```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5635-H5639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA

  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ethics, I 
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

     In the Matter of Representative Laura Richardson of California

                              H. Res. 755

                    in the house of representatives

                             August 2, 2012

       Resolved, That the House adopt the Report of the Committee 
     on Ethics dated August 1, 2012, In the Matter of 
     Representative Laura Richardson.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an equal amount of time in this 
debate to a lady with whom I am honored to serve, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Ethics, for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that 
she be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As chairman of the Committee on Ethics, I rise in support of a 
resolution before us today which calls for a reprimand for 
Representative Laura Richardson of California.
  Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility for 
punishing Members of our body for disorderly behavior. And in the 
House, it is the Committee on Ethics, the only evenly divided 
committee, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, and served 
by a completely nonpartisan, professional staff, that has been 
entrusted with the responsibility to enforce the rules of the House and 
recommend actions such as that before us today, when a Member or staff 
acts in a manner that violates the spirit of public trust.
  The obligation, therefore, falls to this committee to review those 
allegations that a Member has violated ethical standards that the 
American people expect and deserve from those of us who are privileged 
enough to work for them, men and women who wear the title of 
Representative of this great Nation.
  This unfortunate story begins in October of 2010 when the committee, 
during the 111th Congress, first began to receive complaints from 
several members of Representative Richardson's staff, both in the 
Washington, D.C., and Long Beach, California, offices, that 
Representative Richardson required her staff to perform campaign work.
  The committee began an initial inquiry based on these complaints, as 
well as from media reports consistent with those complaints.
  On November 3, 2011, the committee, now in the 112th Congress, 
empanelled an investigative subcommittee and appointed Representative 
Charles Dent of Pennsylvania and Representative John Yarmuth of 
Kentucky to lead this bipartisan subcommittee in reviewing the 
allegations against Representative Richardson. Joining Mr. Dent and Mr. 
Yarmuth were two Members pulled from a pool of Members who assist the 
committee when needed. In this case, they are Representative Rob Bishop 
of Utah and Representative Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
  These four Members, two Democrats and two Republicans, served on the 
investigative subcommittee and, over the past 9 months, led an 
extensive investigation, supported by the committee's dedicated, 
nonpartisan, professional staff, delving deep into this matter.
  In a minute, Mr. Dent, who served as chairman of the investigative 
subcommittee, will detail the volume of work that the investigative 
team undertook during this period.
  Ultimately, the subcommittee unanimously agreed to a Statement of 
Alleged Violation against Representative Richardson.
  Mr. Speaker, while the full committee report, the investigative 
subcommittee report, Representative Richardson's responsive views, and 
all exhibits were filed by the ranking member and me yesterday morning, 
and have been available to the House and to the American people since 
that time, here now, in summary, are the seven counts of violation:
  First, Representative Richardson violated the Purpose Law, title 31, 
section 1301, United States Code, by using official resources of the 
House for campaign, political, personal, and other nonofficial 
purposes.
  Second, Representative Richardson violated House rule XXIII by 
retaining a full-time employee in her district office who did not 
perform duties commensurate with their compensation.
  Third, Representative Richardson violated House rule XXIII by 
behaving in a manner that did not reflect credibly upon this House when 
she unlawfully used House resources for nonofficial purposes.
  Fourth, Representative Richardson violated House rule XXIII by 
behaving in a manner that did not reflect credibly upon the House when 
she improperly compelled members of her official staff to do campaign 
work by threatening, attempting to intimidate, directing or otherwise 
pressuring them to do such work.
  Fifth, Representative Richardson violated House rule XXIII by 
behaving in a manner that did not reflect credibly upon the House when 
she obstructed and attempted to obstruct the investigation of this 
committee into these allegations.
  Sixth, Representative Richardson violated clause 2 of the Code of 
Ethics for Government Service by failing to uphold the laws and legal 
regulations discussed above and being a party to their evasion.

                              {time}  0920

  Seventh, Representative Richardson violated House rule XXIII by 
failing to abide by the letter and spirit of House and committee rules.
  The record should note that anytime a Member is confronted with a 
Statement of Alleged Violation, he or she has the option of challenging 
those allegations with a public hearing of an adjudicatory subcommittee 
or, in the case of Representative Richardson, negotiating a resolution 
with the investigative subcommittee.
