Date: 2007-03-08
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. at the time that the Ethics Committee came before our committee for their funding. I inquired as to what they needed. because I was concerned about the insufficiency of funds for that committee per the directions we had received from the leadership as to what we could actually give them. So during that presentation before our committee. the distinguished chairwoman of the committee said these words regarding her request: "These positions." that is the positions that will be funded by their additional money request. ."are. needed to satisfy the mandates of the House Ethics Committee." She continued: "Importantly. the figures presented- today- represent the collaborative efforts of my ranking member. Representative Doc HASTINGS. and I to advance." again. quoting her. "the past needs of the committee and the current mandates of the House ethics rules." Thats the nub of this whole debate. That is why we ask that this rule be voted down and that we will be allowed to have an amendment dealing specifically with funding for the Ethics Committee. - We have to understand. "additional mandates." those are the words from the chairperson of the committee. current mandates of the House ethics rules.. I am just asking Members on both sides of the aisle to think about this. We have said that we are going to be the most ethical Congress in history. We have adopted new rules that mandate new concerns with specificity as to conduct by Members and their staff. -One of the enforcing mechanisms is guidance to be given to us by that very Ethics Committee. Therefore. we have imposed additional obligations. additional work on that committee. and yet we are not giving them the additional resources. Now. if I were a corporation having received the new mandate under SarbanesOxley. and the first thing I told my employees and my shareholders is. I am not going to beef up our lawyers. I am not going to beef up our accountants to give us advice as to what we should do under the law. the shareholders would probably throw me out of my position because I would not be doing the job that is necessary. We on this floor in these committees have two shareholders. We have our peers. that is the other Members to whom we owe a responsibilities to give them that which they need to ensure that they follow those rules. and we have an obligation to our ultimate shareholders. the taxpayers of America. our constituents. who expect us to put our money where our mouth is to expect us to live up to our promises. May I just say. I thank the committee for the work they did. I had to make a specific request of the committee about a particular trip I was going on to visit a friend that I have known for 40some years. before our last break. and I received oral assurance from the committee that it was appropriate. But. technically. I was supposed to receive written assurance. and I received that a week after the visit. Now. it turned out my wife slipped on the ice and we were not able to go on the visit. so I have to write a letter to the committee to make it clear I didnt do that. and that is why it will not be in my report at the end of the year. But the fact of the matter is. those technical violations that could occur because we dont give them enough in the way of personnel can come back to haunt us as individual Members. but. more importantly. to undercut. undercut the confidence the American people have in this place that we are ethical. All -I am saying is. we can save money in a number of different places. but we ought not to skimp on this particular issue. this particular committee. I Therefore. I would ask Members to vote down this rule so we can have this simple amendment brought forward.