July 31, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 136 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in House sectionPrev14 of 72Next
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SCHWEIKERT OF ARIZONA; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 136
(House of Representatives - July 31, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H4194-H4197] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SCHWEIKERT OF ARIZONA Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ethics, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1074) in the matter of Representative David Schweikert, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: [[Page H4195]] H. Res. 1074 Resolved, (1) That the House adopt the Report of the Committee on Ethics dated July 30, 2020, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative David Schweikert. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 hour. {time} 0915 Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I yield an equal amount of time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), the ranking member of the Committee on Ethics, for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Ethics, I rise in support of a resolution for Representative David Schweikert of Arizona to be reprimanded by the House of Representatives. One of our most basic obligations as Members of Congress is to adhere to the principle that public office is a public trust. To uphold that trust and to maintain civic confidence in the integrity of this body, we, as Members, have bound ourselves by certain standards of official conduct. Our Constitution vests the House with the responsibility for self- discipline and self-accountability to those ethical standards. The Committee on Ethics, whose membership is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and whose work is supported by nonpartisan staff, is charged with: enforcing the laws and rules governing our official conduct; investigating allegations that those laws and rules have been violated; and, where appropriate, making recommendations to the House for the disposition of such investigations. We are here today to fulfill that charge. Our committee began reviewing allegations involving Representative Schweikert after public reports detailed potential misconduct by him and his former chief of staff, who is no longer employed by the House. In 2018, the Office of Congressional Ethics sent two separate referrals regarding Representative Schweikert to the Ethics Committee for further review. Those referrals included: troubling allegations of systemic campaign finance violations and reporting errors by Representative Schweikert's authorized campaign committees; allegations of misuse of his Members' Representational Allowance, or MRA, for unofficial purposes; and evidence that he pressured his official staff to perform campaign work. During the 115th Congress, the committee impaneled an investigative subcommittee to lead a bipartisan review of these allegations. At the start of the 116th Congress, the committee reestablished that evenly divided bipartisan panel and appointed Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota as its chair, along with Representative Bill Flores of Texas, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Representative John Katko of New York. The subcommittee, which was capably supported by the committee's professional, nonpartisan investigative staff, took testimony from 18 witnesses and reviewed several hundred thousand pages of documents. The investigative subcommittee also heard from Representative Schweikert himself and considered his views and interpretation of the evidence without prejudgment. Upon completing its exhaustive investigation, the subcommittee unanimously concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Schweikert's conduct violated various House rules, the Code of Ethics for Government service, Federal laws, and other applicable standards. On June 30, 2020, the investigative subcommittee unanimously adopted a Statement of Alleged Violations, or SAV, detailing 11 separate violations and the facts giving rise to those violations. As set forth in counts 1 through 6 of the SAV, between 2010 and 2017, Representative Schweikert's campaign committees erroneously disclosed or failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans that were made or obtained for the benefit of his congressional campaigns, including a fictional $100,000 loan that purported to be sourced from personal funds. His campaign committees also failed to report or falsely reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign disbursements and contributions. For those cumulative and sustained acts, Representative Schweikert violated: Federal Election Commission Act reporting requirements; clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct of House rule XXIII, which requires Members of this House to behave at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on this House; and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Count 7 addresses conduct by Representative Schweikert's former chief of staff, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars in impermissible outlays on behalf of Representative Schweikert's campaign committees over a 7-year period. Even though these outlays were eventually reimbursed by the campaign, they amounted to impermissible campaign contributions under Federal law. For knowing of this practice as it was ongoing but failing to prevent it, Representative Schweikert violated clause 1 of House rule XXIII and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. As detailed in count 8, between 2011 and 2018, Representative Schweikert converted campaign funds for personal purposes, primarily by accepting personal items from several staff members that were later reimbursed using campaign funds. This conduct violated: Federal election law and regulations; clause 6 of House rule XXIII, which states campaign funds must be kept separate and cannot be converted to personal use; and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Count 9 addresses Representative Schweikert's misuse of official resources--including official funds, staff time, and congressional office space--for unofficial and campaign purposes between 2011 and 2017. By misusing his MRA and failing to provide necessary oversight over its use, Representative Schweikert violated 31 U.S. Code, section 1301, clause 1 of House rule XXIII, and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. As set forth in count 10, Representative Schweikert violated clause 1 of House rule XXIII by