  In this instance, Representative Richardson negotiated a resolution 
in which she admitted to all seven counts in the Statement of Alleged 
Violation and has waived her rights to any additional process in this 
matter, including waiving her right to an adjudicatory hearing. 
Representative Richardson has also agreed to accept a reprimand by the 
House as well as a $10,000 fine to be paid out of personal funds to the 
U.S. Treasury no later than December 1, 2012.
  In the history of our country, five Members have been expelled from 
Congress; 23 Members have been censured; and eight Members have been 
reprimanded. Representative Richardson negotiated--and we recommend--
the sanction of reprimand.
  The investigative subcommittee unanimously adopted a report 
recommending a resolution including these terms to the full committee, 
and on July 31, 2012, the full committee adopted the recommendations of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to reserve the balance of my 
time so the distinguished ranking member of the Ethics Committee, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), may make any 
comments she may have.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the chairman for his work in this matter. He has 
addressed in his opening comments some important aspects of this 
particular matter.

[[Page H5636]]

  Representatives Charles Dent and John Yarmuth, who led the 
investigative subcommittee, will speak in greater detail about the 
facts of this matter and how and why the committee reached the 
recommendation for sanction that comes before the House today.
  I would like to briefly remind our colleagues why we are discussing 
this matter on the floor today and the importance of the ethics process 
to the integrity of the House.
  As noted before, the Ethics Committee is unique in that its 
membership is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. In that 
bipartisan spirit, I would like to cite the observations of two former 
chairmen of this committee about the role of the Ethics Committee and 
the role that it has in overseeing the House.
  A former Republican chairman of the committee once said that the 
ethics process is not a ``trial.'' Instead, it is a ``peer review 
process.'' In that same vein, a former Democratic chair of the 
committee said, ``The purpose of the ethics process is not punishment 
but accountability and credibility: accountability for the respondent 
and credibility for the House, itself.''
  The committee followed these important principles in assessing the 
conduct of our colleague, Representative Laura Richardson. The 
recommendation for sanction we present today will ensure that 
Representative Richardson is held accountable for her conduct. It will 
also reaffirm the credibility of the House by demonstrating our 
commitment to upholding and enforcing the ethics standards that apply 
to all of us equally. How the committee conducted the investigation in 
this matter reinforces the goals of accountability and credibility.
  This matter was begun by the committee at its own initiative in the 
last Congress. The members of the subcommittee did not prejudge the 
outcome of this matter nor did the members of the full committee.
  Out of fairness to all House Members and staff, it is important to 
point out that the mere fact that an individual is the subject of an 
investigation doesn't mean that a violation has actually occurred. The 
existence of an investigation doesn't reflect a judgment by the 
committee on the allegations. This is true whether the investigation 
has been publicly acknowledged by the committee or whether it remains 
confidential.
  The committee conducted a thorough and fair investigation. 
Representative Richardson was represented by counsel throughout the 
committee's investigation. She was provided with copies of materials 
gathered by the subcommittee. Representative Richardson also chose to 
waive certain procedural rights and steps in the investigative process 
that were available to her. The subcommittee listened to her views and 
interpretations of the facts of the investigation as well as 
appropriate sanctions. The full committee also took into account her 
views.
  Ultimately, a dozen Members of the House of both parties weighed the 
allegations regarding Representative Richardson, and based on the 
facts, concluded that her conduct did not meet the ethical standards 
that apply to all of us in a number of respects. That conclusion was 
bipartisan and it was unanimous. The misconduct in this matter was 
serious, and in accordance with House precedent it merits the serious 
sanction of reprimand. Representative Richardson has agreed to accept 
the sanction of reprimand for her conduct.
  Usually, it is the committee's work in investigative matters like 
this one that receives public attention, but the committee's 
nonpartisan staff provides advice and education to Members and staff 
every day. The report issued by the committee in this matter serves 
both purposes.
  If you have not already taken the opportunity to do so, I urge my 
colleagues and House staff to carefully read the committee's report.
  As the report says, the boundaries between our official, political, 
and personal roles are sometimes clear, and sometimes they are 
complicated. This matter illustrates the consequences of failing to 
heed those boundaries.
