Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to Respond to the Indictment of any Member of the House

Floor Speech

DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO RESPOND TO THE INDICTMENT OF ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE -- (House of Representatives - June 05, 2007)

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source