pressuring his former chief of staff to fundraise for his campaigns and fostering an office environment in which congressional staff felt pressured to perform campaign work. Finally, as detailed in count 11, Representative Schweikert violated clause 1 of House rule XXIII by failing to exercise the proper candor and due diligence necessary in responding to these allegations, including a finding by this investigative subcommittee that certain aspects of his testimony lacked credibility. Under House and committee rules, a Member confronted with a Statement of Alleged Violations may either challenge the allegations with a public hearing of an adjudicatory subcommittee or, instead, reach a negotiated resolution with the investigative subcommittee. In this instance, Representative Schweikert, with the assistance of his counsel, negotiated a resolution in which he admitted to all 11 counts in a Statement of Alleged Violations. He also agreed to waive his rights to any additional process, including his right to an adjudicatory hearing. For his misconduct, Representative Schweikert agreed to accept a sanction of reprimand by the House as well as a $50,000 fine to be paid to the United States Treasury. The investigative subcommittee carefully considered whether censure, rather than a reprimand, befitted Representative Schweikert's egregious conduct. Ultimately, the bipartisan subcommittee agreed to this negotiated sanction of a monetary fine and public reprimand by his colleagues, in large part because of Representative Schweikert's willingness to accept responsibility for his own misconduct. On July 29, our bipartisan Ethics Committee unanimously voted to adopt the subcommittee's recommendations and transmit to the House the resolution currently under consideration. Yesterday morning, Ranking Member Marchant and I filed our committee's report, together with [[Page H4196]] the report of the investigative subcommittee, accompanying exhibits, Representative Schweikert's responsive views, and the materials provided to the committee by the Office of Congressional Ethics in its referrals. I urge all of my colleagues, if they have not done so already, to carefully read those materials. As with every investigative report our committee issues, the report in this matter explains when and why certain conduct may implicate laws, House rules, or other ethical standards. Some of Representative Schweikert's gravest violations arose from direct misconduct by him. Because of Representative Schweikert's own delays and posture toward this investigation, many of the most serious campaign finance violations are also now beyond the statute of limitations for civil enforcement, leaving the House as the only body to bring accountability to bear on his conduct. The bipartisan subcommittee unanimously recommended, and our full committee unanimously agreed, that such conduct with respect to our investigation should itself be sanctioned. Other violations arose from Representative Schweikert's inattention to, or poor supervision of, staff under his supervision. For example, when asked by the investigative subcommittee about one particular loan to his campaign and whether he received any guidance on how to report it, Representative Schweikert said this: ``And this may be my sin, I didn't ask. I just--I assumed. I didn't even assume. I didn't think about it.'' If Members take just one lesson from this case, let it be this: It is unacceptable for us, as public officeholders, not to think about our ethical obligations. As Members of Congress, we all have an affirmative duty to ensure that we, and all who work under our supervision, comply with the laws, regulations, and ethical rules governing our official and campaign activities. The investigative subcommittee's report included several advisory recommendations that the committee will seek to implement to provide the House with more specific and emphatic guidance on some of the issues in this matter. So I expect that this case will serve to better educate all Members on their ethical responsibilities. Above all, the proposed sanction, which was unanimously approved by both the investigate subcommittee and the full Committee on Ethics, will affirm this body's unified commitment to maintaining the highest level of integrity. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so that the distinguished ranking member of the Ethics Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), may make any comments that he may have. Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), for yielding the time to our side. I want to thank the chairman for his service to the House. I have appreciated working with him in Congress and look forward to our continued service in the next few months. The Ethics Committee is the only evenly divided committee in the House. We are a consensus-based committee. Through the hard work of many Members and professional staff of the Ethics Committee, we have brought forward this report today by unanimous vote in the committee regarding our fellow House Member, Representative David Schweikert of Arizona. The Ethics Committee has been entrusted to fulfill the constitutional obligation and responsibility for admonishing Members and staff when appropriate. This is not a duty that we take lightly--far from it--but it is essential in maintaining the public's trust of our Chamber. I want to thank the four Members who served on the investigative subcommittee. This was no easy burden on the investigative subcommittee, led by Congressman Dean Phillips and Mr. Bill Flores as the chairman and ranking member of the panel. They were joined by Congressman Jamie Raskin and Congressman John Katko. Collectively, the investigative subcommittee met 22 times during this 116th Congress and four times in the previous Congress. They reviewed over 200,000 pages of evidence and materials and conducted 18 witness interviews. The members took their charge with great care and diligence to ensure a thorough and fair process, and I thank them for that. They worked through some very complex material and have produced today's report. I join the chairman in thanking them for their service. I encourage all Members and staff to read the report, as it contains significant guidance on proper use of the Members' Representational Allowance, also known as the MRA; the reporting of campaign funds; the proper use of official resources; and financial disclosure. The gentleman from Arizona and his legal counsel have participated in this lengthy process with both the investigative subcommittee and the full Ethics Committee. It now rests with the House to accept this report and its recommendations, and I support its swift and favorable passage this morning. