Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Education and Labor in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stood right here a few years ago against my party in favor of reform. I got scars on my back from standing for reform. But I heard John Tanner say when I got to Congress that neither party has an exclusive on integrity and ideas, and I believe that is true.

I want to tell you tonight, on the same platform I stood a few years ago when I joined then minority in this reform, there is good reform and there is bad reform. This is bad reform. I don't care what you say about it, how kind you are about it, this is bad reform. It is not good for the institution. It is not workable.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a four-page document by Ken Kellner, the senior counsel for your majority Ethics Committee, explaining all the problems.

Review of Task Force Proposal

Bill: I looked over the draft resolution forwarded by Rep.

Smith. I suggest you review it closely as well. Review of the

draft was not to critique the need for or merits of the

proposal, but to identify areas in which the proposal would

interfere with the operations of the Committee. We cannot

anticipate all plausible areas of concern prior to actual

implementation, but I did the best I could.

1. The new ``Office'' or ``Board'' is expressly authorized

to take up matters on its own initiative and to conduct

interviews and obtain testimony in its ``review'' of such

matters. See Section 1(c)(1)(A). This raises several

concerns, listed below:

As the Committee noted in its earlier feedback to the task

force, the interview of witnesses by both the new entity and

the Committee might result in conflicting statements that

would undermine the value of testimony from that witness.

Statements from witnesses would also likely be obtained

prematurely due to the time deadlines imposed on the new

entity. Sometimes there are valid investigative reasons not

to reveal the existence of an investigation to a witness

until other witnesses are interviewed or other evidence

obtained. In the course of its proceedings, the new entity

might reveal critical evidence or information to key

witnesses. The failure of those witnesses to keep this

information confidential may be very harmful to the integrity

of any future Committee inquiry.

The ``self-initiation'' discretion could undermine current

rules that limit complaints to those filed by Members. An

agent could provide information to the new entity that would

trigger review under its rules. There is no accountability as

to the source of information, unlike with respect to

``complainants,'' who must certify that the ``information is

submitted in good faith and warrants the review and

consideration of the Committee,'' and who must provide a copy

of the complaint and all attachments to the respondent. See

Committee Rules (d) and (e).

2. The new entity must ``transmit to the individual who is

the subject of the second-phase review the written report and

findings of the board[.]'' See Section 1(c)(2)(C)(ii). In

addition, the report will include ``findings of fact,'' ``a

description of any relevant information that it was unable to

obtain or witnesses whom it was unable to interview [] and

the reasons therefore,'' and a recommendation for the

issuance of subpoenas where appropriate.''

It is a bad idea for the Committee's purposes that the

``written report and findings of the board'' be transmitted

both to the Committee and to the individual under review.

This will provide information to a potential respondent at an

inappropriate stage, including alerting the respondent as to

witnesses who have been identified as potential recipients of

subpoenas. At a minimum, this would provide opportunities for

the coordination (or appearance of coordination) of

testimony. Potential respondents would also be alerted as to

difficulties encountered in obtaining information from

certain witnesses. This could discourage negotiated outcomes

if a respondent knows that certain individuals are not

cooperating witnesses.

This process is not sensitive to the need for

confidentiality of witness information at the early stages of

an investigation. Members, staff, and private individuals

should be able to provide information in confidence, at least

at the initial stages. The new rules may have an anti-

whistleblower effect and possibly employment ramifications

for individuals as well. For example, what if it is revealed

that a current employee is providing or refusing to provide

information about his or her employing Member? A previous

ethics task force was ``mindful'' of the need to ``protect

the confidentiality of a witness prior to publicly

disclosing'' a statement of alleged violation. Report of the

Ethics Reform Task Force on H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., 1st

Sess. at 25 (June 17, 1997).

The proposal is also inconsistent with Committee rules and

practices that keep investigative information confidential.

