[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19394-19395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid 
basis for the gentlewoman from California's point of personal 
privilege.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. WATERS. To the Members, I will only take about 7 or 8 minutes. I 
know that they are anxious to go home.
  On Tuesday, I introduced a privileged resolution that calls for a 
bipartisan task force to investigate the disciplinary action taken 
against two professional staff members of the Ethics Committee. Since 
then, I have had a chance to speak with dozens of Members regarding 
concerns about the ethics process and the impact it has on this 
institution.
  Regardless of region or political ideology, they all agreed that we 
must take every opportunity we can to improve the ethics process and, 
by extension, increase the faith of the American people in our ability 
to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct.
  We now have such an opportunity.
  There have been press reports of misconduct by the committee 
attorneys responsible for handling my case, which has been with the 
committee for almost 1\1/2\ years. Although we do not know the 
circumstances surrounding their conduct nor the disciplinary action 
taken against them, we can all agree, as Majority Leader Hoyer stated 
last week, that the developments are ``troubling.''
  To be sure, this issue is of great concern to me. However, after 
talking to Members, I have confirmed that it is also of great concern 
to you--my colleagues and friends--because the issue of transparency 
and fairness in the ethics process is one that transcends any 
individual.
  What is at stake is the integrity of this institution that we all 
cherish and of which we are privileged to be a part.
  If information regarding this matter is not made public, we will 
continue to see press reports and commentators across the political 
spectrum publicly criticizing the ethics process. Allow me to read you 
some of the press quotes on this issue.
  ``You have ethics issues in the Ethics Committee. These two attorneys 
are left on the government payroll. We still don't even know why they 
dismissed them.'' This is from ``The Willis Report,'' Fox Business, 12/
1/10.
  ``Can you imagine, in a court of law, if the prosecutor basically got 
completely taken off of the case, and suddenly the defense lawyer 
walked in, and there was somebody new? It's like bells and whistles 
would go off.'' This is from ``AC 360,'' which is Anderson Cooper, CNN, 
12/1/10.
  ``I am confident some of the folks on the committee are more 
political than anything else.'' That is from someone who has been very 
critical of me, Melanie Sloan of CREW, quoted in Talking Points Memo, 
12/1/10.
  ``Rarely has the ethics process looked worse.'' This is by Dana 
Milbank, Washington Post, 12/4/10.
  Unfortunately, if a resolution like the one I noticed passed, its 
authority, like the authority of the investigation against me, would 
expire at the end of this Congress, which could come as early as next 
week. The investigation and report called for by the resolution would 
have to be completed immediately, which apparently is not feasible now 
given the calendar.
  Many colleagues who share the concerns I have raised about the 
disciplinary action of the committee are also concerned that a task 
force established now would have insufficient time to finish its work.
  I share that concern and have been working with my colleagues over 
the last few days to find an alternative that would allow for the 
exploration of this important topic without further undermining the 
process by not allowing for adequate time and resources. Because news 
about the committee's activities just came to light last week, the 
options seem to be limited.
  We all know how a vote on a privileged resolution plays out. The 
leadership, for reasons which are both practical and political, would 
use a parliamentary procedure, either a motion to table or a motion to 
refer, to essentially kill the bill.
  This maneuver is not unique to this resolution. It is, as history 
shows us, seemingly standard practice. Functionally, that would be the 
end of this particular resolution, and it could have the unintended 
consequence of suggesting falsely to the public that the House as a 
whole is not concerned with the integrity of the ethics process.
  In fact, during those conversations with colleagues, Members have 
come alive, and the basic concepts of justice and fairness have 
permeated every conversation. They have suggested that this issue is 
one that should be explored willingly, not just by the force of a vote 
by the whole House, and that parliamentary procedure should not thwart 
transparency.
  Let me note that, while they expressed concern with some of the 
events that have occurred as related to my case and the implications 
for the broader institution, Members also indicated they believe that 
our colleagues who lead the Ethics Committee--Zoe Lofgren and Jo 
Bonner--fundamentally share our commitment to justice and fairness 
despite the circumstances which have led us here today.
  This is a view that I share as well.
  Although the committee is built on secrecy and confidentiality, it 
should have the ability to be flexible and provide transparency in 
extraordinary circumstances. This is one such extraordinary 
circumstance when the House as

[[Page 19395]]

a whole and the public need the committee to reveal information so we 
can have confidence in the process.
  Those who know me know that I am aggressive by nature and philosophy. 
I believe that it is important that we be relentless about our constant 
search for truth and justice.
  But here, upon the advice of my colleagues whom I trust and admire, I 
am not pushing for a vote on this resolution today. In doing so, 
however, I am requesting that the committee set the record straight, on 
its own accord, in a bipartisan manner, with a joint statement signed 
by the chair and ranking member, as provided by its rules, which both 
protects the confidentiality required by the committee and respects the 
public's and this body's right to know the circumstances of the events 
that led to the discipline of the two attorneys leading the case 
against me.
  Today, I will again notice the House with my privileged resolution. I 
am hopeful it will not be necessary to take it up, because the Ethics 
Committee will, indeed, set the record straight.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________