[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2616-H2625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REINSTATE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE RULES RELATING TO PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO THE FORM IN WHICH THOSE PROVISIONS
EXISTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 108th CONGRESS
Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-59) on the resolution (H. Res. 241) providing for
the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 240) amending the Rules of the
House of Representatives to reinstate certain provisions of the rules
relating to procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to the form in which those provisions existed at the close of
the 108th Congress, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 241
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House
Resolution 240 is hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is, Will the House
now consider House Resolution 241.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 241.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York,
the distinguished ranking minority Member of the Committee on Rules,
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides that upon its adoption, House
Resolution 240 will be adopted. This will take us back to the 108th
Congress's rules with regard to ethics, word for word, comma for comma,
exactly the same rules that existed in the 108th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers understood the need for Members to
scrutinize the actions of their peers. I commend those who, over the
years, have volunteered for service to the House as members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. Speaker, the Father of our great Constitution, James Madison, in
Federalist No. 57 said: ``The aim of every political constitution is,
or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom
to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of society; and
in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping
them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.''
Now, it is not surprising that our Constitution contains in Article
I, section 5 the peer review requirements for each House of the
Congress. Article 1, section 5 is as follows: ``The House shall be the
Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own
Members,'' and ``may punish its Members for disorderly behavior.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have recently seen that there are
those who have wanted to use the ethics process for political purposes.
At the start of the 109th Congress, our great Speaker, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), decided, along with the membership of the
Republican Conference and through a vote of the full House, to include
reforms of the ethics process because we believed it was flawed and
needed increased transparency and accountability. Mr. Speaker, we still
believe that.
The reforms adopted at the start of the 109th Congress were an effort
to address the fairness of the ethics process.
Now, as many of you know, the ethics complaints filed at the end of
the 108th Congress placed Members in jeopardy without any notice or
opportunity for due process. That is not fair to any Member or to the
institution itself.
Speaker Hastert justly has been concerned about the rights of every
single Member of this institution on both sides of the aisle, and he
has also been very concerned about the integrity of this institution in
the eyes of the American people. The Members of this great body and the
American people deserve a structure which provides due process in the
area of ethics.
Accordingly, we tried to take political jeopardy out of the ethics
process with our changes at the beginning of this Congress.
[[Page H2617]]
Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this ongoing issue with which we have
had to contend, we are extraordinarily proud of the fact that we have
been able to successfully get the work of the American people done. We
have been doing the American people's business with a great deal of
success. We have engaged in a rigorous debate over ideas.
In just the first few months of this year, the beginning of the 109th
Congress, we have shown strong bipartisan support, reaching across the
aisle to Democrats and gaining support for funding for our troops, the
energy bill, the highway bill, the Continuity of Congress bill, the
border security issue, and other issues. And in the legislation that we
just passed, 54 Democrats joined with Republicans to once again show
that we are working in a bipartisan way to get the work of the American
people done.
The fact is, the House needs an ethics committee, and today remains
without one because, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of
the aisle made a decision not to organize.
Mr. Speaker, this House needs an ethics committee which can begin its
work. Unfortunately, we have seen our friends on the other side of the
aisle choose not to organize the ethics committee.
I will say that my very good friend, the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings), has worked valiantly to try and reach out and bring
together bipartisan compromise to ensure that the ethics committee can
get down to work and do its business, so that it can, in fact, comply
with Article I, section 5 of the Constitution; and it is a struggle
which the gentleman has been involved in for the past several months.
And unfortunately, the gentleman has not been as successful as he would
like.
We believe that with the action that we are about to take here today,
that we can now move ahead with depoliticization of the ethics process
and do the kinds of things that need to be done.
Now, as I said, we stand by the rules changes that we proposed, that
underscore the importance of due process and underscore the importance
of ensuring that we have an ethics committee which can guarantee the
rights of every individual in this institution. But I believe that it
is even more important now for us to move back to the rules of the
108th Congress. Why? So that we can, in fact, let the gentleman from
Washington (Chairman Hastings) and the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, and the other members of the ethics
committee begin their work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a true victory for
the American people and provides some hope for the integrity of this
body, which has been so badly tarnished by the actions of this majority
that can one day be restored.
As a child, my parents taught me that integrity means doing what is
right when no one is looking.
Well, 4 months ago when they thought no one was looking, the
Republican majority of this House passed a rules package that gutted
the House ethics standards and effectively neutered the House ethics
committee, a committee that genuinely worked well and that had not had
a complaint for years.
The changes were made in an obvious attempt to protect one man from
further prosecution or investigation by the ethics committee. Four
months later, after the world has been awakened to the unethical brand
of sweep-it-under-the-rug politics, the Speaker has finally relented to
public pressure and agreed to reinstate the ethics rules that have
governed the House for years, rules that should have been governing the
House during the 109th Congress from the very start.
You know, it is easy to do the right thing when the whole world is
watching, and today the whole world is watching. And it appears that
the majority, with their back against the wall, may finally do the
right thing. It appears as though they will heed the call of the
minority and the call of America to reinstate the ethics committee.
It appears they may heed the overwhelming call to return to the rules
of the 108th Congress. And not just a section from part A, or a
smidgeon of part B; but all of them.
Even now, at this low point, there is concern that the rules changes
the majority proposes today will not include measures to ensure that
the staff of the ethics committee remain nonpartisan. That, Mr.
Speaker, would be a tragedy. And it is crucial that they maintain a
professional and nonpartisan staff if the ethics committee will retains
any credibility moving forward.