  Finally, I wish to acknowledge and thank my colleagues 
Representatives Charlie Dent, John Yarmuth, Rob Bishop, and Ben Ray 
Lujan for their hard work on the investigative subcommittee.
  In addition, I want to thank all of our committee staff. Although we 
are a bipartisan committee, we have a professional nonpartisan staff. 
All of the members of the committee appreciate their continuing hard 
work and service to the House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who ably 
served as chairman of the investigative subcommittee, for any comments 
he may have.
  Mr. DENT. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama and the 
gentlelady from California for their leadership of the committee.
  As a member of the Committee on Ethics and as the chairman of the 
investigative subcommittee, or ISC, in this matter, I do rise in 
support of the resolution, which calls for the adoption of this 
committee's report and will serve as a reprimand of Representative 
Laura Richardson for her conduct and will impose upon her a $10,000 
fine.
  I do not relish speaking under these circumstances. This is, indeed, 
a solemn moment--when the House must consider punishing one of its own 
Members.
  As the chairman stated, over the last 9 months, as members of the 
investigative subcommittee, my colleagues Mr. Yarmuth from Kentucky, 
Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Lujan of New Mexico, and I conducted an 
extensive investigation into the allegations regarding Representative 
Laura Richardson. The subcommittee met on over 20 occasions. In total, 
the ISC and staff conducted 12 interviews during this phase of the 
inquiry and reviewed the transcripts of the 17 interviews conducted 
during the committee's earlier phase of its inquiry. The subcommittee 
also reviewed thousands of pages of documents.
  I appreciate the hard work of each of the subcommittee members, 
especially of the ranking member, Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky. He is a 
pleasure to work with. I would also like to thank the nonpartisan 
professional staff of the Ethics Committee who conducted the 
investigation with dignity and professionalism at all times--Deborah 
Mayer, Cliff Stoddard, Sheria Clarke, Chris Tate, and Brittany Bohren.
  At the conclusion of a thorough investigation, the subcommittee 
unanimously concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Richardson had violated the Code of Official Conduct and 
other laws, rules, or standards of conduct. The chairman outlined the 
seven counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation, which was 
unanimously adopted by the investigative subcommittee.
  Here is a summary of the findings of the report and why the committee 
recommends that Representative Richardson be reprimanded by the House 
for her conduct.
  As discussed fully in the investigative subcommittee report, 
fundamentally, Representative Richardson failed to acknowledge the 
boundaries between the official and political realms. On page 59 of the 
ISC report, it reads in part:

       This case is about boundaries. The House entrusts Members 
     with a great deal of discretion over a large amount of 
     taxpayer resources . . . This constructive trust requires 
     Members to delineate between the official, the political, and 
     the personal in ways that are at times quite tidy and at 
     others tangled . . . Representative Richardson did not 
     acknowledge these boundaries. She acted to consume the 
     resources endowed to her as a Member for whatever purpose 
     suited her whims at the moment, be they official acts, her 
     reelection, or her personal needs . . . The ISC discovered 
     significant evidence suggesting that her wrongdoing continued 
     even after learning that the committee was investigating her.

                              {time}  0930

       If the committee fails to exact a steep price for such 
     conduct, the message is one of a set of rules with a 
     toothless enforcement mechanism.

  Representative Richardson's misconduct included that, first, she 
improperly compelled or coerced members of her staff to do campaign 
work. Representative Richardson required the staff of her district 
office in Long Beach, California, to perform campaign work each 
weeknight from approximately 6:30 p.m. through 9 p.m. during at least 
the 2 months prior to the 2010

[[Page H5637]]

primary and general elections. This practice alone accounted for 
hundreds of hours of conscripted campaign work by public servants who 
did not wish to perform it and may not be forced to do so. She also 
required her district staff to perform additional campaign work on the 
weekends. Representative Richardson applied the same philosophy to her 
Capitol Hill staff. This demonstrates a blatant disregard for the 
boundaries between official events and campaign events.
  Second, Representative Richardson used official resources of the 
House for campaign and nonofficial purposes. While the report has a 
detailed exposition of many of the resources used by Representative 
Richardson, some of the more significant improper uses of resources 
included the use of staff time during the official work day to conduct 
campaign activities, repeated use of the House email system to conduct 
campaign business, use of the MRA to lease a car, which she parked at 
her house and used as her only mode of transportation in the district, 
regardless as to whether her destination was official, campaign, or 
personal in nature.
