 
a traffic ticket, Members who might want to protest, as I said earlier 
in my remarks, at the Sudanese Embassy over policies that are taking 
place there.
  What it would mean, Mr. Speaker, is under this resolution, a Member 
who gets a traffic ticket, gets a ticket for littering, is arrested for 
protesting at the Sudanese Embassy, that that would have to be referred 
to the Committee on Standards.
  My friend has just said there is a provision in here, it is the last 
line, item 2 in the ``resolved'' clause, which says if the committee 
does not empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the 
allegations, submit a report to the House describing its reasons for 
not empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the 
actions, if any, the committee has taken in response to the allegation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this very, very poorly crafted resolution basically 
does state that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does in 
fact have to deal with this, even if they choose, because it was a 
protest or a traffic ticket or a littering ticket, they still have to 
deal with this issue by choosing not to empanel an investigative 
committee to address that.
  Now, our new colleague from Kansas stood up and very proudly talked 
about the fact that she is dealing with this issue of pension reform. 
We all want to do everything that we can to make sure that Members 
don't have the taxpayers subsidizing these pensions of criminals, 
people who are imprisoned.

                              {time}  1900

  We know there was concern raised about family members, but I will say 
there is nothing in this resolution that we are debating right now, Mr. 
Speaker, that addresses the issue of ensuring that criminals who have 
served in this institution are not going to continue to benefit from 
their pensions. In this very unique case, Mr. Speaker, I will say that 
we are very troubled over the fact that there are co-conspirators 
involved in this charge; and, Mr. Speaker, they are in fact family 
members who potentially could become the beneficiaries of this pension.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will say again I am going to vote in favor of this 
resolution, but I am very, very troubled about the way it has been 
worded. I am very troubled over the fact that it was not referred to 
the Rules Committee of which I am privileged to serve as the ranking 
minority member. I think this is a very poor way of doing business.
  Our Republican leader came forward with an appropriate privileged 
resolution which simply called for the Ethics Committee to 
expeditiously take action. We have had to wait for nearly half a year 
without any action whatsoever being taken to follow up on the action 
that was taken in the 109th Congress.
  I believe everyone should in fact be deemed innocent until proven 
guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that as we look at this, 
though, it is imperative that we have action taken as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from 
Texas, Judge Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and was so encouraged to 
hear the majority leader earlier say, as I understood it, unethical 
conduct would be pursued no matter where, no matter who. And, of 
course, we just recently had an allegation by Mike Rogers regarding 
unethical conduct, and the majority leader moved to table that action 
in that pursuit.
  We know the majority leader to be an honorable man. I am deeply 
encouraged that apparently if Mr. Rogers will remake that resolution or 
motion, this time the majority leader would not move to table it, would 
not marshal forces to stop the pursuit of alleged unethical conduct, 
and we can get this body on track. And I am greatly gratified.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space), who comes to the Congress replacing 
Mr. Ney because the people wanted honest representation.
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  I rise today to support this resolution. In order to restore the 
integrity to this Chamber and restore America's faith in its elected 
officials, we must continue to undertake substantive action with regard 
to ethics reform.
  This Congress has made huge strides in reforming itself and cleaning 
up Washington, as our majority leader alluded to earlier this evening, 
but there

[[Page H5973]]

