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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

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. 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. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Columbia, Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), another former member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Monticello, Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for upholding a high ethical standard in the House, and I rise in strong support of the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the American people. Across the country they have spoken out and editorial boards have reflected their views throughout our nation that not any one of us is above the law. No Member of Congress is above the law.

I come to this podium as the House Democratic leader, but I also would note that I bring to my office that I serve in now and to this podium the experience of serving on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years, and an additional 7th year to be part of the Livingston task force. Mr. Livingston, a Republican Member, chaired our committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was our ranking member on the task force that wrote the rules that we have been talking about this evening.

They were very important. We came together in a bipartisan way, hammered out all of the challenges that Members proposed, and came up with bipartisanship. When we did that, we were acting in the tradition of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the House of Representatives, bipartisan in nature in terms of writing the rules and in implementing them.

My friends, we all should be deeply indebted to all of the Members who have served on the bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Anyone who has served on it will tell Members it is not an easy task, and one that any one of us would like to avoid. It is very hard to pass judgment on your peers.

What I learned on the committee was that there are only three things that matter in the discussion: the facts, the rules of the House, and the law of the land. Anything else, discussion, hearsay and the rest of it was irrelevant to the decision-making. So in a bipartisan way, friendships were developed, we worked together. Members are down in the lower levels of the Capitol for long, long hours; and it was sometimes very difficult and sad to make those judgments. We deliberated; we exchanged ideas. Indeed, we even prayed over our decisions because we knew what impact they would have on the lives of our colleagues.

In short, we took our responsibility to act in a bipartisan way very, very seriously. And so should the committee regarding the rules that we will be returning to now. They should be taken in the most serious way. I hope when we vote on these rules tonight, we will have a big vote and that big vote will show not only our support for this resolution but our respect for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and its need to act in a bipartisan way.

One concern that I do have that has not been addressed is something that has happened not by a rules change but by a practice, a one-time practice.

Mr. Speaker, this book is called the ``House Rules and Manual,'' and it determines how we function in the House and how each of the committees functions. This rule says here: ``All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee.'' The rules governing staffing have been the standing rules of the House since the bipartisan task force recommendations were adopted in the 105th Congress, in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress, and they are indeed the rules of the House now even without action being taken tonight.

Central to a bipartisan upholding of a high ethical standard is nonpartisan staffing of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Certainly the Chair and the ranking member have their staff person for liaison purposes to the committee, but the work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must be done in a nonpartisan way. Those are the rules of the House.

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. 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 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.

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. Speaker, this resolution is long, long, long overdue. We should not have to be here today at all. We should not have to fix something that the Republicans broke for no good reason.

Let us be clear and honest about this. The ethics rules are not being reinstated today because suddenly the majority has had a change of heart. They are being reinstated because the American people have been outraged by Republican attempts to dismantle the ethics process. They have demanded that the House do the right thing. They have demanded that we restore the sensible, bipartisan procedure we used to have.

We have heard a lot of complaints from some on the other side about the politicization of this ethics process; but, Mr. Speaker, the partisan politics are coming from the other side. In fact, the Republican leadership is still playing politics.

In my hand is a copy of some of the talking points put out by the House Republican Conference on this rule change. Here are just a few samples of the poisonous rhetoric being put out today by the other side.

They accuse the Democrats of ``questionable motives''; a ``cynical attempt to corrupt the process''; ``partisan hackery in the guise of `good government.'''

These talking points have the audacity to claim that Republicans are now taking the high road. Hardly. Their low-ball tactics continue, and I will insert these into the Record at this point so the American people can see what is going on here.

Return to the Rules of the 108th Congress

Despite the best good-faith efforts of the Ethics Committee

Chairman and the Republican Leadership, House Democrats have

left no way to restart the ethics process without a full and

complete return to the Rules of the 108th Congress. For the

good of the House, an operating but flawed Ethics Committee

is preferable to a more equitable, but non-operational

Committee.

House Republicans stand by the changes made to the rules of

the House at the outset of the 109th Congress, but believe it

is more important for the institution to have a functioning

Ethics Committee that may be flawed, than to have a more

perfect, but non-operational Committee.

The three major rules changes made at the start of this

Congress greatly increased the bipartisan nature of the

ethics process, prevented the Ethics Committee from being

used as a political tool, and ensured fairness for Members

targeted by politically motivated charges.

The three changes--guaranteeing Members the right to be

represented in front of the Committee by counsel of their

choice, ensuring Members' right to due process, and

eliminating the possibility that a charge could wind up ``in

limbo''--were opposed by House Democrats in a blatantly

political attempt to use the ethics process for electoral

gain.

Despite the questionable motives behind Democrat opposition

to the rules changes, House Republicans worked to come to an

agreement with the Minority in order to get the Ethics

Committee up and running.

Unfortunately--but not surprisingly--each attempt by either

the Republican Leadership or Chairman Hastings was rejected.

Chairman Hastings offered on numerous occasions to meet

with Ranking Member Mollohan in order to craft a compromise,

but was rebuffed. When he presented his written and signed

guarantee addressing Mr. Mollohan's concerns, Minority Leader

Pelosi called his good-faith effort ``a sham'' (Weekly Media

Availability, April 21, 2005).

Just one week prior to Leader Pelosi's statement, Ranking

Member Mollohan said: ``We would proceed by our rules, not

any other way'' (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 14, 2005).

The Democrat intransigence clearly indicates their

intention to use the ethics process as a tool in their

political arsenal. Their

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. 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).

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.

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.