Under Committee Rule 26(f), evidence gathered by an

Investigative Subcommittee that would potentially be used to

prove a violation ``shall be made available to the respondent

and his or her counsel only after each agrees, in writing,

that no document, information, or other materials . . . shall

be made public until'' a Statement of Alleged Violation is

made public by the Committee or an adjudicatory hearing is

commenced.

There is no rule or precedent in effect for the new entity

for dealing with concerns of the Department of Justice in

cases of concurrent jurisdiction. As noted, under the

proposed process, there is considerable potential for the

making of inconsistent statements by witnesses and for the

release of confidential information. It this occurs, it

could easily undermine active criminal investigations.

The Board may make ``findings of fact'' as part of their

submission. This is generally a

function for a trier of fact after an opportunity for a

defendant/respondent to cross-examine witnesses or challenge

the evidence. What if the findings differ from those reached

by the Committee?

3. There appears to be a requirement that the Committee

publicly disclose Board submissions to the Committee. See

Section 3(2). This would occur if the Committee declines to

empanel an Investigative Subcommittee or if one year has

passed from the date of the referral from the new entity.

This means that the Committee must release the Board's

findings, even if the Committee has already determined to

handle the matter non-publicly. This is inconsistent with the

discretion now with the Committee (and investigative bodies

generally) to exercise judgment as to what matters to address

in a non-public fashion. With the possibility of review by

the new entity and public disclosure of conduct, there will

be greatly reduced incentive for witnesses and investigated

parties to cooperate with the Committee or to do so with

complete cooperation and candor.

This procedure also may place artificial pressure on an

Investigative Subcommittee to complete its work in well less

than a year, regardless of the impact on the investigation.

While such a time period may be sufficient, neither the

Department of Justice nor other law enforcement entities and

regulatory bodies, are subject to such limitations as they

would generally impact adversely on the completeness of an

inquiry.

4. A provision in the proposal provides that the Office

will cease its review of a matter on the request of the

Committee ``because of the ongoing investigation of such

matter by the Committee.'' See Section 1(d).

This rule should be clarified to make clear that it

includes informal fact-finding efforts by the Chair and

Ranking Member of the Committee. Otherwise, this important

rule may only have effect in the unusual case of empanelled

subcommittees. New language could be ``because of the ongoing

review of this matter by the Committee in accordance with the

Committee's rules.'' Section 1(d) and Section 3(3) should be

revised.

5. If the new entity ceases such review at the request of

the Committee it will ``so notify any individual who is the

subject of the review.'' See Section 1(d).

There are valid circumstances under which the Committee

would not want to notify an individual that it is undertaking

review of a matter until it is ready to do so for valid

investigative and privacy reasons. In general, it is not the

routine practice of law enforcement entities to notify

individuals. Such disclosures could trigger protective

behaviors that might undermine an investigation, as well as

lead individuals to hire of attorneys (perhaps unnecessarily

and at considerable expense). [By analogy, would it be

appropriate in all cases to notify a respondent that the

Committee has referred evidence of criminal conduct to the

Department of Justice? In many cases, it is in the interests

of criminal law enforcement that such referrals be made in

confidence.]

6. The new entity must adopt a ``rule requiring that there

be no ex parte communications between any member of the board

and any individual who is the subject of

any review by the board.'' See Section 1(c)(2)(E)(iv).

This provision should be revised to prohibit communications

from any interested persons and any member of the board, as

well as make explicit that ex parte contacts include those

made by counsel. A useful provision to examine in considering

ex parte prohibitions is the provision contained in Federal

Election Commission regulations pertaining to contacts with

any Commissioner. See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 201.2.

Kenneth E. Kellner,

Senior Counsel, Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct.

They kept a lid on it till today, and the bill is up tonight, and here it is. It is bad reform.

If you think that the steroid and baseball hearings are a distraction over the business of the people of this country, wait until tomorrow when this goes into effect, when outsiders are firing political shots at each other, listening to people back home want us to quit bickering and sniping and firing shots at each other and get these important things done for them.

The gentlelady said she yields the customary time. This is not a customary process. The rule was shut down. There are no substitutes, there is no recommit, there are no alternatives, and there is no consideration of a bipartisan alternative by two people with integrity who have been working together for weeks to have a day to say, no, this is a better approach.