is still more to be done. Our actions today will not only enhance the 
most fundamental principles of a democratic society, they will remind 
our constituents that we are a body of the people, and not above the 
people.
  Simply put, when a Member of Congress is indicted, there should, as a 
matter of course, be an immediate ethics investigation.
  Coming from a district whose previous Congressman became mired and 
then consumed by scandal, my fellow district residents and I understand 
all too well the perils associated with weak and loosely monitored 
ethics regulations. We have suffered the frustration, disappointment, 
and anger associated with a betrayal. We suffered from not having a 
Member of Congress available to attend the needs of the citizens of our 
district.
  But we are not alone. Other districts have suffered similar 
tragedies, and that is inexcusable and unconscionable. The people that 
we serve in this body deserve a Member of Congress that is committed to 
representing their needs, and we cannot afford to wait any longer in 
addressing this issue.
  The time to act is now. As Members of Congress, we have an 
extraordinary burden to those who have bestowed this great honor upon 
us. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
measure.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to once again engage in a colloquy with my very good 
friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, if I might.
  As we are standing here today, I will say, unfortunately, on the 
House floor this has become sort of the Rules Committee original 
jurisdiction process. We are now doing it on the House floor because a 
decision was made by the majority leadership to prevent the Rules 
Committee from having an opportunity to even consider this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, if I might just pretend as if this is a committee 
hearing and assume that the distinguished Chair has yielded time to me, 
I would like to inquire of the author of the resolution as to whether 
or not it is the intent to have Members of this institution who might 
possibly be engaging in a very, very great protest over which they feel 
very strongly and they are arrested, I would like to inquire is it the 
intention of the author of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, to have that 
measure, have that Member, referred with a potential huge, huge legal 
fee, $450 to $1,000 an hour, to action taken by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct?
  And, similarly, I ask whether or not it is the intent of the author 
of the resolution to have the measure if someone, a Member of this 
House, gets a traffic ticket and they have to face a legal challenge 
there, if it is their intent that the issue of a Member's traffic 
ticket be referred to the Ethics Committee so the Ethics Committee can 
decide whether or not they want to empanel an investigative group to 
look at this, or choose to waive it. Or, as I said earlier, for 
littering or any other small instance.
  My concern with this very poorly crafted resolution, my concern, Mr. 
Speaker, is we will see a situation whereby Members are faced with that 
kind of challenge.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend to have him respond if that is 
the intent of his legislation here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question.
  What the resolution anticipates is applying generally that which the 
resolution offered by the minority leader raises specifically because 
we believe that the Ethics Committee ought to ensure for the American 
public that ethical conduct which does not call in question the House 
of Representatives' standards of official conduct is being pursued.
  But I will tell the gentleman further that I have great confidence in 
this Ethics Committee, led by a former member of the judiciary, I might 
add, who knows the law and who knows process. And I have full 
confidence that she and the Members of the Ethics Committee on both 
sides, and, as the gentleman knows, it is five Republicans and five 
Democrats, would summarily have a form available to them that would say 
if someone gets a traffic ticket that is not subject to further action. 
You and I would agree with that without hesitation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I wanted to fully answer the gentleman's question in this 
committee hearing we are having.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did say and he talked about 
the great colleagues we have who serve on the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, and he did refer to the fact that this measure and 
the concern over a traffic ticket would, in fact, have to be referred 
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. So I am inferring 
from that that it is the gentleman's intent that a measure like a 
traffic ticket or a protest at the Sudanese Embassy is to be referred 
to the Committee on Standards.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield for a very specific response 
to that.
  Mr. DREIER. Sure. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, a traffic ticket is a charge, not a 
conviction. It is a de minimus charge that I think the committee would 
summarily deal with.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say if the 
gentleman were to read the resolution which he has authored, he would 
see there is no specificity. And, in fact, it is very possible, it is 
very possible that if we pass this legislation, we would be in a 
position where the Committee on Standards would be forced to deal with 
the issue of a traffic ticket, a protest, a littering ticket or any 
measure like that. My only question of the gentleman was that in fact 
his intent. He said this was authored in response to the Republican 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I would say to the gentleman, the intent of the resolution 
I think is clear. And that is to say when charges are made, and the 
gentleman tries to bring up de minimus charges that no American would 
think violates the ethics of the House of Representatives or 
essentially major transgressions.
  I think the Ethics Committee, if that was brought before them 
pursuant to this resolution, would deal with them summarily as not 
being worthy of consideration as you and I would deem them not worth of 
consideration.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the only point I am 
trying to make to my very good friend from Maryland is that this is a 
measure that clearly should have been referred to the Committee on 
Rules. The gentleman has on three occasions talked about the intent, 
the intent of his legislation.
  This is drafted. We are about to vote on it. Why is there not 
specificity as to how Members are treated when dealing with an issue 
like of a traffic ticket juxtaposed to the 16 counts we are dealing 
with in the case of Mr. Jefferson?
  There is not clarity in this measure, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it 
is very important for us to recognize that if we are in fact in this 
House with a great new sense of openness and a greater deliberative 
nature, this is a sad commentary on where we are. As I said in my 
remarks, everyone wants to talk about and is a proponent of holding 
this institution to high ethical standards. This is not a partisan 
issue. Unfortunately, it was used as a very partisan issue in last 
November's election.
  But as we have found, there are problems of corruption on both sides 
of the aisle. It seems to me that as we deal with an issue that is as 
important as holding this institution to the highest possible ethical 
standards, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to do it right.
  Unfortunately, and again, while I am going to vote for this 
resolution, I think it was very, very poorly crafted. I think we as an 
institution, Mr. Speaker, can do much, much better than we did with 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly what the gentleman is trying to do in a debating 
framework is trying to say we didn't mention every specific instance,

[[Page H5974]]

whether very serious, moderately serious, or extraordinarily serious.
  The gentleman is correct. I have responded to the gentleman that the 
Ethics Committee clearly, we believe, can make those judgments; and we 
believe and are confident that the committee will make such judgments 
and will not treat de minimus assertions as seriously calling for 
investigative subcommittees or further action by the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the bribery and corruption charges against 
Congressman Jefferson are serious. They go to the very heart of our 
ability as a representative government to do its job. It is fundamental 
that the people trust their elected representatives to act in the 
people's interest, not in their own. The very appearance that these 
allegations create is damaging to the image of this institution.
  In the coming days, Congressman Jefferson will answer in a court of 
law to the 16 charges on which he was indicted. Congressman Jefferson 
is entitled to the presumption of innocence in the allegations against 
him, including bribery, racketeering, money laundering and obstruction 
of justice.
  However, the Congress should be held to the highest standards. 
Earlier today, I called for the Ethics Committee to initiate its own 
investigation into the charges against Congressman Jefferson.
  I support this resolution which calls for the automatic initiation of 
an Ethics Committee investigation when a Member of this body is 
indicted or formally charged with criminal conduct. This principle 
applies not just to Congressman Jefferson but to any Member of this 
House.
  In the opening days of this Congress, I rose on the floor in support 
of a tough new ethics package.