  Third, Representative Richardson paid her deputy district director as 
a full-time House employee, but for months before the 2010 elections 
she directed this employee to conduct campaign work for a significant 
portion of each day. Additionally, in 2011, nearly a year after 
Representative Richardson received notice of the committee's 
investigation into misuse of House resources, Representative Richardson 
hired a new district director, who, with Representative Richardson's 
knowledge and approval, spent much of his time performing campaign 
work.
  Taken together, a theme emerges. Representative Richardson used her 
staff as she saw fit. The evidence does not demonstrate isolated 
incidents of compelled campaign work. If that were, in fact, the case, 
we would not likely be here today. It demonstrates a constant effort by 
Representative Richardson to direct and pressure her official employees 
to perform as much campaign work as possible, regardless of whether or 
not they wanted to volunteer.
  The environment Representative Richardson cultivated in her office 
was so poor that one of her employees, a detailee from the Wounded 
Warrior's program, wrote in her letter of resignation:

       As a service-connected disabled veteran, it is sad to say 
     that I would rather be at war in Afghanistan than work under 
     people that are morally corrupt.

  Just as concerning as the substantive violations, if not more so, was 
the significant evidence that Representative Richardson obstructed and 
attempted to obstruct the investigation. To fulfill our constitutional 
duty, the House must take action against any Member who improperly 
attempts to frustrate a committee investigation. The investigative 
subcommittee concluded that Representative Richardson obstructed and 
attempted to obstruct the investigation into these allegations. 
Specifically, Representative Richardson directed her staff to testify 
that their campaign work had been voluntary, even in cases where staff 
had not volunteered. She also attempted to obstruct the committee's 
investigation by altering or destroying evidence.
  Finally, Representative Richardson obstructed the investigation by 
failing to provide materials responsive to a subpoena issued by the 
investigative subcommittee. The investigative subcommittee served 
Representative Richardson with that subpoena only after months had 
passed with Representative Richardson ignoring numerous requests from 
the ISC that she provide responsive documents. Even then, the 
investigative subcommittee discovered documents that Representative 
Richardson had in her possession, custody, or control and, 
nevertheless, failed to produce.
  Based on these conclusions, the investigative subcommittee found that 
Representative Richardson committed seven different violations of the 
Code of Official Conduct or other laws, rules, or standards of conduct.
  Throughout this process, Representative Richardson has been afforded 
every opportunity to defend herself. Ultimately, she initiated a 
negotiated resolution and admitted to the seven counts in the Statement 
of Alleged Violation. She received a copy of the investigative 
subcommittee report 5 days prior to its adoption and was given an 
opportunity to provide her views to be considered by the committee.

  Through her misconduct, Representative Laura Richardson has violated 
the public trust. While no Member wants to sit in judgment of a 
colleague, it is our duty to protect the integrity of the House. 
Accordingly, on behalf of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that 
the House adopt the committee's unanimous report and that the report 
serve as a reprimand of Representative Laura Richardson for her 
misconduct.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I 
yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Ethics Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.
  As a member of the Committee on Ethics and as the ranking member of 
the investigative subcommittee in this matter, I rise in support of the 
resolution that calls for the adoption of this committee's report and 
will serve as a reprimand of Representative Richardson for her conduct 
and will impose upon her a $10,000 fine.
  After the investigative subcommittee unanimously concluded that there 
was substantial reason to believe that Representative Richardson had 
committed these violations, Representative Richardson initiated formal 
discussions regarding a negotiated resolution of her matter, which 
would avoid an adjudicatory hearing.
  The investigative subcommittee engaged Representative Richardson in 
good faith during these discussions, delaying its vote on a Statement 
of Alleged Violation by more than a week to continue negotiating. On 
July 18, 2012, Representative Richardson agreed to the terms of a 
negotiated resolution with the investigative subcommittee. As a part of 
that resolution, Representative Richardson has admitted to the seven 
counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation. There is no longer a 
factual dispute regarding whether these violations have been proven.
