[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 222 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





     COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS COMMISSION MINORITY REPORT AND LETTER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KAT CAMMACK

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 30, 2021

  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, on May 24, 2021, the Chair of the House 
Communications Standards Commission conducted Poll 117-1: Based on the 
Complaint submitted to the Commission on April 22, 2021, by 
Representative Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter against Representative Zoe 
Lofgren and Representative Lofgren's Answer to the Complaint, submitted 
to the Commission on May 6, 2021, this Commission was asked to decide 
if a violation of the House of Representatives Communications Standards 
Manual occurred.
  Poll 117-1 was conducted prematurely per the Commission rules of 
procedures, absent of proper investigation, and therefore invalid. The 
Republican Members were unable to offer a vote to a poll that was 
invalid.
                                                     May 24, 2021.
     Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon,
     Chairwoman, Communication Standards Commission, Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Chairwoman Scanlon: On May 21, you sent a poll regarding 
     the Communication Standards violation complaint brought 
     against Representative Zoe Lofgren (``Complaint'') to the 
     Members of the Communications Standards Commission for 
     consideration. As you have conceded, this poll is invalid 
     because it is procedurally unripe and violates Commission 
     Rules.
       Commission Rules are quite clear. Upon receipt of a valid 
     complaint, the Commission has thirty days to adjudicate the 
     complaint and issue its written decision. Rule 9. The 
     Commission's adjudication process begins with Rule 6, which 
     requires the Commission's Chair and Ranking Member to 
     ``review the respondent's answer to the complaint'' in order 
     to agree to dismiss the complaint or jointly or independently 
     conclude that the complaint ``presents a reasonable 
     justification to warrant further review''. Following a 
     ``decision by either the Chair and/or the Ranking Member that 
     further review of the complaint is warranted to determine if 
     a violation has occurred, the respondent shall be given 
     notice of further review.'' Rule 7 (emphases added). 
     Following ``further review'', the Commission may ``determine[ 
     ] there is substantial reason to believe that a violation has 
     occurred'', which may lead to a hearing. Rule 8. Following a 
     vote on ``substantial reason to believe'' and/or a hearing, a 
     majority of the Commission may decide to dismiss the 
     complaint (Rule 10), or the Chair and Ranking Member may 
     determine a violation has occurred. Rule 11. Only if the 
     Complaint is not dismissed and the Chair and Ranking Member 
     are unable to reach a determination, shall the full 
     Commission vote on such a determination. Rule 13.
       The complaint was received by the Commission on April 22, 
     and your first availability to meet with Ranking Member 
     Cammack to discuss the complaint was on May 19. This Rule 6 
     meeting on May 19 was an opportunity to determine if a 
     reasonable justification for further review of the complaint 
     was warranted. Rule 6. At the conclusion of the meeting and 
     at your request, the final Rule 6 determination was delayed 
     in order to permit further reflection. This delay now appears 
     to have been a tactic to avoid fulfilling the Commission's 
     responsibility to protect federal taxpayer dollars.
       Disappointingly, you sent this poll on May 21, three days 
     before the May 24th statutory deadline for the Commission to 
     issue its written decision. The Commission did not need to be 
     in this position, with no time to complete its work.
       Your poll instructs the full Membership of the Commission 
     to determine whether the alleged violations occurred. Setting 
     aside the fact that the Commission has engaged in no 
     investigation of the Complaint, this poll is clearly 
     procedurally invalid and in contravention of Commission 
     Rules, as you agree. You cite Rule 13 as your authority to 
     put this question before the entire Commission, yet no action 
     under Rule 13 is ripe. As explained above, and as you now 
     appear to agree, procedure here is quite clear. The full 
     Commission may vote on dismissal only once either the Chair 
     or Ranking Member concludes under Rule 6 that ``the complaint 
     presents a reasonable justification to wan-ant further 
     review'' (Rule 6), the Commission notifies the respondent of 
     such further review (Rule 7), and the Commission considers 
     whether ``there is substantial reason to believe that a 
     violation has occurred[.]'' Rule 8. Pursuant to your 
     suggestion for delay, neither the Chair nor the Ranking 
     Member had issued a Rule 6 conclusion when you issued the 
     Rule 13 poll on May 21. Further, the full Commission may vote 
     on final determination (Rule 13) only if the Commission does 
     not dismiss the complaint under Rule 8 and the Chair and 
     Ranking Member are unable to reach a ``determin[ation] that a 
     violation has occurred[.]'' Rule 11. On May 24, you agreed to 
     send the notice of further review required by Rule 7 to 
     Representative Lofgren. Last Congress, Democrats and 
     Republicans agreed in a bipartisan manner to update and 
     revise our procedural rules. Let us now conduct ourselves 
     according to these bipartisan rules and execute our 
     responsibilities as required.
       After it became apparent that your requested delay at the 
     Rule 6 meeting was merely a delay tactic, Ranking Member 
     Cammack informed you of her timely conclusion that the 
     Complaint presents a reasonable justification to wan-ant 
     further review. Under pressure on this issue, you agreed to 
     notify Representative Lofgren that the Commission will review 
     further the Complaint, as required by Rule 7, conceding that 
     this poll is procedurally invalid and in contravention of 
     Commission Rules. Given the serious nature of the violations 
     outlined in the Complaint and the now-short timeframe for the 
     Commission to complete its work, Ranking Member Cammack also 
     suggested an extension of 30 days for the Commission to issue 
     its written decision. It is imperative that the Commission 
     have sufficient time to review the Complaint, and if 
     necessary, to request additional information before the Chair 
     and Ranking Member or the Commission make a determination 
     with respect to the alleged violations.
       Further, and despite its now-admitted, fatal procedural 
     defect, your poll requests that the Commission determine 
     without any investigation whether the alleged violations 
     occurred. Because of your various dilatory tactics that led 
     us to this point, there is now no way for the Commission to 
     complete its work without an extension. There is not even 
     enough time for the Commission to request additional 
     information from the complainant or respondent to inform its 
     work. See Rule 7. Today is the last day for the Commission to 
     issue a written decision, affording the parties no 
     opportunity to respond. There is simply not enough time for 
     the Commission to determine thoughtfully whether the alleged 
     violations occurred.
       Since the Commission's inception in 1974, this bipartisan 
     Commission has historically conducted a fair and bipartisan 
     review of all valid complaints received. It is our hope that 
     this tradition will continue this Congress. As such, the full 
     Commission must be afforded the ability to perform its 
     statutory responsibility to review this valid complaint and, 
     at the appropriate time, to vote on its disposition. As 
     Ranking Member Cammack has suggested, an extension of time 
     for the Commission to complete its review of the Complaint is 
     necessary and appropriate.
       As you have conceded, the distributed poll is procedurally 
     unripe and violates Commission Rules. Therefore, we decline 
     to vote on this invalid poll and encourage the Chair to 
     permit the Commission to complete its work in accordance with 
     Commission Rules. We stand ready to work with you through 
     this process.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Kat Cammack,

                                                   Ranking Member,
                              Communications Standards Commission.

                                                  Bryan Steil,

                                                           Member,
                              Communications Standards Commission.

                                                    Bob Latta,

                                                           Member,
     Communications Standards Commission.

                          ____________________