But even in defeat, it seems the majority has no shame. I will say
that whatever the outcome today, they do not deserve a pat on the back
for this apparent about-face.
And as I said earlier, we should always remember, it is easier to
make the right decision when the world is watching. But what defines
our character is what we do when no one is watching.
We saw clearly what this majority is all about. We have been witness
to it for the past 4 months, and every day we discover new abuses of
the rules by the Republican leadership and new abuses of the democratic
process here in the House. Example: what happened in the report from
the Judiciary Committee.
All of us owe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) a debt
of gratitude for his resoluteness and steadfastness on this issue and
for having the courage to fight against this clear attempt by the
majority to subvert the democratic process and destroy the principles
of ethics and integrity in the House.
Let us hope that America will not soon forget what the majority did
and the Herculean effort it has required to convince them to reverse
course.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned him several times in my
remarks. I am now very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings), the hardworking member
of the Committee on Ethics who actually chairs the committee and is
ready to go to work.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier) for his
graceful words. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one has worked
longer and harder over the years or devoted more personal energy to the
critically important institutional issues of this House than the
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
{time} 1915
Those issues do not win you many headlines back home but they are
absolutely essential to our continuing ability to work in an effective
bipartisan fashion history in the people's House.
So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his
leadership in the past and his insistence in moving this resolution to
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 240 for one reason
and one reason only: to restore a functioning ethics process here in
the House. Regrettably, the Democrats have kept the Ethics Committee
shut down now for more than 2 months. It simply must be restarted as
soon as possible.
Members will recall that in January as part of our opening day rules
package for the 109th Congress, the Members of this House adopted a
series of much-needed ethics reforms. We adopted those reforms in order
to ensure that the ethics rules treat Members of the House as fairly as
possible.
We believe, for example, and still believe that it is unfair for the
Ethics Committee to tell individuals called before the committee during
an investigation whom they can or cannot hire as their lawyer. This
right to counsel, after all, is a fundamental right enjoyed by all
Americans, so we moved to protect it. In addition, we believed and
still believe that it is unfair for Members to be publicly embarrassed
when the committee issues a public letter of reprimand or admonishment
or violation, et cetera, without providing the Member in question with
any advance notice that they are being scrutinized by the committee in
any way. So we moved to make sure that this never happens to any Member
of either party in the future.
[[Page H2618]]
And finally, we believe and still believe that it is unfair for
Members of either party to be kept in perpetual limbo after initial
investigation of a complaint if a bipartisan majority of the committee
cannot agree to proceed with the full-scale investigation. Contrary to
many published reports, no investigation has ever been undertaken by
the Ethics Committee without bipartisan support. But under the old
rules of the 108th Congress, the burden of proof to get out from under
an ethical cloud fell on the Member in question, whether Democrat or
Republican. So we acted to restore fairness to that part of the ethics
process as well.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the full House adopted these
rules, the Democrat members of our committee refused to accept the
clear directive of the House and to let us organize our committee. For
2 months now, I have worked in good faith to address the substantive
objections of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to these
rules, and I know that he holds these objections in a very sincere way.
And while I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from West
Virginia, I regret that he has declined to consider any of my proposed
compromises.
As it should be, membership on our committee is evenly divided
between the majority and minority, which means that substantive action
of any kind requires support from both sides of the aisle and a genuine
commitment to compromise. However, Democrat leaders and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have made clear that they remain
absolutely unwilling to compromise on any of these matters and insist
on overturning the expressed will of the House by returning to the
rules of the 108th Congress.
Because I believe it is severely damaging to this institution to
permit Members on the other side of the aisle to keep the doors locked
on the Ethics Committee, I have concluded that we must return now to
the rules of the past Congress, the 108th Congress. My resolution would
do just that. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that once
Democrats agree to put a functioning Ethics Committee back in business,
they will then agree to work with us in a bipartisan way to address the
real problems of unfairness to Members that are inherent in the 108th
rules.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to expect the
highest ethical standards here in the House. Those of us charged with
upholding the integrity of the institution stand ready to carry out our
important responsibilities.
Accordingly, I urge adoption of H. Res. 240 so all of us who serve on
the Ethics Committee, from both sides of the aisle, can get back to
work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
I would observe at the outset that if the arguments propounded by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the distinguished chairman
of the Ethics Committee, which they have made repeatedly over the last
4 months, were agreed to by the American public, we would not be here
today. But those arguments were rejected.
A vote on this important legislation which will restore the
bipartisan ethics rules that were originally adopted in 1997 and which
functioned well in every Congress since then is long overdue. And I
believe that it was inevitable.
Today is not a day for those of us on the Democrat side of the aisle
to gloat. However, it is a day for those who instigated and supported
these partisan rules changes in January to recognize that a serious
mistake in judgment was made. That does not seem to be the case.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) will observe, as he has in
the past, that this is the first time, and I have served here for 24
years, the first time that the rules of the Ethics Committee were
changed in a partisan action. As the former chairman, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) stated 2 weeks ago, ``We can't make rule
changes unilaterally.'' We've never made rules for the Ethics Committee
``unilaterally.'' ``The way it was done was wrong.''
Today the Speaker recognizes the validity of that statement and seeks
to rectify this error. It is a good step. However, let me say as
clearly as I can, this legislation marks a beginning, not an ending. It
is in reality a procedural prerequisite to a real, meaningful ethics
process that ensures the American people of the integrity of this great
institution. Surely every one of us wants that to be the reality.