                              {time}  1915

  I said then that Members of Congress should be held to the highest 
regard by the people they represent. Illegal, unethical or 
inappropriate conduct by Members of the House cannot be tolerated.
  I was elected to this Congress to help change the way we do business 
in Washington, and I will continue to do so without regard to person or 
party.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side of the debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend from Maryland would be 
very generous. Most of the time that I yielded was for his very 
thoughtful explanations as we were going through what I consider to be 
the Rules Committee hearing process here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Well, 5 minutes, actually I'm going to reserve the time. 
If the gentleman would like to answer on his own time, the gentleman 
has twice as much time as I have. We have requests, and we are trying 
to get through the entire Rules Committee hearing here in a matter of 
15 minutes. It's going to be a challenge for us, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman reserve the balance of 
his time?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Maryland has many people who are very 
interested in speaking on this issue, and I will have to yield to them 
and use the time to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader, and I rise in support of 
this resolution. Ethics reform must be more than rhetorical. It simply 
must be real. I, like many of my colleagues, came to Congress with a 
promise that corruption should not be tolerated from either party. This 
is not about partisan politics, but this is rather about upholding 
strong ethical standards.
  I was extremely disappointed to hear that another Member of Congress 
was indicted on such serious charges and this is not something that we 
can take lightly. A Member of Congress under such serious charges 
really should think long and hard about whether or not they can remain 
in Congress.
  This is truly about justice, about doing the right things for the 
Member of Congress and for the Member of Congress' constituents.
  Should the Member, in fighting these allegations, think hard about 
stepping down? Can the Member truly defend himself or herself and 
adequately represent the constituents of his or her district?
  This is something I think that people under indictment should 
consider, as well I would encourage Mr. Jefferson to take this under 
advisement and encourage him to step down.
  I rise in support of this resolution. Ethics Reform must be more than 
rhetorical--it must be real. I came to Congress with a promise that 
corruption should not be tolerated from either party. This is not about 
partisan politics; it is about upholding strong ethical standards.
  I was extremely disappointed to hear that another Member of Congress 
is indicted on such serious charges and this is not something that can 
be taken lightly. A Member of Congress under serious indictment does 
not belong in the United States House of Representatives.
  It is my hope that this situation with Congressman Jefferson can be 
resolved quickly and judiciously. However, given the serious 
allegations and ethical issues the indictment presents, I call on 
Congressman Jefferson to resign from the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, 
and I really, really look forward to continuing our Rules Committee 
hearing process with my friend, the majority leader, after we have our 
line of very thoughtful speeches being made by our friends on the other 
side of the aisle. He said he had a whole lot of them, so I'm going to 
reserve my time if I might, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. He will observe that our speakers 
have all been from districts where this was a compelling issue in the 
November election, and that is why they are so interested in speaking 
about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, my position is similar to that of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I had the opportunity the last 2 days to be down in the gulf coast, 
to be in New Orleans today, and quite frankly, Mr. Jefferson is 
entitled to a presumption of innocence. That is the way of our judicial 
system and our code in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I rise in support of this resolution. An 
investigation needs to be conducted. We need to have the Ethics 
Committee take a look at this.
  But I would also suggest to this House that when someone, anyone, is 
under indictment, it's a difficult position for him to do justice to 
himself or herself and to also do justice for their particular 
district, and those concerns were raised by people in New Orleans 
today, as well as in the newspaper.
  So, as with Mr. Carney, I would suggest that the Ethics Committee 
take a good long look at this, that Mr. Jefferson obviously is going to 
take a good long look. I would suggest that he do justice to himself, 
prepare his defense, and that his district have someone else.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, with the possibility of an 
additional minute, to my good friend from the State of Florida, Mr. Tim 
Mahoney.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, no party's immune from 
corruption. Democrats and Republicans alike share the blame for 
outrageous ethical lapses that have occurred in Congress. In order to 
rebuild the trust of the American people and restore integrity to this 
great House, it is clear that we need to change the way ethics rules 
are enforced.
  While I am pleased that the House will consider legislation tonight 
to strengthen enforcement of ethics rules, I would like to reiterate 
the need to create an independent ethics office.
  We need independent ethics enforcement to prevent the kind of rampant 
corruption that was condoned in the last Congress and hold all Members 
accountable for questionable and illegal behavior.
  Creating an independent ethics office with the authority to blow the 
whistle

[[Page H5975]]

