Date: 2008-03-12
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ive served in this body for 14 years stretched over 30. Twentynine years ago. I think it was the first official action I took on this floor. was to bring a resolution to expel a Member. It was not something I wanted to do as a freshman. But we had a true ethics problem at the time. And frankly. I didnt think we were dealing with it in the appropriate way. That was sort of my baptism of fire here. Since I returned to Congress 4 years ago after an absence of 16 years. I have applauded the work of the Ethics Committee because often I and my staff consult with the staff of the Ethics Committee to ensure that we are acting within the rules of this House. And I must say the return that we have received in terms of information. advice and counsel from the Ethics Committee staff has been professional. exceptional and helpful. And so. when I see memos or letters that are addressed to the membership . from the Ethics Committee. I pay attention to it. I try and incorporate that information in my decisionmaking. So when I received the letter from Congressman HASTINGS with the memo enclosed. I thought it was a benefit to me as an individual Member of this House in making my decision. I came to the floor. frankly. not knowing what I was going to do on that ethics package. I sat with the gentleman from Missouri and went over it. We. in fact. went over the memo that was given to us by Doc HASTINGS. not just because it was given to us by Doc HASTINGS. but because it was a professional opinion of those on the staff of the Ethics Committee that I have learned to trust. It doesnt mean that I follow blindly their opinion. but it does mean that I am educated by that information. For the life of me. I could not understand any rule adopted by this House or the committee that would deny me. as an individual Member. the benefit of that information when. in the judgment of the ranking member. he thought it might help me and others make a decision. And when you review the rules cited by the gentlewoman in the letter that contained the threat of a complaint to be filed against the gentleman from Washington. I cannot find the basis for a complaint. Now. I have not served on the Ethics Committee. I will admit. I have practiced law for 30some years. I have been the attorney general of the State of Califorinia. I have prosecuted people. I have put people in prison. I have done .investigations of other elected officials. I have had to compartmentalize. and understand that when you do a criminal investigation and it doesnt rise to the level of a complaint or an indictment. you cannot. as a matter of honor. as a matter of ethics. use that information in debate. in informing the public. even though you may find that the individual that was under investigation happened to be stupid. hap: pened to be unethical. because you got that information .by way of an investigation of a criminal matter. So. while I havent served on the Ethics Committee. I believe I have over the course of my political and legal career been able to read legislation. read rules. and not only find out what the spirit of the law is. but the letter of the law. And I cannot find in the citation by the gentlelady from Ohio any basis for making a claim against the gentleman from Washington. Now. we can disagree on that. I am not on that committee. She is the Chair. However. the thing that troubles me perhaps the most is that this was made public. A complaint about the gentleman breaching confidentiality about a matter that was not of interest to an individual Member. that is. was not directed at a Member in terms of an investigation. that alleged breach is revealed by a breach of confidentiality that gives the gentleman from Washington very little opportunity to defend hiruself. And that is part of the crux of the debate last night. Yes. as the Speaker said. we all are subject to criticism. some fair. some unfair That is part of the business of being in politics. But the fact of the matter is. we here should not enhance that kind of platform for irresponsible allegations against one another. And one of the ways we ensure that we dont do that is the confidentiality with respect to complaints against somebody. So. I would just hope that the people of the gentlemans district in Washington would understand that in the judgment of many. I would say most in this body. virtually universal. there is no basis for a claim of complaint against the gentleman from Washington. He did nothing to reveal anything with respect to an investigation. anything with respect to the business of the Ethics Committee. What he did was give us the benefit of judgment of professionals on that committee pertaining to an upcoming legislative debate. Have we gone so far in this House that we deny ourselves of information that would inform the debate? Is that what we are talking about? Talk about turning the first amendment on its head. saying that the House of Representatives. which is supposed to be the great debating society of this institution. ought to be denied an opportunity to debate when informed. I love this House. I came back to this House. I may die in this House. I love the institution. this House. And I think we who believe this institution is important to the American people believe it is also important to those who have been privileged to serve here. If we do not have respect for ourselves. how can we ask the public to have respect for us? If we do not have respect for ourselves. how can we have respect for this institution? So. Mr. Speaker. I rise in sorrow about the accusations made against my friend from Washington and want to stand here and say I have found him in every way to be an honorable man. and that his actions over this last week were anything but dishonorable. were in fact efforts to inform this House. which is what we all ought to be about when we vote. I thank the gentleman.