[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10348-H10349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MEMBERS SHOULD LEARN THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of theHouse, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a good deal of hand-wringing and 
posturing these past few days on this floor and in the editorial pages 
of our Nation's major and minor newspapers about the ethics process. I 
guess that is to be expected, given that we are deep into the blatant 
partisan election-year politicking that often overtakes us every 2 
years. And I suppose I should not be surprised that editorial writers 
have not studied the rule book of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct or of this House, and, therefore, often write pieces 
that misstate or confuse facts.
  But I do expect more from Members of this institution, all of whom 
are bound by the rules of this House and all of whom have an obligation 
to improve in its credibility, not attempt to tear it further down.
  The fact is, however, that many of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle seem not to have read and understood the rules of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as prescribed in this little 
blue book. These rules clearly state that we on the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct are not permitted to do what my friends 
are so desperately trying to get us to do, and that is release 
information before our process is complete.
  Now, I have said before and I say again that I have long believed 
that the current process, as prescribed by

[[Page H10349]]

the rules in this little blue book and our House rules, this process is 
in serious need of review and reform, and that is happening. But the 
last time we implemented major changes was in 1989, and most observers, 
as well as most Members, I think, believe that it is time to do more.
  I have been saying that for years, and I have been trying to advance 
constructive proposals for reform of this process through the Committee 
on Rules, which is the proper venue for these discussions. But I have 
been blocked in that effort on the Committee on Rules by some of the 
very people who are now so vigorously urging our committee to ignore 
our rules.
  So on the one hand they seem to be complaining about the constraints 
of our current rules, while on the other hand they refuse to allow us 
on the Committee on Rules to plan for changes in the process so we do 
not fall into these same problems in the next Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from Colorado, Mrs. Schroeder, inserted 
some remarks into Tuesday's Record, calling on me to resign my current 
position on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I would 
suggest to her, in good nature, that I would like nothing more than to 
relinquish my post on that committee. I could say it the other way, and 
do the Brer Rabbit and say, ``Oh, please, don't fire me from the 
committee; don't throw me into that briar patch,'' but the truth is I 
have served my time there and I would love to move on.
  As all Members know, serving there is a difficult and very thankless 
task. It is no fun, it is extremely hard work, but, again, I am 
constrained by the very rules of the committee and by my obligation to 
faithfully discharge my duty to this House, and I will do that.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and to 
all my colleagues who have lambasted our committee in recent days, join 
me in my attempt to get real reform of the ethics process for the next 
Congress.
  For instance, I have proposed changes to the process that would help 
to address the problem we seem to be having, where Members of this 
House, perhaps because they have not read or do not fully understand 
the committee's current rules, make statements that are misleading and 
confusing to other Members, and to the public, and to the media.
  My proposal would make all Members eligible to serve on the ethics 
panel, similar to a jury approach, where anyone could be called as 
needed at any time perhaps. Perhaps, then, Members would pay more 
attention to the rules.
  This type of reform would, I think, ensure that Members become more 
familiar with the rules and procedures of that committee, which are 
important, and since they too could be called upon to serve duty there 
in the future. In that case, then, perhaps they would be a little less 
likely to excoriate their colleagues who are currently doing the heavy 
lifting on that committee.
  I have other ideas, all of which are included in House Resolution 
346, and I invite my colleagues to look at the proposal and add others 
to it, and to bring forward ideas of their own, so that we can have the 
best possible reform of the ethics process.
  We have an opportunity to turn all the partisan rancor into a 
positive force for change, and I hope we do not let that opportunity 
pass us by. The purpose of the ethics committee is to build a 
credibility of the institution. When we abuse the rules, we detract 
from the credibility of the institution and that does no Member or the 
institution any good.

                          ____________________