Have former Members, first time ever that outsiders are part of this process, but they are former Members. They have no ax to grind. They will call it like it is. Let's take a logical step.

But let me tell you, if this is based on trying to hold the House, that's a false strategy. When we put our reelection as a majority above the people's business and honor and integrity we lost, and we should have, and you are doing the same thing.

Don't do this, House. It's not good for this country, and it's not good for us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton, for yielding and for managing this very challenging bill this evening with such dignity.

This is an important time for us, my colleagues, because we are sending a message to the American people as to who we are. We know each other to be honorable individuals who come here with the best motivation. Our title ``Representative'' is our job description, to represent the people of our districts. We gain respect for each other as we work on issues across the aisle, across the region, across generations in every way, representing the beautiful diversity of our country.

Unfortunately, the American people do not share our view of ourselves here in the Congress and our reputation has received tarnish. Part of that tarnish came from a culture of corruption that preceded the Democratic takeover of this Congress. When I became Speaker of the House, I said it was necessary to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C. so that the people will understand that we are here for the people's interest and not the special interests.

And so this legislation that is before us today represents what I believe is necessary for us to convey to the American people what we owe them: our best effort to have this Congress live up to the highest ethical standard.

And I know of what I speak because I had the responsibility to serve on the Ethics Committee for 6 years when we took up some terrible issues. The bank scandal, remember that? Many of you weren't here yet, but it was a horrible time. The Newt Gingrich case, it was a horrible time. During that time, as divided as we were, Democrat and Republican, I would pray at night that something exculpatory would come along, something that would say we don't need to continue this case because there is evidence that these charges are not true. It is hard, it is hard to pass judgment on your colleagues. It is very difficult.

And I say that in the most bipartisan way, and we worked together on that committee in a very bipartisan way during some very difficult times.

After 6 years, I thought my service was over; and I had to spend another year on what Mr. Hoyer referenced as the Livingston-Cardin Committee to rewrite the rules. We thought we did a really good job; but, obviously, a review of them some years later said we have to do more.

But that has been the story of ethics in the Congress. Since the Ethics Committee was first created in 1967, the House has set increasingly higher standards of conduct to guide Members because public service is a public trust. As I said, in recent years that trust has been eroded, and we have come here to drain the swamp.

Just last year on the first day of the Congress, the New Direction Congress, the House implemented new and sweeping changes to the gift and travel restrictions. Last September we passed the historic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, historic lobbying and ethics reform that is now the law of the land.

Today, the New Direction Congress will, for the first time, open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable to the people who sent us here, the American people. I welcome their assistance.

I want to say a word about Mr. Capuano. I want to thank him for his service to our country. In recognizing him, I want to recognize the participation of all of the members, Democrats and Republicans, on the task force, for their service to this House; and I believe there was a good-faith effort made to keep this process as bipartisan as possible. And that is the best you can do. If at the end of the day there is not a willingness to make the reforms necessary to restore the confidence of the American people in the Congress of the United States, then you cannot be held back because some do not want to act.

Mr. Capuano, I believe, led this effort in a way that was bipartisan and sensitive to the institution's history and traditions. And I must say that I received, early on, compliments from his co-Chair, the Republican co-Chair of the committee, about working with Mr. Capuano. He said something like, I am sorry you appointed him because he is very good to work with. That was supposed to be a joke.

In any event, I would like to extend special thanks to him for undertaking this very difficult task, not only in trying to make something that is important work, but also to convince our colleagues that this is the route to take.

Now as I said, I served on the committee under the old rules and I helped write the new rules, and there is always a time to revisit all of it. And there will be a time to revisit these rules as well.

A special thanks to my friend, Mr. David Hobson, for his work on the task force and for his many years of distinguished service in the Congress. We will miss his thoughtful deliberations and his contributions to our country. Thank you, David Hobson.

As I mentioned, I served on the Ethics Committee during some very, very difficult times; and I want to extend my deep respect and appreciation to those who serve on this committee now and who have served past and present. Until you have undergone that, until you have undergone that, you cannot really understand how difficult it is. And how happy you are when your term of office ends. But I want to salute them, all of them, past and present, for their important work.

I have deep respect for what Mr. Capuano, striving to work in a bipartisan way, has tried to achieve. Adopting the Capuano Task Force recommendations will provide the public and the House with the assurance that credible, credible allegations of wrongdoing will be addressed by the Ethics Committee in a timely fashion. I emphasize the word ``credible'' because I have no doubt that the main target of this, and who do you think the main target of any outside groups to this group will be? You're looking at her. You are looking at her.

But I am willing to take that risk because I also trust, yes, I also trust, my polite colleagues, I also trust that this group will rid itself of frivolous, baseless complaints and send a message to those who would file repeated frivolous complaints that is their price to pay to do this. I consider this a protection.

It will bring an additional measure of transparency to the ethics enforcement process. It creates this transparency, I think it is important to note, without compromising the House's constitutional prerogatives to discipline its Members without interfering with the work of the Ethics Committee and without altering the substantive rules governing the conduct of the committee's deliberations.

I fully realize that bringing non-Members to this enforcement mechanism is not only a step forward; it is a departure. It is a departure from the traditions of the House.

To those who have those concerns, I pledge that I will work closely with my friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, to jointly appoint the members of this new Office of Congressional Ethics, fair men and women who understand the importance of nonpartisan behavior and the compelling need to act fairly to protect the interests of the public, the House, and especially the Members.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pledge that the House leadership, and I know I heard, listened with great interest to what Mr. Hoyer had to say about this, and thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your extraordinary leadership on making Congress more accountable and live up to a high ethical standard. Our leadership will closely monitor the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics and continually review all reasonable proposals intended to guarantee the highest ethical conduct and a more transparent and effective ethics process. Whether they relate to the new panel or the Ethics Committee itself, if additional changes are required, we will propose them.

And since I mentioned Mr. Hoyer's name, I want to associate myself with one of the remarks he made. I thought it was 30 days. Mr. Hoyer said 45 days. But in a very short period of time, according to the proposal that the Republicans are putting forth, in a very short period of time if the Ethics Committee had not disposed of those charges, they would go to the Justice Department. They would go to the Justice Department.

Well, the Ethics Committee is about the rules of the House, about conducting ourselves in a way that brings honor to the House. Many of those issues are not matters for the Justice Department. The Justice Department knows when its jurisdiction should weigh in.

This is about the facts, the rules of the House, and sometimes the law of the land. It's not about hearsay, rumor, suspicion, I thought so, somebody told me. It's about the facts, the rules and the law of the land. That is all that matters. That is all that matters.

I think that this evening this Congress has an opportunity to send a message to the American people, and as we do, each and every one of us does as well. Our votes will speak for themselves. We are willing to take a chance to make a vote on something we might have written differently. And I don't know one bill I've ever voted for that I wouldn't have, something you might have written differently, but something that can strive to remove the doubt that is in the minds of the American people about the integrity of this body.

I hope that you will all join in voting for this. It is worthy of your support. I know that, with my vote, I will be able to say I did everything I could, respecting the work of those who undertook this for practically 1 year to come up with a proposal that was fair, that was effective, and that helped us drain the swamp and say to our bosses, the people who sent us here, we honor you with our service, and we pledge to you that we will always serve in a Congress that upholds the highest ethical standard.

This is an important vote. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye.'' And I thank Mr. Capuano once again for his extraordinary leadership.

My colleagues, rebuilding the bonds of trust between those of us who serve in this institution and the American people should be our highest priority. And I think the American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards of every Member of this institution, and I think it is our obligation to deliver on that commitment to the American people.

Clearly, the Speaker believes that we need to establish this Office of Congressional Ethics because the Ethics Committee process is broken. Let me say, I agree with her. It is broken. It didn't work under Republican control here for at least the last 5 or 6 years that we had the majority in this House, and the lack of evidence that I've seen over the last 15 months, it's not worked well under the Democratic majority either.