In the last several months a great number of issues have become
public that warrant an inquiry by the Ethics Committee. The press has
asked me numerous times over the last 3 months, Are you going to file a
complaint? And I have said, No, I am not going to file a complaint. And
the reason I am not going to file a complaint is because I believe it
is the responsibility of the Ethics Committee, particularly when ethics
questions are raised in the public arena, that the Ethics Committee
address those issues so that the public's confidence can be kept
intact.
It is imperative now that the committee organize as soon as
practicable so that it may conduct its important business. Let me also
urge the chairman and the ranking member to honor the letter and the
intent of the 1997 rules package by agreeing to hire a nonpartisan
professional staff. I say that because the chairman indicated that he
was going to treat this like any other committee and install his chief
of staff.
His chief of staff, I am sure, has high integrity and great ability.
I do not question that at all. But it is incumbent upon us to make sure
that both sides have confidence in the leadership of this staff as was
intended by the rules.
Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee is the only mechanism that this
institution has to police itself. Today we have taken a vital step in
restoring procedural vitality to our ethics process and ensuring public
confidence in this institution. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished vice
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ BALART of Florida. We did the right thing, Mr.
Speaker, the first day of this Congress when we passed amendments to
the rules as they relate to the Ethics Committee, which the chairman of
the Ethics Committee has referred to. Basically they dealt with the
right to counsel, with the right to notice, and the right to action
within a time limit.
In other words, if you will, the fish-or-cut-bait amendment, decide
amendment, and do not theoretically hold any and all Members
potentially in limbo with regard to accusations ad infinitum.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Spanish philosopher Ortegay Gasset said, ``Man
is man plus his circumstances.''
What are our circumstances today?
The minority has said that they will not organize, they will not
commence the work of the Ethics Committee unless we, the majority,
agree to go back to the rules of the prior Congress. In other words,
that the amendments that we talked about that have to do with due
process be eliminated before they begin even, they agree to begin the
work of the Ethics Committee. Those are our circumstances.
Either no Ethics Committee, for us to say to the minority, you won,
there will be no Ethics Committee, or to go back to the prior rules
without the very wise and necessary amendments that we carried forth
the first day of this Congress. In other words, to have an ethics
process that is flawed. And that is what we are agreeing to today. It
is better to have a flawed ethics process than no ethics process. Thus,
we are passing the rule that we have brought forth today which I
support and urge the adoption of.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this
resolution which will repeal the unfortunate ethics rules changes that
the majority included in the House rules package that was adopted on
January 4 of this year.
For those of us who have opposed these rules changes from the outset,
it has been a long, difficult effort and it is gratifying to see it
finally succeed.
I have maintained from the outset, Mr. Speaker, that what is at issue
in
[[Page H2619]]
these rules changes is in fact the fundamental question of whether the
House is going to continue to have a credible ethics process, a
credible ethics process that will command the respect and confidence of
both the Members of the House and the public. And I firmly believe that
nothing less than this is at stake here tonight.
Back in 1967, the House of Representatives in its wisdom also thought
that it was important for the House to have a credible ethics process.
The premise to ensuring credibility of that ethics process was
bipartisanship. It was the standard by which the Ethics Committee's
organization was measured; and the original committee established back
in 1967 was, in fact, bipartisan. An equal number of Democrats and an
equal number of Republicans. A unique situation in the House of
Representatives where partisanship is the way we are organized, and
rightly so. But it is not right with regard to the Ethics Committee.
Those founding Members, if you will, recognized that the Ethics
Committee that was going to be able to do its job, if it is going to be
able to have the confidence of the body, if it was going to be able to
maintain the standards that reflect favorably upon the House of
Representatives and enforce those standards in the face of the American
people, then its decisions had to come from bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, that bipartisanship has been reflected each and every
time the House of Representatives has reconsidered major rules changes.
So far as I know, in each time that the House of Representatives has
undertaken to change the rules with regard to the Ethics Committee, it
has abided by that principle of bipartisanship by establishing a
committee that was equally represented of Democrats and equally
represented from Republicans.
{time} 1930
These bipartisan task forces, one established in 1988 when the
Democrats were in charge of the House, in the majority, one established
in 1997 when the Republicans were in charge of the House of
Representatives, each maintained this principle of bipartisanship.
These bipartisan ethics rules task forces were charged with going off,
sitting around a table and coming up with rules that they could
recommend; and they were charged with recommending back to the House of
Representatives.
On each occasion, those bipartisan task forces fulfilled that mission
admirably. They negotiated in that proper environment ethics rules,
each side saying why they objected to the other side's proposals and
working out the compromises.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), our colleague who is here
tonight, performed distinguished service, along with his Democrat and
Republican counterparts in that 1997 bipartisan task force, and it is
under those rules which the committee was operating last year in the
108th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, whatever the motivation for the Speaker and the
Republican leadership directing the Committee on Rules to change the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules, the process which
they undertook was flawed from the beginning. Why? Because they
violated that tradition and the principle that is embedded in that
tradition to change Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules
through bipartisan task forces.
That is our first objection to the majority's rule changes of January
4 of this year, that because they could, because they were in the
majority, come up with rules changes, direct the Committee on Rules to
embed them in the House rules package, pass them in that omnibus
package by the most partisan vote the House casts, all Republicans
voting for, all Democrats voting against, and in that process, imposing
in a partisan manner the rules changes.
It is no wonder that these three rules changes, the automatic
complaint dismissal rule, the rule that allows the attorney of accused
to represent all the witnesses, and the rule that allows anybody
mentioned unfavorably to immediately opt for a trial rather than
investigation, it is no wonder that in that partisan process those
rules were flawed, and they were.
