August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5635 

Grandma’s Social Security and attacking her Medicare and food stamps. 

Grandma doesn’t have a car so she 

has no ID so she can’t vote. 

For some reason, you care about a 

baby right up until the minute it is 

born into the world, and then you disappear and desert the children you 

claim to protect and love. Shame on 

you. 

Stop the cradle-to-grave neglect and 

abuse. Let’s create jobs, jobs, jobs for 

the American people. Obama cares, and 

so should you. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to heed the gavel. 

f 

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. SA ́ NCHEZ), 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 LUJA ́ N 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. 

b 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. SA ́ NCHEZ), may make any 

comments she may have. 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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 LUJA ́ N 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. LUJA ́ N 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. 

b 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. SA ́ NCHEZ 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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. 

b 0940 

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, support 

the approval of the Ethics Committee 

report and the sanctions imposed on 

Ms. RICHARDSON. 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ 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. SA ́ NCHEZ 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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. SA ́ NCHEZ 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. SA ́ NCHEZ 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. 

f 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Ms. 

Curtis, one of its clerks, announced 

that the Senate has passed without 

amendment bills of the House of the 

following titles. 

H.R. 1369. An act to designate the facility 

of the United States Postal Service located 

at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, 

Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post Office’’. 

H.R. 1560. An act to amend the Ysleta del 

Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to 

allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for 

membership in that tribe. 

H.R. 3276. An act to designate the facility 

of the United States Postal Service located 

at 2810 East Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Reverend Abe Brown Post 

Office Building’’. 

H.R. 3412. An act to designate the facility 

of the United States Postal Service located 

at 1421 Veterans Memorial Drive in Abbeville, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Sergeant Richard 

Franklin Abshire Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE