[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8036-8046]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 8037]]

  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.
  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.
  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.

[[Page 8038]]

  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 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

[[Page 8039]]

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

[[Page 8040]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 8041]]

     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 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. 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

[[Page 8042]]

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, 
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. 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.

[[Page 8043]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 8044]]

  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. 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

[[Page 8045]]


     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
     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

                              {time}  2040

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
241, House Resolution 240 is adopted.
  The text of H. Res. 240 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 240

       Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives (relating to the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct) is amended as follows:
       (1) Subparagraph (2) of paragraph (b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by 
     the committee on its own initiative, the committee may 
     undertake an investigation relating to the official conduct 
     of an individual Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
     officer, or employee of the House only--
       ``(A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner and transmitted to the committee by 
     such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; or
       ``(B) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, from a person not a Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner provided that a Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner certifies in writing to 
     the committee that he believes the information is submitted 
     in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of 
     the committee.

     If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
     periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct, the chairman and ranking minority member 
     shall establish jointly an investigative subcommittee and 
     forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that 
     subcommittee for its consideration. However, if at any time 
     during those periods either the chairman or ranking minority 
     member places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish 
     an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative 
     subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote 
     of a majority of the members of the committee.''.
       (2) Paragraph (k) is amended to read as follows:

     ``Duties of chairman and ranking minority member regarding 
       properly filed complaints

       ``(k)(l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that 
     whenever the chairman and ranking minority member jointly 
     determine that information submitted to the committee meets 
     the requirements of the rules of the committee for what 
     constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or 
     five legislative days, whichever is later, after that 
     determination (unless the committee by an affirmative vote of 
     a majority of its members votes otherwise) to--
       ``(A) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the 
     complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does 
     not require action by the House, which may include dismissal 
     of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter 
     to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom 
     the complaint is made;
       ``(B) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
       ``(C) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-
     calendar day or five-legislative day period by one additional 
     45-calendar day period when they determine more time is 
     necessary in order to make a recommendation under subdivision 
     (A).
       ``(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that if the 
     chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that 
     information submitted to the committee meets the requirements 
     of the rules of the committee for what constitutes a 
     complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within the 
     applicable time periods under subparagraph (1), then they 
     shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the 
     complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for 
     its consideration. However, if, at any time during those 
     periods, either the chairman or ranking minority member 
     places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an 
     investigative subcommittee, then an investigative 
     subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote 
     of a majority of the members of the committee.''.
       (3) Paragraphs (p) and (q) are amended to read as follows:

     ``Due process rights of respondents

       ``(p) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
       ``(1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled 
     vote by an investigative subcommittee on a statement of 
     alleged violation, the subcommittee shall provide the 
     respondent with a copy of the statement of alleged violation 
     it intends to adopt together with all evidence it intends to 
     use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, 
     including documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda 
     of witness interviews, and physical evidence, unless the 
     subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
     members decides to withhold certain evidence in order to 
     protect a witness; but if such evidence is withheld, the 
     subcommittee shall inform the respondent that evidence is 
     being withheld and of the count to which such evidence 
     relates;
       ``(2) neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, 
     directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any 
     member thereof during the period of time set forth in 
     paragraph (1) except for the sole purpose of settlement 
     discussions where counsel for the respondent and the 
     subcommittee are present;
       ``(3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of 
     alleged violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof 
     determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a 
     respondent under paragraph (1) to prove the charges contained 
     in the statement of alleged violation (or any amendment 
     thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available 
     to the respondent, and it may be used in any further 
     proceeding under the rules of the committee;
       ``( 4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) 
     shall be made available to the respondent and his or her 
     counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document,

[[Page 8046]]

     information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that 
     paragraph shall be made public until--
       ``(A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made 
     public by the committee if the respondent has waived the 
     adjudicatory hearing; or
       ``(B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the 
     respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing;

     but the failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in 
     writing, and their consequent failure to receive the 
     evidence, shall not preclude the issuance of a statement of 
     alleged violation at the end of the period referred to in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``( 5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
       ``(A) the chairman and ranking minority member determine 
     that information the committee has received constitutes a 
     complaint;
       ``(B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
     investigative subcommittee;
       ``(C) an investigative subcommittee votes to authorize its 
     first subpoena or to take testimony under oath, whichever 
     occurs first; or
       ``(D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the 
     scope of its investigation;
       ``(6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation and a respondent enters into 
     an agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on 
     which that statement is based, that agreement, unless the 
     respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed 
     by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside 
     counsel, if any;
       ``(7) statements or information derived solely from a 
     respondent or his counsel during any settlement discussions 
     between the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the 
     respondent shall not be included in any report of the 
     subcommittee or the committee or otherwise publicly disclosed 
     without the consent of the respondent; and
       ``( 8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative 
     subcommittee does not prevail, the committee shall promptly 
     send a letter to the respondent informing him of such vote.

     ``Committee reporting requirements

       ``(q) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
       ``( 1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not 
     adopt a statement of alleged violation and transmits a report 
     to that effect to the committee, the committee may by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of its members transmit such 
     report to the House of Representatives;
       ``(2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation, the respondent admits to the 
     violations set forth in such statement, the respondent waives 
     his or her right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the 
     respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
       ``(A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for 
     transmittal to the committee, a final draft of which shall be 
     provided to the respondent not less than 15 calendar days 
     before the subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
       ``(B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding 
     the final draft to the subcommittee within seven calendar 
     days of receipt of that draft;
       ``(C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the 
     committee regarding the statement of alleged violation 
     together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant 
     to subdivision (B), and the committee shall make the report 
     together with the respondent's views available to the public 
     before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
       ``(D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of its members issue a report and transmit such 
     report to the House of Representatives, together with the 
     respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to 
     subdivision (B) and any additional views respondent may 
     submit for attachment to the final report; and
       ``(3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 
     hours to review any report transmitted to the committee by an 
     investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a 
     sanction hearing and the committee vote on whether to adopt 
     the report.''.

                          ____________________