[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[HOUS]
[Pages 7835-7836]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CREDIBLE ETHICS PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 1 of this year I introduced a 
resolution, House Resolution 131, that would repeal the ill-conceived 
amendment to the House ethics rules that were included in the rules 
package adopted at the beginning of this Congress.
  Although this resolution has now gained 208 co-sponsors, the 
Committee on Rules to which it has been referred has not yet taken any 
action on it. Accordingly, it now becomes necessary to begin to invoke 
the procedures provided by House Rule 15, to discharge a measure from 
the committee.
  To that end, today I am introducing a resolution that provides terms 
for the consideration of House Resolution 131 by the full House. Under 
House Rule 15, a discharge petition may be filed with regard to this 
resolution after 7 legislative days.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that what is at issue with House 
Resolution 131 is, in fact, whether the House of Representatives is 
going to continue to have a credible ethics process that can be 
effective in protecting the reputation and the integrity of this great 
institution. And for at least two reasons, the House will not and 
cannot have a credible ethics process unless the Republican-inspired 
rules changes made earlier this year are repealed.
  First, there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House unless 
it is genuinely bipartisan. By definition, the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct was created as a bipartisan organization within a 
very partisan body, and its rules have always been fashioned through a 
bipartisan task force.

                              {time}  2045

  Until this year, the House clearly and repeatedly recognized that 
bipartisanship must extend to the creating of the rules under which the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conducts its business; and 
in the past, changes in those rules were made in an open, in a 
thoughtful, and in a genuinely bipartisan manner.
  But this year, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to past tradition, the rules 
changes were drafted solely on the recommendation of the majority, in a 
partisan, in a closed, in a secret process in which no one on the 
Democrat side of the aisle was even consulted. So the rules were 
adopted on a strict party line vote: all the Republicans voting for; 
all the Democrats voting against.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most partisan vote we cast in the House of 
Representatives. Never in the history of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct has there been an attempt to impose rules in this 
manner on the

[[Page 7836]]

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, the second concern about these rules changes is there 
has been an attempt to impose them on the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct in a very partisan way, but the rules in and of 
themselves are extremely damaging. The fact is that, at a minimum, 
these rules changes will seriously undermine the ability of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key 
responsibilities of investigating and making decisions on allegations 
of wrongdoing.
  These rules changes fall into three categories.
  First, there is the so-called automatic dismissal rule under which a 
complaint against a Member that is filed with the committee can be 
dismissed solely with the passage of time, no consideration of its 
merits. Under this automatic dismissal rule, that period of time can be 
as brief as 45 days from the date that the complaint is deemed to 
satisfy the procedural requirements of the rules. Previously, a 
complaint could be dismissed only by majority vote of the committee.
  The effect of this automatic dismissal rule will be to give the 
committee members a means by which they can avoid their responsibility 
to give thoughtful, reasoned consideration to every complaint and to 
all of the charges in every complaint. Its ultimate effect will be to 
provoke partisanship and deadlock among committee members as they wait 
for the clock to run out. Does the majority really want this result?
  Another of the rules changes is that it grants certain so-called due 
process rights to Members. One of those rights is the right to demand 
that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conduct a trial on 
a matter on which it has not even conducted a formal investigation. 
This so-called right would place the committee in the position of 
having to hold a trial on a matter in which it has not issued a single 
subpoena. Does the majority really want this result?
  The third rule change, Mr. Speaker, is the so-called right to counsel 
provision which might be better characterized as the right to 
orchestrate testimony provision or the right to allow collusion among 
the accused and the witnesses. It would provide that one lawyer can 
represent the accused and all of the witnesses. Does the majority 
really want this result?
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to look closely at the 
rules changes and the partisan manner in which they were adopted. By 
adoption of House Resolution 131, the House can begin to undo the 
damage that has been done to the ethics process, and we will be able to 
have once again an ethics process that commands the confidence and 
respect of both the Members of this body, and Mr. Speaker, most 
importantly, the American people, who, I believe, on a bipartisan basis 
want a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

                          ____________________