on questionable behavior would introduce the impartiality and 
accountability that has been missing from the enforcement of House 
ethics rules. It would depoliticize ethics enforcement and get the fox 
out of the hen house once and for all.
  We have seen the costs of corruption. It erodes the trust of the 
American people, hurts our constituents and damages our ability to 
solve the critical challenges facing our great Nation.
  In order to offer real solutions to the many challenges facing our 
country, we need a solid foundation. I'm committed to supporting 
efforts to hold all Members of Congress to higher standards of ethics 
and integrity, but it is time for this body to listen to the will of 
the American people and establish once and for all an independent 
ethics office.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend, the 
distinguished majority leader, how many speakers he has remaining on 
his side?
  Mr. HOYER. I think that we are concluded with our speakers and I will 
close.
  Mr. DREIER. Okay. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I'd like to during this period of time engage my friend in a 
colloquy.
  And let me say as we begin this process, that I'm very troubled that 
we have this 40 minutes of debate, and we are in a position right now 
where we had to hear a whole line of campaign speeches that were, as 
the gentleman from Maryland said, a very important part of last 
November's process, the election, and we had to listen to those 
speeches again rather than trying to clean up this very, very poorly 
crafted legislation.
  Now, I asked my friend to yield earlier, and he refused to yield to 
me, Mr. Speaker. And as I made that request, I was struck with the fact 
that the report that was just issued today continued to talk about this 
great sense of civility, openness and bipartisanship that exists in 
this institution. So I will say that I was somewhat troubled by that.
  Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the distinguished 
majority leader has another speaker from which we're going to hear, and 
before I engage in my colloquy with him, and I hope he might be 
generous with whatever time is remaining so that we can try to clean up 
this legislation or at least the intents of it, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe this resolution is well-crafted, and it's 
well-crafted to effect the end that it seeks. And the end that it seeks 
is very simple, that when issues are raised, the Ethics Committee will 
pursue them and that they will give confidence to the American public 
that we are taking seriously the allegations and/or the transgressions 
that might undermine the integrity of this House.
  We think that's what the American people want. That's what we are 
pursuing. We think this legislation is very clear on that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.
  I rise today to speak on the issue of ethics. This body must focus 
its attentions on ethics and accountability. In the last election, the 
American people demanded such, and I think this resolution offered by 
Mr. Hoyer is something that will begin to address that concern.
  The Ethics Committee must begin to respond to allegations of 
wrongdoing by this House. I think a mandatory 30-day return time makes 
an extraordinary amount of sense.
  As a member of the freshman class who cares a lot about ethics and 
accountability, we also hope to eventually have an independent ethics 
counsel which will also provide recommendations to the House Ethics 
Committee.
  I think this is the first step in the progress of making sure that 
the American people can begin to have faith and confidence in its 
government and its elected leaders.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we've been sitting here listening to what frankly have been a flow 
of campaign speeches, we've been trying to sort of study and analyze 
and scrutinize what the majority leader, for whom I have highest 
regard, describes as well-crafted legislation.
  So I'm going to with the remaining time that I have continue to try 
and inquire about this legislation which should have been referred to 
the Rules Committee, that should have been an original jurisdiction 
hearing.
  A question that has just come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, and I 
would be happy to yield to my friend for an answer on this, is whether 
or not a Member who conceivably receives a traffic ticket, and again, 
the language here says, ``be it Resolved, That whenever a Member of the 
House of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
to the Congress, is indicted or otherwise formally charged with 
criminal conduct.''
  Now, my question to my friend would be, if a Member were to get a 
speeding ticket, and I was just informed by one of our crack staff 
people here who is aware of the fact that in the State of Virginia, if 
someone exceeds the speed limit by 10 miles an hour, they could be out 
here on the George Washington Parkway, there is in fact a criminal 
charge leveled against them. If that were to happen to a Member, is 
that Member under this resolution that we are going to be voting on 
compelled to actually inform the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct that that person faces that criminal charge?
  And I'd be happy to yield to the majority leader to clarify this bit 
of confusion that we have in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  My friend continues to focus on traffic tickets. He tries to--
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, when the 
gentleman says I'm just focusing on traffic tickets, if in fact someone 
is arrested for a protest at the Sudanese Embassy, is it the intent 
that that Member be compelled to inform the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct of this action?
  These are the questions we want to have answered, and I'm 
underscoring, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a lot of confusion 
about this resolution. I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is a short resolution. The gentleman may 
not think it's well-written, but nor has he well-read it. There is 
nothing in there that says the Member is compelled to do anything.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, that is the 
reason we need to have that clarified. Let me read the resolution on 
which we're about to vote.
  It says, ``otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct.'' That 
is the language that is here. If that happens, then the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct is expected to take action, whether or 
not they choose to empanel an investigative committee or choose to 
waive it. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is compelled 
to take action, whether it be a traffic ticket, an arrest at the 
Sudanese Embassy or a littering ticket.
  And I'm happy to yield to my friend if he wants to further clarify 
the confusion and explain to us what ``otherwise formally charged with 
criminal conduct'' is, and Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm doing this is to 
simply underscore the fact that this measure should have been referred 
to the Committee on Rules so that we could have held an original 
jurisdiction and done what we've already had to do in this Congress so 
far, and that is clean up on issues like the charitable events 
attending, we had to clean that up

[[Page H5976]]

through a self-executed measure in a rule that was passed last month.