In December of 2006, as the Speaker was waiting to take her position, she and I sat down and we talked about this. I expressed to her at the time my serious reservations about some outside, independent group that was responsible to no one. And I mentioned to the Speaker at the time that I thought that our obligations, as the leaders of this institution, were to stand up to make sure that this process really did work.

I think every Member of this institution wants the Ethics Committee process to work fairly, to work honestly, and to work in a bipartisan fashion, because it is our obligation to the American people and the obligation of each and every one of us, for the future of this institution, to make sure that this process works fairly, honestly, and in a bipartisan way.

I was here in 1991. Some of you were. Most of you weren't. I was standing right on the back wall when I and some of my colleagues had information that we read in USA Today about Members of Congress bouncing 8,300-some-odd checks the year before at the House bank. Some of us wanted to know why or how, what was going on at the House bank. And before we could get to the microphones with our privileged resolution, the Speaker of the House was down here in the well of the House. The majority leader was down here in the well of the House. Even the Republican leader was here in the well of the House, and all three of them basically said the same thing: We didn't do anything wrong, and we won't do it again.

So, for those of you that have concerns about the habits of this institution to sweep these issues under the rug, I saw it, and I've seen it since on both sides of the aisle.

When we will not rise up to meet our responsibility as Members, to judge each other and to hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard, I know that tendency. And for those new Members that are here who want to bring this process and make it more transparent and make it more open, trust me, there's no one who will work more closely with you to make it happen. The Ethics Committee process, again, I'm going to say it again, needs to work fairly, it needs to work honestly, and it needs to work in a bipartisan fashion.

In 2005 and 2006, the then minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, castigated the majority to no end over the issue of, it might have been in 2004 and 2005, over the issue of making changes to the ethics process and the ethics rules in a partisan manner. And I agreed with them. And those changes were later rescinded by a vote in this House.

But over the last 15 months, three times we've had bipartisan, I mean partisan changes to the rules brought to the floor of this House and forced down Members' throats. Three times. Tonight is the fourth time, the fourth time that we've gone down the same path that people decried and decried. And I think all of us on both sides of the aisle know that if this process is going to work fairly and honestly and in a bipartisan manner, it needs to be written in a bipartisan manner. No other way around it.

The members of the task force, Mike Capuano, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the other three Democrat members, Lamar Smith and the other three Republican members really did hard work and really tried to come to some agreement. But when you start to create this outside entity, as an excuse, as a way of saying we're doing something, instead of actually fixing the problem, that's where we could never come to an agreement.

I look around this House and I know that there are a majority of the Members of this House who are opposed to the creation of this Office of Congressional Ethics. I see you. I know who you are. You all know it.

We've been through this process. The 18 years that I've been here, we've been through this process of self-flagellating ourselves and introducing new ethics packages, passing them on the floor of the House, all of it, all of it under some rules of public pressure.

But what we really have never done is to create an ethics process that does work fairly and honestly in a bipartisan manner. I don't know what goes on down there, and I understand there's a reason for some secrecy, but to have some idea that something is moving in the ethics process would be helpful, to know that they are investigating case number whatever it is and that it will move.

But I do think that the proposal that we have tonight before us is partisan. I don't think it'll work. And I don't think it's in the best interest of the American people or this institution.

The current Ethics Committee is made up of five members appointed by the Speaker and five members appointed by the minority leader. It's bipartisan. The problem we have is that the process itself has not worked. And it's been frankly 10 years since it's worked very well. Now, there's a lot of ways to make it work. I think more transparency and more accountability. And I think Members could come to an agreement on making that process work, although I do believe the most important thing that will make it work is a commitment by the leaders on both sides of the aisle to say, we expect the Ethics Committee to work; we expect them to do our job. And the two leaders need to stand there and uphold those Members and the work that they do on behalf of this entire House. It can happen.