  On July 26, 2012, the investigative subcommittee unanimously adopted 
its report and transmitted it to the full committee. Representative 
Richardson was provided a copy of the report. Pursuant to the terms of 
the negotiated resolution, she was given 5 days to submit her views. On 
July 25, 2012, Representative Richardson submitted her views on the 
report in writing. Those views were transmitted, along with the 
investigative subcommittee report, and considered by the full 
committee. As noted in the committee's report, the members were not 
persuaded by Representative Richardson's submission.
  Some of the terms in the negotiated resolution require action only by 
the Ethics Committee or Representative Richardson, but there are terms 
that have been brought before the House today, Mr. Speaker, and that is 
the need for the House to impose the punishment that all parties agree 
is an acceptable sanction for Representative Richardson's misconduct: a 
reprimand by the House of Representatives and the imposition of a 
$10,000 fine.
  It is important for all Members to understand that it is our 
responsibility to ensure that if our staffs wish to work on our 
campaigns, they must do it on their own time, outside of their office, 
and without the use of any official resources. A staffer is free to 
volunteer, but a Member cannot compel them to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, it became clear during the investigation that 
Representative Richardson did not believe that she was compelling her 
official staff to work on her campaign. It was equally clear, after 
hearing from members of her staff, that they believed they were being 
compelled to do so.
  There are examples of Representative Richardson providing explicit 
directions to her staff to work on her campaign. There are more 
numerous examples when Representative Richardson's actions would lead 
any reasonable staffer to believe that they were required to do 
campaign work or face retribution.
  The way Members treat and manage their staffs is often as important 
and significant an influence on employee

[[Page H5638]]

understanding and actions as any words a Member may use. Ultimately, it 
is also the Member's responsibility to know and manage what is being 
asked of their staff and what isn't. As this case shows, when these 
rules are broken, Members are not only responsible, they will be held 
accountable.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. Speaker, I, once again, support the approval of the Ethics 
Committee report and the sanctions imposed on Ms. Richardson.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I 
would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, the committee has examined the case and 
reached a conclusion. The subject of the investigation has agreed to 
accept responsibility and, in fact, has affixed her name to the 
findings as a confirmation of such.
  As a supporter and colleague of the subject of the investigation, I 
know that she regrets the violations and hopes that the reprimand by 
the House will allow both her and the House to move on to address the 
great issues facing the Nation.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close unless there are any 
further requests for time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting time to speak.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy, on the part of the committee, to 
yield 5 minutes to Representative Richardson.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding time, 
and it's my understanding I will be provided additional time, if 
needed.
  I had no desire or intent to prolong the debate on this report. But 
given what has now been stated during this debate, which is contrary to 
what I understood to be agreed to, I want to make sure that my 
colleagues are aware of several issues critical to understanding the 
full context of this resolution.
  First, I want to assure my colleagues that contrary to the 
inflammatory suggestions in the full committee report, I do take these 
findings very seriously and do accept the responsibility for the 
specific conduct set out in the Statement of Alleged Violations.
  Second, I set forth in my statement of views, included in the 
committee report, several significant concerns about the manner in 
which the committee conducted this investigation. I find it was 
interesting that the ranking member stated in the initial discussion 
that the subject of an investigation does not mean that an individual 
or a violation has occurred. Well, in fact, in this investigation, 
there are seven areas where I feel that there has been a violation--
prejudgment and improper influence of witnesses by the Ethics 
Committee, the very matter that the ranking member just mentioned. And 
I'll state for the record what specifically was stated in the statement 
of views.
  During the rule 18(a) inquiry at the outset of the committee's 
process, the committee counsel improperly influenced witnesses by 
telling them a year before any such decision had been made by the 
Ethics Committee that the Ethics Committee was likely to impanel an 
investigative subcommittee, thereby clearly signaling that the Ethics 
Committee staff at least already believed that I, Representative 
Richardson, was guilty of misconduct and, given the staff discussions, 
clearly influenced staff testimony.
  For example, during their interview of Angel Macias, a key staff 
witness, Ethics counsel told Ms. Macias:

       It's completely up to the full committee on what they want 
     to do. They make the final decision, which could be anything 
     from dismiss the matter entirely to investigate it by 
     impaneling an investigative subcommittee.