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips) for any comments he may have. The gentleman ably served as the chairman of the investigative subcommittee, and I appreciate his leadership. Mr. PHILLIPS. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Marchant and Chairman Deutch for their principled leadership on the Ethics Committee and for their reflections on our solemn duties of self-discipline, self-accountability, and self-governance. There is no joy in reprimanding one of our colleagues, for a transgression by one of us is a stain on all of us. Whether one takes an oath of office as a politician, a police officer, or a public official, we are duty-bound to hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct and serve as role models for our Nation. During a remarkably difficult and divisive period of American history, I am proud to have chaired a bipartisan investigative subcommittee comprised of two Republicans--Representatives Bill Flores and John Katko--and two Democrats--Representative Jamie Raskin and me. On most days, an aisle separates us, but there was not a moment of distance between us during our work on this subcommittee. From day one, we were unified and unwavering in our pursuit of truth and commitment to objectivity, none of which would have been possible without the remarkable, nonpartisan Ethics Committee staff, who conducted this investigation with integrity, professionalism, and extraordinary patience. For that, the entire House joins me in expressing gratitude to Tom Rust, Brittney Pescatore, Janet Foster, Zeke Ross, Danielle Appleman, and Caroline Taylor for their principled service and diligent work. In closing, it is my hope that every one of our colleagues takes the time to read our report, reflect on the lessons of this case, and recommit to acting creditably on the people's House and the values on which it stands. {time} 0930 Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko). Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding the determination by the Committee on Ethics on the matter regarding David Schweikert, our colleague. As I was preparing my remarks today, I thought about my second or third day in Congress when I was standing at the back of the well looking out at this grand room. Speaker Boehner came up to me. And Speaker Boehner said to me, You are a prosecutor, right? And I said, Yes. And he said, You have done it for 20 years in the Federal system? And I said, Yes. He said, Well, you are going to be one of the designated prosecutors in case someone has an ethics issue. You are going to be one of the ones we are going to use. And he walked away. And as he walked away, I thought about two things: I thought, I hope it never happens that they may need my services. And an honor it was, but regardless of the honor it was that he tapped me. And the second thing was about what a privilege it is to be in the House. [[Page H4197]] Whether Republican or Democrat, we all have the great privilege of serving in the United States House of Representatives. And with that privilege comes great responsibility to abide by the rules of this institution, which are in place so that we may best serve our constituents and our country. While there is no joy in bringing this action to the floor today, as my colleague and friend, Dean, stated, I appreciate the bipartisan work done by the members who served on this subcommittee. Moreover, I applaud the diligence of the nonpartisan staff members who Dean named, and who worked tirelessly throughout this process to ensure fairness and to uphold the standards imposed upon every Member of Congress. The investigation was conducted thoroughly and without one hint of bias. Importantly, I believe the bipartisan manner in which it was conducted demonstrates that the processes in place to hold Members of Congress accountable do indeed work and are taken very seriously by both parties. Madam Speaker, in closing, I commend everybody who was involved in this investigation, and I commend the House for having these rules. Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, the ranking member urges the House to vote ``aye'' on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I again thank each of the members who served on the investigative subcommittees that were impaneled in this matter during the 115th and 116th Congresses. The Committee on Ethics continually strives to enhance the reputation of this body and ensure that Members, as required by House rules and the Code of Official Conduct, always act in a manner that reflects creditably on the House. Representatives Phillips, Flores, Raskin, and Katko, your work on this case has been instrumental to that broader effort, and we are most grateful for your service. Madam Speaker, I am also appreciative and grateful for the ranking member, Mr. Marchant, and his dedication to upholding the integrity of this House and the principles that he brings to bear as he serves in a leadership position on the House Committee on Ethics. I am grateful to all of the other Ethics Committee members, my colleagues, for their work on this matter, and all of the others that we have handled in this Congress. I thank my personal staff, Josh Rogin and David Arrojo; and Mr. Marchant's staff, Scott Cunningham and Chris Donesa, for their commitment to ensuring that this work be done fairly. I also recognize the board and staff of the Office of Congressional Ethics for their contributions to this investigation. Lastly, as Mr. Phillips referenced, enormous thanks are due to our nonpartisan professional committee staff for their tireless work on this investigation and their dedicated service every day to this House. Finally, Madam Speaker, I note that while the committee's investigative work may garner more public attention, the committee's nonpartisan, advisory staff is always available to answer any ethics- related questions, to hold special training sessions for Members and employees, in addition to the mandated annual ethics trainings, and to issue advisory opinions upon request. I encourage all Members of this House, all candidates and Congressional staff, to avail themselves of our committee's resources to help them satisfy their ethical obligations and to avoid the mistakes like those by Representative Schweikert that bring us to the floor of the House today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' as well, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered. There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev14 of 72Next