It is imperative that we change these rules. The gentleman from
Illinois (Speaker Hastert) is doing the right thing here tonight by
reversing his decision earlier this year and directing that this
resolution be brought to the floor.
The committee, Mr. Speaker, can now organize. It can now get on with
its business. It can now consider some of the very tough issues like
staffing issues that have been referenced here; and if there is a
concern about rules in the House, we can all move on a bipartisan basis
in the right direction, through the right format, by forming a
bipartisan task force to come up with bipartisan rules changes to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and, in the process, assure
the Chamber and the American people that the credibility of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is going to be maintained.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington
(Chairman Hastings), my distinguished chairman, in moving forward with
the business of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the very
distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, our friend.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the
time.
Let me say that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was
not broken. There was no deadlock ever. There were no partisan votes
ever. Almost every vote was unanimous. Every staff member was hired or
fired in a bipartisan way; but at the same time, neither the process
nor the rules are perfect, and they should be looked at. They just
should not be looked at in the way we have done it. My colleagues have
heard me say it over and over, and they are getting tired of it and I
apologize, and maybe we will not have to talk about it anymore; but we
cannot have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct unless it is
completely bipartisan in every way.
I want to praise the Speaker of the House for taking the leadership
in this and getting us out of this mess. I want to praise the gentleman
from Washington (Chairman Hastings) and the other members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for trying to resolve this
dispute.
I want to praise the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for
trying to resolve the dispute and making sure that we continue with an
absolute nonpartisan or bipartisan committee. There are ethics charges
flying around this place that are being used in a political way, there
is no question about it. I do not think the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is a part of that, however. I think he
sincerely is concerned about the institution, and I think all of us
are.
We should be open to reforming the ethics process when necessary; and
I encourage the committee, and in a bipartisan way, to look at these
rules and to look at other rules.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I talked often
about a package of rules that we would like to present to the House for
consideration of changing, and I would encourage the committee to do
that.
Some of the due process provisions of the rules that were made in the
January decision are good, and the committee should give consideration
to adopting them even if not directed by the House. I am encouraged by
this effort to return to a bipartisan ethics process that existed
during the last Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this and to continue the effort to
return the process to a bipartisan type of process that it absolutely
must be. Then we can go from here and make sure that when we have a
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, it is an ethics committee
we can all be proud of.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his comments. I support this resolution, and
I think he has really stated the case very well, that the ethics
process must work in a bipartisan manner.
In fact, I served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
for 6 years during some of the most difficult times, including the
investigation of Speaker Gingrich and the House so-called banking
scandal. At no time during any of that debate did we break
[[Page H2620]]
down on a partisan line in the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. We worked things out. We figured out what needed to be done.
The facts speak for themselves. So allowing for the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct process moving forward will allow it to
operate in a nonpartisan way.
The revisions that were passed in a partisan manner on the first day
of this session were wrong. They were wrong in process, and they were
wrong in substance. The process needed to be bipartisan.
I had the opportunity to co-chair with Mr. Livingston the 1997 ethics
task force that brought about the changes in our ethics rules. We
worked together in a bipartisan manner to bring about those changes.
That was not done in this case.
The substance of these rules changes made it very difficult for the
committee to function. All one needed to do was to allow time to go by
and there was automatic dismissal. Failure to act was rewarded. It
encouraged the partisan divisions since there is an equal number of
Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. That is not the way that the ethics committee can function in
a nonpartisan or bipartisan manner. The rules changes were flawed, and
the process was flawed.
It is interesting that we have this resolution before us today. The
reason is because the public understood what we did on the first day of
this session, and they knew it was wrong.
This is the people's House, and the people's voice has been spoken
and heard by this body. We, today, will correct a mistake that we made
on the opening day of this session. It will allow us to restore a
proper ethics process that truly can function to carry out one of our
most sacred responsibilities.
Under the Constitution, we are required to judge the conduct of our
own Members. This rules change will permit us to carry out that most
sacred responsibility so we can restore public confidence in this body.
This is a great institution, and this rules change will allow this
institution to carry out that responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have been delayed 4 months in this
work. I am glad tonight that we are correcting the mistake that was
made. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a very hard-working new
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
240, a bill providing for changes to the rules of the House of
Representatives related to the procedures of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, the ethics committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate the House of Representatives
must take up this legislation that rescinds progressive reforms made to
the practice of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. Speaker, new rules were agreed upon that would have allowed a
bipartisan majority to resolve ethics disputes in an expeditious and
judicious fashion. These rules would have ensured that the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct could never be used by
either party, Republican or Democrat, as a weapon to malign and tarnish
the reputation of any Member in this body for political purposes.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats have refused to accept these
changes and, thus, have brought the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to a screeching halt. Not only have the House Democrats
essentially shut down the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct but they have also used its demise for political gain.
Over the past few months, House Democrats have abandoned any
substantial discussion of policy like Social Security modernization and
resorted to an incessant stream of personal and political attacks upon
Members of this body, especially upon one Member in particular.
The Democrats do not have a plan to strengthen Social Security for
our seniors, but they will spend months upon months stonewalling and
refusing to allow the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to
function. Mr. Speaker, if the House Democrats actually allowed the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to meet and conduct
investigations, then they would lose their ability to exploit tabloid
sensationalism and would have to return to doing the work of the
American people.
So, Mr. Speaker, the House must now consider a return to the old
rules. Despite the flaws in the old rules, we in the majority cannot
and will not accept a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held
hostage for purposes of political gain.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is long, long, long
overdue. We should not have to be here today at all. We should not have
to fix something that the Republicans broke for no good reason.
Let us be clear and honest about this. The ethics rules are not being
reinstated today because suddenly the majority has had a change of
heart. They are being reinstated because the American people have been
outraged by Republican attempts to dismantle the ethics process. They
have demanded that the House do the right thing. They have demanded
that we restore the sensible, bipartisan procedure we used to have.
We have heard a lot of complaints from some on the other side about
the politicization of this ethics process; but, Mr. Speaker, the
partisan politics are coming from the other side. In fact, the
Republican leadership is still playing politics.
In my hand is a copy of some of the talking points put out by the
House Republican Conference on this rule change. Here are just a few
samples of the poisonous rhetoric being put out today by the other
side.
They accuse the Democrats of ``questionable motives''; a ``cynical
attempt to corrupt the process''; ``partisan hackery in the guise of
`good government.'''
These talking points have the audacity to claim that Republicans are
now taking the high road. Hardly. Their low-ball tactics continue, and
I will insert these into the Record at this point so the American
people can see what is going on here.
Return to the Rules of the 108th Congress
Despite the best good-faith efforts of the Ethics Committee
Chairman and the Republican Leadership, House Democrats have
left no way to restart the ethics process without a full and
complete return to the Rules of the 108th Congress. For the
good of the House, an operating but flawed Ethics Committee
is preferable to a more equitable, but non-operational
Committee.
House Republicans stand by the changes made to the rules of
the House at the outset of the 109th Congress, but believe it
is more important for the institution to have a functioning
Ethics Committee that may be flawed, than to have a more
perfect, but non-operational Committee.
The three major rules changes made at the start of this
Congress greatly increased the bipartisan nature of the
ethics process, prevented the Ethics Committee from being
used as a political tool, and ensured fairness for Members
targeted by politically motivated charges.
The three changes--guaranteeing Members the right to be
represented in front of the Committee by counsel of their
choice, ensuring Members' right to due process, and
eliminating the possibility that a charge could wind up ``in
limbo''--were opposed by House Democrats in a blatantly
political attempt to use the ethics process for electoral
gain.
Despite the questionable motives behind Democrat opposition
to the rules changes, House Republicans worked to come to an
agreement with the Minority in order to get the Ethics
Committee up and running.
Unfortunately--but not surprisingly--each attempt by either
the Republican Leadership or Chairman Hastings was rejected.
Chairman Hastings offered on numerous occasions to meet
with Ranking Member Mollohan in order to craft a compromise,
but was rebuffed. When he presented his written and signed
guarantee addressing Mr. Mollohan's concerns, Minority Leader
Pelosi called his good-faith effort ``a sham'' (Weekly Media
Availability, April 21, 2005).
Just one week prior to Leader Pelosi's statement, Ranking
Member Mollohan said: ``We would proceed by our rules, not
any other way'' (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 14, 2005).
The Democrat intransigence clearly indicates their
intention to use the ethics process as a tool in their
political arsenal. Their
[[Page H2621]]
cynical attempt to corrupt the process by injecting political
rancor is odious, and will be seen for what it truly is--
partisan hackery in the guise of ``good government.''
But rather than let the Democrat ``my way or the highway''
strategy drag on, House Republicans have elected to take the
high road.
By returning to the Rules of the 108th Congress, the House
will once again have an operational Ethics Committee which,
while flawed, will at least be able to begin functioning.
Unlike the obstructionist Democrats who would rather
bluster about supposed abuses of power by the Majority than
actually come to an agreement on ethics, House Republicans
are committed to moving forward and protecting the integrity
of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that today marks a real return to an honest,
bipartisan ethics process and not just an attempt to change the
subject.
I hope that members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
will continue to work in a bipartisan way and that the leadership of
the House will let them do that work, without pressure or intimidation.
I hope the committee will continue the tradition of nonpartisan,
professional staff members.
Only time will tell. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I take comfort in
the knowledge that the American people are watching very, very closely.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who
serves on both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution
because I am convinced that it is the right and proper way to address a
tough partisan division that exists at this time. I thank the Speaker
and the gentleman from Washington (Chairman Hastings) for their work in
resolving this difficult issue.
As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I think we would be well advised to
operate according to the spirit of a statement once made by John
Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. He said: ``Differences
that begin in points of opinion seldom terminate there. How unwilling
men are to grant anything good in those who do not in all things agree
with themselves.''
{time} 1945
Mr. Speaker, people of both sides in this dispute have acted
honorably; however, many have questioned the integrity of those who
disagreed with them on the substance of the questions at hand. It is my
sincere hope that we do not question the motives and the intentions of
the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as we go
about our work. There has been far too much division and imputation of
motives with respect to questions surrounding the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and the rules by which it operates. That
hurts the Committee, it reflects poorly on the House, and undermines
public confidence in the institution.
Mr. Speaker, with that said, I commend the Speaker and the chairman
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for setting us on the
path to providing this House with a functioning ethics committee and,
therefore, I request all Members support this important rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution to restore
the integrity to our ethics process and reinstate the standards of
previous Congresses, standards which regrettably this Chamber chose to
erode earlier this year. That action marked the first time in the
history of the House of Representatives that our ethics rules were
altered on a partisan basis.
Our constituents deserve a Congress that holds itself to the highest
of standards. Many generations of our predecessors acknowledged the
importance of this by having the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct be evenly divided between the parties, regardless of any
electoral outcome, by working together in a bipartisan fashion, and by
ensuring that neither party would be allowed to use partisanship and
power as a shield against behavior that falls short of the standards
our constituents expect and deserve.
