David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am not trivializing this issue at all. There is nothing trivial about this issue.

Mr. DREIER. My time has expired? Will the gentleman from Maryland yield me time to respond?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is 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. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

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. DREIER. Okay. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining on each side?

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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side of the debate?

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. 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. 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. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

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. 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. 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. DREIER. Sure. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

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. DREIER

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. 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. The issue of ethics and lobbying reform and all has been greatly politicized by our friends in the majority; greatly politicized by our friends in the majority. We had a debate on this just before we adjourned before Memorial Day, and to me it was just outrageous to hear the kind of rhetoric that was used, pointing the finger of blame on this issue. I think it is very sad. We are here responding to an indictment, the likes of which has not been seen for a Member in a long, long period of time, and I hope very much that as we do seek greater deliberation that we will take resolutions like this and run them through the regular order process.