[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1660-E1661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISANSHIP IS THE KEY TO ETHICS REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 19, 1996

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week my dear friend Representative 
Porter Goss who serves on the Ethics Committee as well as the Rules 
Committee took out a special order to urge changes in the ethics 
process--September 12, 1996.
  He proposed that changes in the ethics process should take effect in 
the next Congress and that the Rules Committee is the proper venue for 
ethics reform.
  I must take strong exception to the claim that the Rules Committee is 
the right place to consider reforms of the ethics process. Given the 
primary job of the Rules Committee--reporting special rules for the 
consideration of legislation--the committee is properly a partisan 
committee with a 9 to 4 ratio. The Rules Committee is an arm of the 
majority leadership and so it is appropriate that all the Republican 
members of the committee--including

[[Page E1661]]

Mr. Goss--are appointed directly by Speaker Gingrich. But this partisan 
makeup makes the Rules Committee the wrong venue for ethics reform.
  The House ethics process must be the product of bipartisan consensus. 
The most recent ethics reforms, for example, issued from the work of 
the Bipartisan Ethics Task Force established in 1989. The task force 
was composed of 14 Members, 7 from each side of the aisle, including 2 
ex officio leadership Members and others who had valuable experience on 
ethics reform issues.
  The task force was bipartisan in fact as well as name. The Members 
and staff operated on a completely bipartisan--or nonpartisan--basis. 
The task force divided its work into subgroups of two Members each--one 
Republican and one Democrat. Each subgroup investigated problems and 
options in a specific area and reported its recommendations back to the 
full task force.
  Obviously only bipartisan suggestions could be reported from any 
subgroup. And the full task force worked by consensus; no 
recommendation was issued from the full task force unless all Members 
were in agreement.
  One subgroup was responsible for developing recommendations on the 
Ethics Committee's enforcement procedures. Because the Ethics Committee 
was considering complaints against Speaker Wright at that time, the 
task force decided that the subgroup on ethics enforcement should not 
include any task force member then serving on the Ethics Committee. 
Moreover, the subgroup, by consensus, delayed its first meeting until 
the Ethics Committee closed its investigation of Speaker Wright.
  Again, the subgroup on ethics procedures needed unanimity to report 
any recommendation and the full task force proceeded by consensus 
requiring all members to sign off before including any provision in its 
comprehensive ethics reform package.
  The paramount goal of any congressional reform must be to restore 
public confidence in the integrity of this institution. I believe the 
bipartisan approach is the only appropriate model for considering 
ethics reforms.

                          ____________________