With this action earlier this year, this Congress fell short of this
standard. The ethics process must operate on a bipartisan basis to
ensure that it functions in an evenhanded and just fashion, and it must
be prepared to act without regard to party in order for the people of
this country to have any faith in it. Simply put, this Chamber's ethics
and the standards to which we hold ourselves must be put to a higher
plane than any one political party.
We should never have reached this point, but with today's long
overdue action, my hope is that the House of Representatives will
correct that error.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his determined and tenacious
leadership on this matter. If it were not for his leadership and the
leadership of others, it would have been all too easy for this to be
ignored and the American people would not be seeing this victory. Had
we not altered course, we could have done irreparable long-term damage
to the institution that we all love. Instead, thanks to their efforts,
we take much-needed corrective action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed
resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Madison, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), a former member of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I am a
recovering member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I
just want to tell my story briefly about a complaint that was pending
last year.
When the complaint was pending, these good government groups
indicated that I was unfit to sit in judgment because the majority
leader had donated to my campaign over 10 years and I was corrupt. When
I voted unanimously with my colleagues to send a couple of letters to
the majority leader, I then possessed the wisdom of Solomon. When the
Speaker replaced me on the committee with other members this year, I am
now up for sainthood in a number of churches across the country.
I tell this story because what I think what the Speaker was
attempting to get at, during the course of that complaint there were
press conferences held by people, rather than letting the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct do its work. And the Speaker saw that one
of the rules changes was, you know what, you cannot choose your own
lawyer. Well, that is ridiculous, and I do not think any of us would
stand for that in any other venue.
He also, during consideration of one of the complaints, found that
two members, who did not even have any part of what allegedly was going
on, received letters from the committee saying, your conduct is in
question. He felt that due process was required in that situation, and
I agree with him, and I think most people in this body would agree with
him.
I would hope as we make these changes, and I want to commend Speaker
Hastert, because this is a magnanimous gesture on his part, it is tough
to recognize and admit that maybe something was not done in an
appropriate way and that we take a step back and do it, and Speaker
Hastert has had the courage to do that today.
But the next step, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, is going to be that
there will be a complaint filed against a Republican or a Democrat and
there will be these outside interest groups that say, if it is against
the Democrat, the five Democrats on the committee are trying to protect
their buddy; or if it is against a Republican, that the five
Republicans are attempting to protect their friend and their buddy.
I would hope as we make these changes, with the Speaker's blessing,
[[Page H2622]]
that every Member of this House commit themselves to let the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct do their work, and we never impugn the
integrity of the men and women who serve honorably.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and since I do not need the full 2 minutes, I will be yielding
back some time, but I just want to say to her and to everyone in this
Chamber, that the ethics process needs to be bipartisan, and so it is
so right to return the rules back to the way they were.
I believe that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the chairman and ranking
members respectively, can work out whatever other differences that
still remain. These are two good men.
And I also want to say that I have tremendous respect for Members of
this Chamber from both parties for the good will and integrity they
exhibit. I just think it is important for us to put this behind us and
to move forward. It may be that on a bipartisan basis the chairman and
ranking member and the full committee will come back with
recommendations that this full body can consider.
It would be an absolute shame, I think, if the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct becomes a committee in which it is a place to just
``get Members'' and a place to score political points. And I hope and
pray that it will be a committee that will see its primary purpose as
maintaining the integrity of this Chamber and allowing us to all feel
proud of what happens here.
So I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I think it was
a mistake to have amended the rules and I am grateful that we are
restoring them to the way they were.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Columbia, Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), another former member
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise, gratefully, in support of this
resolution, and applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing it to come to
the floor for consideration.
My colleagues, there are those beyond this venerable hall who would
hope that this body would erupt in partisan ethical warfare. There may
even be a handful of colleagues who have threatened ethical retaliation
against another Member on the other side. There are others that, with
tonight's vote, will try to claim some moral or ethical superiority
because of the vote; and still others who will continue to seek some
political advantage by taking the alleged improprieties of one Member
and trying to tarnish the rest of that Member's party.
To those that I have described, you need not heed my words. But for
the vast majority of my colleagues that I have not described, that are
fair and decent and honorable and honest, I say to you, we need a
functioning ethics process. Matter of fact, let me rephrase that. This
institution requires a credible ethics process. The American public
deserves that credible ethics process.
The integrity of this institution is at stake. The memory of those
who have served, those that are going to come after us who serve, this
resolution sets us back on the correct path. I urge its adoption.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from New York
has 9 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And my colleague from California?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California also has 9
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever want
to be. I think we need to laud the members on both sides of that
Committee.
The other side knows me as being very frank. I speak an open mind. My
perception of the rules changes, and I think the perception of many of
my colleagues, is that they were made because we felt there were
partisan attacks against our leadership. I know most of the members on
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and I consider them
friends.
Even during the time of Newt Gingrich, I thought the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct did a credible job, but we felt that
David Bonior was being partisan. We also felt that part of the Democrat
leadership was directing partisanship on this committee.
Now, maybe the rule was wrong, but we think also the partisanship is
wrong. Using Mr. Hoyer's words, if we want a truly effective ethics
committee, and I believe in my heart that most Members in this body
want that, so I hope that that can happen. I pray that that can happen
because we do not want a Hatfield-and-McCoy scenario. It would do
disservice to this body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a very hardworking
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for
this resolution, not because I think it is a good resolution, but
because I think it is the lesser of two evils. What is the first evil?
