I am disappointed that that was the response, because let me go back and again review this, at least chronologically on the issue that we debated last night and my involvement with that and my involvement with the professional attorneys that wrote their opinion on the impact this would have on the ethics process. I was sent a letter by the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Texas, the first part of November. It was addressed to me. It was also addressed to the committee. We had our regularly scheduled meetings at that time, and I asked the chairwoman that I think that we should respond to this in a way, and in further fact, would you be interested, and she said no. I said okay, I respect that. But the attorneys went about their business, as was asked, and rendered their thoughts on what this would do to the whole committee process. Now, this was in November, Mr. Speaker. That plan of this outside group was not made public until the end of December.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the response to a letter regarding ethics and committee processes.
Share
More from Doc Hastings
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident it became apparent that the structure of the regulatory agency charged with oversight of offshore energy production was inadequate. While the Department of the Interior has reorganized their…
I take notice that the Speaker pro tempore has changed, and I am very pleased that one of the leaders of the legislation that we are taking up today is now serving as Speaker pro tempore. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman…
I would ask my friend Mr. Davis if he would stand by just a minute. I have a query of him. Last night in the Rules Committee, our colleague Ed Perlmutter offered the gentleman an opportunity to come today to ask Mr. Zuckerberg the…
The gentleman had done well until he, in the words of my grandmother, ``stepped on the cutout'' when he talked about the eastern Gulf. I just offer BP as an example of what happens. If he were to come and go down that coastline with me and…