  Counsel continued:

       If that happens, you will be called. You will be placed 
     under oath. So that is the process. Chances are

  --this is important--

       Chances are, they are going to want to impanel.

  This is according to Macias' transcript on page number 34.

       Committee counsel told former district director Eric Boyd 
     during his first interview that ``the chances are very likely 
     that you are going to be interviewed again. If you are 
     interviewed again, it will be under oath; and it will be in 
     front of members of the committee. My recommendations could 
     be anywhere from dismiss the matter as being, you know, not a 
     violation or not impanel an investigative subcommittee. I 
     think you probably know which way at this point we are 
     looking?''

  Eric Boyd's transcript, page 83 and 84.

       Committee counsel told district staffer Candace Yamagawa: 
     The committee choices in this matter are to dismiss the 
     matter because the information received lacks merit or lacks 
     sufficient information to believe a violation occurred; or we 
     recommend that an investigative subcommittee be impaneled.
       You actually won't hear back from us until such time we 
     decide to interview you again. And the reason is that, as I 
     said, everything is done confidentially. I expect that we 
     would not be able to impanel an investigative subcommittee 
     until the beginning of the 112th Congress because there is 
     insufficient time left in this Congress to do so. So more 
     than likely, it would be in January we would impanel and 
     begin doing any additional work.

  And, finally:

       The committee counsel told Kenneth Miller during his first 
     rule 18(a) interview in November 2010 that, ``When I present 
     the findings to the Members, I will give them a full briefing 
     on what I believe was violated, be it House rules, campaign 
     law, or Federal criminal statutes.''

  Miller testimony, page 47.
  During these interviews with my staff, the committee attorneys made 
clear to staff witnesses that the Ethics Committee staff had already 
determined that I had committed violations at the very first stages of 
the preliminary inquiry. Committee staff explicitly requested that my 
staff not speak with my own counsel, a recognized form of prosecutorial 
misconduct, which effectively deprived me of an opportunity to actually 
learn of the specific allegations against me until the final stages of 
this investigation. And after the resolution had been negotiated, new 
and additional allegations appeared in the investigative subcommittee 
report supported by two attorney proofers that I still, to this date, 
have never seen.

  The full committee report takes issue with my raising these concerns, 
stating that in the resolution of the matter I waived all my procedural 
rights and that the time for lodging these objections had passed. These 
concerns should have been taken seriously by the committee, as I 
brought them forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlelady from 
California how much additional time does she intend to seek because, as 
I have heard her comments, respectfully, it sounds like those were all 
contained in her response which was included in the report submitted to 
the House.
  So I would ask, how much additional time would you be seeking to 
conclude your comments?
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I was told that I would be allowed to continue 
to request additional time to complete my presentation.
  I would say approximately, I think, less than 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentlelady 5 additional 
minutes.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The purpose of me standing today--and I had no intentions of speaking 
because I believe we had agreed to a certain format of what would have 
occurred. But the most important issue that I bring forward is the 
comments of Mr. Dent.
  Third, with respect to the count charging obstruction of the 
committee investigation, I want to make clear that the Statement of 
Alleged Violations does not assert anywhere that I deliberately failed 
to produce documents in response to requests for information and a 
subpoena, as referenced in yesterday's public statement by the chair 
and the ranking member. I did not admit to this conduct, and I 
certainly do deny it. And it's my understanding that the committee is 
aware that, in fact, it was not included.
  With respect to the conduct to which I did admit, my statement of 
views explains that my office calendars were adjusted retroactively but 
only to accurately reflect the history of the time worked by my deputy 
district director. Discussions about that adjustment, in

[[Page H5639]]

fact, took place before the committee commenced its inquiry.
  I did at the very beginning of the committee's preliminary inquiry 
suggest--and, Mr. Chairman, I think this is very important--I 
acknowledge the Statement of Alleged Violations. In fact, much of what 
has been said today has been, in fact, true.
  But what I want to make emphatically clear and what I want to 
emphasize is that I have never taken or threatened any action against 
any staffer who did not volunteer to work on my campaign.
  There is no doubt that a number of staff felt compelled or coerced to 
do so. That was not my intent, and I deeply regret that this occurred. 
