Letter: To Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of House Committee on Standards, and Rep. Doc Hastings, Ranking Member House Committee on Standards
Letter: To Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of House Committee on Standards, and Rep. Doc Hastings, Ranking Member House Committee on Standards
Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Hastings:
I request the assistance of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in obtaining an official interpretation of Section 207, clause 15 (a) of Rule XXIII of the Democratic Rules package (H.Res. 6) that was agreed to by the House on January 5, 2007.
Clause 15 (a) states, "A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds, or campaign funds for a flight on a non-governmental airplane that is not licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for compensation or hire."
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) simply stated, does not license either airplanes or flights for compensation or hire - only pilots and carriers are licensed for commercial use. This poorly written rule has exposed all Members of the House of Representatives to an ethics complaint should they use personal, official, or campaign funds for any travel on a non-governmental airplane.
This rule, in its own clear and unambiguous language, prohibits Members from using funds of any kind for all non-governmental flights, including those operated by commercial carriers that most Members rely on for transportation between their district and their Washington, D.C. duty station. Agreeing with this interpretation, an official with the FAA stated in the January 8, 2007, edition of Roll Call, "it seems that no Member can fly on any non-government airplane."
In addition to problems resulting from the fact that this rule critically relies on an FAA license that does not exist, this rule has an additional flaw in that it offers no exception for Members using their personal funds for flying aircraft they personally own.
While Rep. Alcee Hastings, in speaking for the majority that offered H.Res. 6, made a vague statement on intent that did not acknowledge the FAA license question or any explicit mistake in this rule, it appears that any Member who travels under the new rules on a non-government flight is in violation House rules as approved on January 5.
Specifically, I ask for an official interpretation on the following questions:
Does the Committee agree that Members who use personal, official, or campaign funds for commercial airline flights on airplanes that fail to have the (non-existent) FAA license specified in clause 15 (a) are subject to sanction for violating House Ethics rules?
Does the Committee agree that Members who fly their own personal aircraft are subject to sanction for violating clause 15 (a)?
If the Committee intends to nullify the application of clause 15 (a) in the previous questions, does the committee intend to retain and enforce the prohibition of clause 15 that precludes Members from using funds for flights on jets owned by private individuals or corporations (excluding flights for compensation or hire)?
Does the Committee believe this rule is flawed and requires a legislative correction?
Does the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have any previous precedents of nullifying or ignoring the text of rules agreed to by the House of Representatives or their application?
As adopted by the House, clause 15 (a) places all Members who fly non-governmental airplanes in violation of House Ethics rules and exposes them to sanction by the committee. I request an immediate response to the questions presented and that the committee provide guidance to Members on how and if the committee intends to enforce clause 15 (a).
Sincerely yours,
Darrell Issa
Member of Congress
http://issa.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&ContentRecord_id=428&Region_id=0&Issue_id=0&CFID=25945081&CFTOKEN=73927957