But the new proposal is three Members appointed by the Speaker and three Members appointed by myself and we have to come to an agreement. We have six Members that we could, six Members on this outside organization that we could agree on.

Now, the Speaker and I have come to some agreements here over the last couple of weeks, and it's been a very nice and wonderful experience. But to think that we can come to an agreement on six people to serve on this outside panel strikes me as a stretch. I can't imagine who in their right mind would want to serve on this outside panel because of the fighting that's going to occur, not by Members, but by partisan groups on both sides who are going to want to be filing frivolous complaints. And the problem with this outside process is that it does not have the secrecy and accountability that's necessary to ensure that Members' reputations aren't drug through the mud by some partisan charge that may have no basis in fact at all. None.

Now, if the bipartisan process that we have called the Ethics Committee doesn't work, why would we think that this bipartisan outside Ethics Committee is going to work any better?

I just want to say that this institution means a lot to me. It means a lot to, I think, all of us who serve. And before I came to the floor, I was watching the proceedings from my office, and I saw the new Member, the gentleman from Illinois, sitting here, probably was scratching his head wondering on his first day in Congress he's in the middle of this big partisan fight. It's not usually this way. But I've got to tell you that it really isn't usually this way.

What we're about to undertake here is something that will never be undone, if we do it. And if we do it wrong, which I believe it is being done wrong, it will be something that this institution and its Members will live with for a long, long time to come.

And I think there's only one real answer, and I want all of my colleagues to really seriously consider doing the right thing tonight. I think that we ought to defeat the previous question. I think that we ought to send this back to a committee that can, in a bipartisan way, find a way to make the Ethics Committee process work in the fair,

honest and bipartisan manner in which we all want it to work. Let's not paper over the problem. Let us go fix the problem, and the problem is the Ethics Committee process itself.

And so I would ask my colleagues to thank the great work of the bipartisan group of Members who tried to put this together, thank them for their job and the job they did for this institution. But let's also reject this proposal, agree that we will work together in a bipartisan way to do the right thing for our Members, our colleagues, this institution and for the American people.

Defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, did I understand that to challenge the vote on the previous question that it would rise to a question of the privileges of the House? Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of the House have been dishonored, that the rules have been violated.

Mr. Speaker, when could I introduce a privileged motion?

If I can't offer a privileged resolution until this business has been completed, there will have been a vote taken on final passage of this rule, which basically takes my remedy away from me. I believe that under the rule as written by the majority that a vote cannot be held open solely for the purpose of trying to change the outcome. It was violated.

Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman needs an additional minute, I am going to give him mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the bipartisan Ethics Task Force, Mr. Scott.

We have several more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the bipartisan Ethics Task Force, Mr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the ethics task force.

We have two and myself to close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the ethics task force, Mr. Capuano.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I insert a March 11 letter from the Ethics Committee chairwoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, into the Record at this point.

House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct,

Washington, DC, March 11, 2008.

Dear Colleagues: Today, I am disappointed that the Ranking

Member of the Ethics Committee, Representative Doc Hastings,

would violate the Ethics Committee's confidentiality rules by

releasing a confidential communication between two attorneys

who work for the Committee.

Both Representative Hastings and I agreed that the Ethics

Committee could not and should not give advice to the

committee charged by House Leadership with reviewing the

ethics process itself. In his letter, Representative Hastings

said ``Upon receipt of his letter, I shared Rep. Smith's

request with Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and urged her to join me

in submitting official comments to Rep. Capuano's task force

on behalf of our Committee--a request to which she did not

agree''. That is not true. We did however agree to send a

letter outlining the functions of the ethics committee

process which is signed by both Representative Hastings and

myself. (This letter is available upon request). We also

agreed to allow our counsel to attend some of the meetings of

the outside ethics committee and to address some of the

concerns we raised. Some of these concerns are reflected in

the Office of Congressional Ethics' final product.

Indeed the Oath of Office, Rule 7(a), proscribes this

conduct when we declare ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm)

that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, any information

received in the course of my service with the Committee,

except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with

its rules.''