Well, those on the other side of the aisle claim it was the process by
which the rules were changed last January. Perhaps they are right. As a
member of the committee, I happen to believe that the changes were good
ones, but perhaps we will look at that on another day in a bipartisan
way.
But we should make no mistake about it: The greater evil by far is in
not allowing the ethics committee to meet and do its job. And why do I
say this? It is because without a functioning ethics committee, some
Members will be tried in the press by partisan interest groups or by
innuendo and accusation instead of by facts and due process. At the
same time, complaints against other Members will go unresolved and
uninvestigated. That is not right.
My point is that an ethics committee was not created for one
particular Member of Congress, it was created for all of us and for the
good of this body. As a three-term member of the Committee, I have
great respect for both the Republican and the Democrat members with
whom I have served on the committee. Peer review is never easy, and it
is impossible if we are not allowed to leave politics and partisanship
at the door.
I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings),
for his hard work and perseverance. He inherited a challenge, acted as
an honest broker, and did everything possible to resolve it. I also
commend the leadership of Speaker Hastert on this issue.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to
send us back to the table to do the jobs we have been assigned to do
for this great body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
very good friend, the gentleman from Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, once again today, the Speaker of the Whole
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), has proven that he is
a decent, fair, humble, and, today, magnanimous person, putting the
institution first.
The truth is neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas.
There are good and decent people in both parties. But we are not your
enemy. Al Qaeda is our enemy. We are competitors. We need to stick
together and pursue unity and reconciliation. Sometimes that means
setting your own beliefs aside, which the Speaker did today for the
purpose of the institution, holding it up above our own view of how
things should be done.
I have spoken out when I thought we were going in the wrong
direction, but in this case I, frankly, think the rules proposals were
reasonable. And if one Member's foot was not in a snare today, I think
a lot of Members over here would have agreed to them. But that is not a
discussion point anymore.
[[Page H2623]]
I appeal to both sides. Let us make sure that this ethics conflict
does not turn into a circular firing squad. It is not in our country's
best interest and it is not in this institution's best interest. Let us
pursue, as much as we can in the competitive battles we fight on ideas
and our agendas, let us pursue reconciliation and unity, especially
when it comes to the ethics of this great institution, putting it above
either party's political agendas. It will serve our country well, and
the Speaker should be commended.
{time} 2000
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Some people may say the majority party is in full retreat, that we
were wrong in processing substance with the new rules. Well, that is
incorrect. The new rules were fair and just, and according to the rules
of the House, were passed by a majority vote.
Where the fault lies is with those who use the ethics rules for pure
political attacks, those who use the failure to act as an attack
against one Member. The opposition claims these existing rules are
unethical. That is also incorrect. What is unethical is to unjustly
smear someone in order to destroy their character.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the attempt here, to unfairly attack one
Member and use the House rules to do so. I admire the efforts of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) because I think the gentleman has
gone above and beyond the call of duty to go back to the previous set
of rules so we can move the process forward and continue the hard work,
the successful work of the Republican-controlled House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Monticello, Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, some in the minority are obsessed with the
vanity of power and they will hatchet the ethics process and people. I
have taken down some of the words used here tonight by the minority:
tarnish, gutted, subverted, destroyed, flawed, violated. What are they
talking about? I am unceasingly amazed and gravely disturbed by the
torrent of darkness caused by what I will refer to as false prophets of
justice engaged in ignominious conduct. It is called the
politicalization of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and
it is wrong.
I have been a victim of a vicious political attack and gone before
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I will assure Members,
having been brought before the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, and I was fortunately cleared by unanimous vote, but when
another Member wants to make a partisan attack and go before the
committee, that is wrong. So we are engaged in this session to clarify
it. I supported the changes.
Mr. Speaker, to the American people, what are we talking about: the
right to counsel, due process, notification, bipartisanship. That is
what I demand. That is what I want, and I am going to vote against
this.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, my sister says of our four siblings, I may
be the only true optimist. I am like the kid who got the horse manure
for Christmas, and all he could do is run around asking, Where is the
pony?
In this body on this issue when we look through and sift through the
piles and piles of rhetoric, and we look at just the rules, the rules
were fair. They are not perfect, but they are better than what was
there. I was not familiar with the process they went through, but the
right to know you are being investigated, you would want to know that.
The right to due process, the concept of a speedy trial and speedy
disposition. Members want to talk about partisanship, if it a 5-5
split, that is partisan. The only way we can get bipartisan is if we
make it a 6 vote to go forward with an investigation. That is
bipartisan. I thought they were good rules when I voted for them the
first time. I hope we can move on. I am going to vote for them again. I
think they are more fair.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of
the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for upholding a high ethical standard in the House, and I
rise in strong support of the resolution before us.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the American people. Across the
country they have spoken out and editorial boards have reflected their
views throughout our nation that not any one of us is above the law. No
Member of Congress is above the law.
I come to this podium as the House Democratic leader, but I also
would note that I bring to my office that I serve in now and to this
podium the experience of serving on the House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct for 6 years, and an additional 7th year to be part of
the Livingston task force. Mr. Livingston, a Republican Member, chaired
our committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was our
ranking member on the task force that wrote the rules that we have been
talking about this evening.
They were very important. We came together in a bipartisan way,
hammered out all of the challenges that Members proposed, and came up
with bipartisanship. When we did that, we were acting in the tradition
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the House of
Representatives, bipartisan in nature in terms of writing the rules and
in implementing them.
