In the matter of Representative Laura Richardson.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ethics, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I am prepared to close unless there are any further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy, on the part of the committee, to yield 5 minutes to Representative Richardson.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentlelady 5 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close if the ranking member has no further speakers.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting time to speak.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, support the approval of the Ethics Committee report and the sanctions imposed on Ms. Richardson.