                              {time}  1930

  That's why we have a chance to do it. I believe it should be done.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will tell the gentleman that this resolution that we are now 
considering does not seek to trivialize the issue. I suggest that the 
gentleman is trying to trivialize this issue. This issue does not deal 
with traffic tickets.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I am not 
trivializing. I am not trivializing this issue at all.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman wants an answer, then he ought to give me 
the time to answer.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am not trivializing this issue at all. 
There is nothing trivial about this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. My time has expired? Will the gentleman from Maryland 
yield me time to respond?
  Mr. HOYER. How much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield the gentleman from California 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say there is absolutely nothing 
trivial about this issue. We are here on the floor because of the fact 
that we have faced a very serious attack with an indictment against one 
of our colleagues. That Member happens to be a Democrat.
  We have all discussed the fact that this is a bipartisan issue, and 
there is a goal to ensure that this institution is held to the highest 
possible ethical standards. We have before us a resolution, which, 
based on my experience in this House, is very poorly crafted. It is a 
resolution which creates the potential for all kinds of havoc.
  I have been spending the last 40 minutes making a feeble attempt at 
trying to create some kind of legislative history as to how Members of 
this institution in the future are going to be treated, as our friends 
on other side of the aisle have rushed to the floor and tried to 
politicize this very, very important substantive issue.
  They have done it. They have done it through the campaign process 
last fall, and I believe that we need to do what we can to put this 
measure before the Committee on Rules so we can, in fact, have a decent 
hearing on it.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is welcome.
  The pain of accountability is evident. What this resolution says, and 
I am pleased that the gentleman from California is going to vote for 
it, is that the American people are going to have confidence that when 
a criminal act is committed by a Member, whatever that act, that the 
Ethics Committee will look at it.
  I said earlier in the course of this debate that I have full 
confidence that the Ethics Committee will dismiss summarily, summarily, 
the examples that the gentleman from California raises. That's not what 
the American public are concerned about.
  Yes, perhaps it's politicized. But when Duke Cunningham takes $2.5 
million of bribes to put earmarks in bills and calls the Defense 
Department and says, give Mr. Wade a contract, the American people 
knows that's something they want looked at. They want action taken. 
That Member was not expelled until conviction.
  When Mr. Abramoff takes trips with a lot of people to Scotland for 
free, the American people knows that's not a traffic ticket. It's not 
demonstrating in front of the Embassy of Sudan to say stop the genocide 
in Darfur. The American public knows the difference.
  When a gentleman gets $5,000 in chips to put in his pocket and pay 
his bills with, they know that's not a traffic ticket, particularly 
when legislative action is taken shortly thereafter on this floor. They 
know the difference.
  I would hope that every Member would vote for this, because I believe 
that every Member in this House wants an ethical House, Republican and 
Democrat. Why? Because unethical conduct, yes, criminal conduct, 
reflects on every one of us, because the American public too readily 
assumes, well, if one does it, all do it.
  That is not the case. I believe that I am privileged to serve with 
those of you on the Republican side and those on the Democratic side 
with some very ethical members of our society who have been chosen by 
your neighbors to represent them in this body.
  All we are saying in this resolution is that, ladies and gentlemen of 
America, we are going to hold accountable each and every one of us if 
we do not act in accordance with your justifiably high expectations. I 
hope every Member of this body votes for this resolution and says to 
our constituents, this body will be an ethical, honest body 
representing your interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 451.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HOYER. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________