My friends, we all should be deeply indebted to all of the Members
who have served on the bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. Anyone who has served on it will tell Members it is not an
easy task, and one that any one of us would like to avoid. It is very
hard to pass judgment on your peers.
What I learned on the committee was that there are only three things
that matter in the discussion: the facts, the rules of the House, and
the law of the land. Anything else, discussion, hearsay and the rest of
it was irrelevant to the decision-making. So in a bipartisan way,
friendships were developed, we worked together. Members are down in the
lower levels of the Capitol for long, long hours; and it was sometimes
very difficult and sad to make those judgments. We deliberated; we
exchanged ideas. Indeed, we even prayed over our decisions because we
knew what impact they would have on the lives of our colleagues.
In short, we took our responsibility to act in a bipartisan way very,
very seriously. And so should the committee regarding the rules that we
will be returning to now. They should be taken in the most serious way.
I hope when we vote on these rules tonight, we will have a big vote and
that big vote will show not only our support for this resolution but
our respect for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and its
need to act in a bipartisan way.
One concern that I do have that has not been addressed is something
that has happened not by a rules change but by a practice, a one-time
practice.
Mr. Speaker, this book is called the ``House Rules and Manual,'' and
it determines how we function in the House and how each of the
committees functions. This rule says here: ``All staff members shall be
appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee.'' The
rules governing staffing have been the standing rules of the House
since the bipartisan task force recommendations were adopted in the
105th Congress, in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, the 108th
Congress, and they are indeed the rules of the House now even without
action being taken tonight.
Central to a bipartisan upholding of a high ethical standard is
nonpartisan staffing of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Certainly the Chair and the ranking member have their staff person for
liaison purposes to the committee, but the work of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct must be done in a nonpartisan way. Those
are the rules of the House.
[[Page H2624]]
They must be upheld. They have been departed from in this Congress.
I would hope that it is implied in what we do here that the intent of
Congress is to obey the rules of the House. If any Member has a
different view of the intent of Congress regarding the hiring of staff
for the committee in a nonpartisan way, I think that Member should
speak up now because the intent of Congress should be clear,
unequivocal, and not controversial.
I want to commend those that served during the 108th Congress, and
especially the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); and I agree with
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) whole-heartedly: if there are
rules changes that need to be made, let us subject these rules to the
scrutiny that Members feel they should have, and let us do it in a
bipartisan way.
In fact, on at least two, maybe three, occasions, I have brought that
very proposal to the floor in a privileged resolution by saying, ``let
us form a bipartisan task force to examine the rules and see how we go
forward.'' We can still do that, but we cannot do it until these rules
are in place for the committee to function and then to review them.
I commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and am so
proud of the dignified, serious way he approached his responsibilities
to upholding a high ethical standard. And the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is absolutely right, we will not compromise ever on the
integrity of the House. I support the gentleman's statement and
associate myself with the gentleman's statement in that regard.
And as we return to bipartisanship in upholding a high ethical
standard in the House, let us also heed the voice of the American
people who want us to return to bipartisan cooperation in growing our
economy so we can create good-paying jobs in our country. Let us expand
access to affordable health care for all Americans. That is what the
American people want us to do. Let us work in a bipartisan way to
broaden opportunities for our children so no child is left behind and
so our children can go to college without going into crushing debt.
Let us listen to the American people who want us to work in a
bipartisan way to truly protect our homeland, to strengthen Social
Security; and let us listen to the American people when they say, ``we
need relief at the pump now. We cannot pay these high prices at the
pump. We cannot pay these high prices at the pharmacy.''
I contend that ethics impact policy. Certainly a high ethical
standard is its own excuse for being. Integrity of the House should be
unquestioned, and part of our responsibility is to uphold that ethical
standard. But ethics does impact policy. The American people must
believe that we are working in this House in the public interest and
not in the special interest. A higher ethical standard is essential to
creating policy which is consistent with our values.
And so I support this resolution, and I urge our colleagues all to
vote for it and hope that the strong vote that it will receive will not
only speak to the resolution but speak to the respect that we all have
for the ethics process, for the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, for upholding a high ethical standard, and for saying not any
one of us is above the law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority leader just made a very
compelling case for the bipartisan legislative accomplishments that we
have had in this House in the past few months.
We have had between 41 and 122 Democrats join with Republicans in
passing legislation dealing with bringing the price of gasoline down by
passing the energy bill, passing bankruptcy reform, passing the class
action bill, passing Continuity of Congress legislation, and making
sure that we deal with a wide range of concerns the American people
want us to address. Unfortunately, the minority leader did not vote for
any of those pieces of legislation, along with that large number of
Democrats.
We are going to deal in a bipartisan way with the ethics issue. We
feel strongly that we were absolutely right in saying that Members
should be entitled to choose their own lawyer and absolutely right in
saying that there should be due process, and we were absolutely right
in saying that Members should not be left out hanging, there should be
a resolution to their case.
But the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has in his wisdom said
it is very important for us to move ahead in a bipartisan way to do
what those editorial boards correctly say should happen: we should be
able to have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that works.
That is what we believe is the right thing to do. I take my hat off to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for stepping up to the plate
and making it clear that is just what we should do. Vote for this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 20, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
YEAS--406
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
[[Page H2625]]
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--20
Barton (TX)
Blackburn
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Carter
Cubin
Culberson
Gillmor
Gohmert
King (IA)
McHenry
Otter
Pence
Poe
Price (GA)
Simpson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Souder
NOT VOTING--7
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Lee
Rothman
Waxman
Westmoreland
Wicker
____________________