And because I want to make sure it is very clear to the committee, I 
will repeat that statement. There is no doubt that a number of staff 
felt compelled or coerced to do so, and that was not my intent, and I 
deeply do regret that this occurred. I never told any staff member that 
they would be out of a job if they did not work on the campaign. And it 
is undisputed that I was not present at the staff meeting at which time 
the statement was made.
  With that context and these clarifications, Mr. Speaker, I 
respectfully ask that my colleagues refer, as was stated by the 
committee, to my public reference to this matter, my statement of 
views, which are included in the report.
  As I conclude, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I look forward to the 
resolution of this matter. In fact, I have sought the resolution of 
this matter for well over a year.

                              {time}  0950

  And I have agreed to the items that were set forward; however, some 
of the details that were said in the language that was said today was 
not what had been discussed. And so, for the record, I wanted to 
clarify that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may not reserve her time. 
The time is controlled by the gentleman from Alabama.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I just feel it is important to point out several important issues 
that were raised by Ms. Richardson in her comments on the floor today.
  Much of what she has stated on the floor today was included in the 
views that she filed after reviewing the report that was issued. She 
raised these points in her views of the report. And I feel compelled to 
add that the committee took those views very seriously, and they 
responded and refuted those points in its response to her views, which 
is all included in the report which has been made publicly available.
  Everything that has been stated on the floor today by any Member, but 
most especially Mr. Dent, are statements that are already included in 
the report to which Representative Richardson has responded. And again, 
many of the points that she raised we investigated, took very 
seriously, and included in response to those views.
  I don't think that there is anything further to add other than she 
has been given an opportunity to voice her concerns at every step of 
the process, and we have scrupulously adhered to a process to try to 
take her views and her suggestions into account and we have arrived at 
the report which is unanimously agreed on by all of the committee 
members.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close if the ranking member 
has no further speakers.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank 
members of the committee, as well as members of the pool, for their 
tremendous service that they render to this institution. And on behalf 
of the entire House, I want to again thank the nonpartisan, 
professional committee staff for their extraordinary hard work and 
commitment to the House of Representatives and to the American people 
that we all serve.
  As it is often noted on the floor, especially during somber moments 
like this, public office is a public trust. And for the vast majority 
of Members who have been honored with the opportunity, the privilege to 
serve in this, the people's House, there is an unspoken duty to hold 
ourselves up to a higher standard.
  Unfortunately, as Representative Richardson has admitted, she did not 
live up to that higher standard. And as such, she did a disservice to 
her staff, to her colleagues. And while it is ultimately up to her 
constituents in California to be the final judge of her actions, I 
think it is safe to say she did a disservice to the hardworking 
taxpayers from all corners of this country who expect and deserve more 
from their elected leaders.
  Throughout the course of this matter, the investigative subcommittee 
heard desperate, sometimes emotional pleas for help from members of 
Representative Richardson's staff. Representative Dent has shared at 
least one of the stories with the body today. And even since word first 
broke yesterday of this resolution this morning, the committee has 
received calls from other staffers thanking us for bringing this matter 
to a public resolution.
  As a former Hill staffer myself, I have great respect for those 
staffers who were willing to come to the Ethics Committee with their 
stories and heartfelt concerns. That is not an easy thing to do against 
a Member of Congress, particularly when that person claims to be your 
boss and you're made to feel that your job is in jeopardy. At the end 
of the day, however, we must remember and never forget that the real 
employer for us all are the American people.
  I was particularly moved by one of Representative Richardson's former 
staffers who testified:

       This certainly should not be an example as to the way an 
     elected official for this country should conduct themselves 
     under any circumstance.

  And, Mr. Speaker, I am simply haunted by the statement of another 
staffer that Mr. Dent referenced, a lady who was part of the Wounded 
Warrior program, someone who was willing to risk her life in service to 
her country, and ended up coming home a disabled veteran. She told the 
committee, and it bears repeating:

       It is sad to say that I would rather be at war in 
     Afghanistan than work under people who are morally corrupt.

  Mr. Speaker, while some might prefer a harsher sentence, perhaps a 
few might even think a reprimand is too severe, I urge my colleagues to 
support the unanimous recommendation of the only evenly divided 
committee in this House of Representatives.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                             General Leave

  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H. Res. 755.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```