[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14600-14605]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 14601]]

     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;
       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

[[Page 14602]]

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 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

[[Page 14603]]

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 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

[[Page 14604]]

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 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

[[Page 14605]]

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 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.

                          ____________________