Rule 7(d) provides that Members and staff of the Committee

shall not disclose to any person or organization outside the

Committee, unless authorized by the Committee, any

information regarding the Committee's or a subcommittee's

investigative, adjudicatory or other proceedings, including

but not limited to: (i) the fact of nature of any complaints;

(ii) executive session proceedings; (iii) Committee or

subcommittee report, study or other document which purports

to express the views, findings, conclusions or

recommendations of the Committee or subcommittee in

connection with any of its activities or proceedings; or (iv)

any other information or allegation respecting the conduct of

a Member, officer or employee, of the House.

Today, Representative Hastings stated he had no desire to

release ``the memo'' if this matter had not come to the

floor. If Representative Hastings was as altruistic as he

claims to be having had this memo since November 2007, he

would have initiated a process whereby our counsel could have

time to prepare a response that might have been available for

public review after being approved by the Chair and Ranking

Member. This ``memo'' was actually an internal email

communication between lawyers of the Committee and not

approved for release by the Chair or Ranking Member. By

releasing the said internal communication, Representative

Hastings could in fact reduce the confidence that the

nonpartisan counsel has in communicating with members

uncertain that their work product would be kept confidential.

Representative Hastings' reliance on Rule 7(g) which

states, ``Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the

Committee, only the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of

the Committee, after consultation with each other, may make

public statements regarding matters before the Committee of

any subcommittee, does not relieve him of the obligation to

comply with the rules of confidentiality.

As Chair of the Ethics Committee, I have taken great

strides not to give an opinion on the proposed Office of

Congressional Ethics and I had hoped that my ranking member

could place himself above the fray and not act for a partisan

purpose. I see now that he cannot.

I do not seek to have sanctions brought against

Representative Hastings at this time in hope that we can

continue the work of this bipartisan committee. I do however

want to make it clear that if he continues to release

confidential communication, I will seek to have him

sanctioned for violations of the Code of Official Conduct.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Tubbs Jones,

Chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, when the laws and congressional rules are violated, the American people suffer. They suffer in policy and they suffer in spirit. They're cheated out of their right to proper representation. When Americans went to the polls in the last election, they sent a clear message that they are concerned about the state of our government. The American people want to know that we are here for them, not for the lobbyists, not for special interests and not for self- interest. They deserve nothing less. That is what this is about.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in this House on loving this institution.

The issue, my friends, is not whether we have respect for one another. Too often, it is demonstrable on this floor that we don't.

The issue is, Will the American people have respect for us? That is the issue. That is the critical issue that confronts us this evening. Not because any of us are pointing fingers at anybody else in this House.

But unless you were sound asleep prior to the last election, unless you were living in another country in another land in another time, you know what the people thought about this, the people's House that we love. That, my friends, is why we are in the majority, because the people thought changes were necessary in this House.

The people asked for change. They asked for accountability. There have been some things said on this House floor that are not accurate. Mr. Tiahrt said that Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, would make independent appointments to this.

Mr. Capuano changed that as a result of the suggestions of these Members. It was a good change because it meant that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi are going to have to agree on six people.

It has been said on this House just now that this replaces the Ethics Committee. It absolutely does not. Does it complement it? I think it does, but it does not replace it. Nor does it substitute its judgment for the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee can continue to operate as it does now and can initiate, it does not need to wait on this committee. It can initiate the defense of the ethics of this House, 435 of us elected by our neighbors and friends. We are all sad when one of us comes short of the expectations of our constituents, as we should, because we know only too well, those of us who have served for significant periods of time in the public's fear, that the acts of each of us is often attributed to the rest of us.

There needs to be a confidence level among the American people in the people's House. How are they going to

have that confidence? I suggest to you that it is my belief, as one who is not for many of the things that the so-called groups are for, who think that it is going to change, it will not change, many times, the substance of what we deal with.

I happen to have come to the conclusion that this proposal that Mr. Capuano and others have made, and I regret the fact that this is not a bipartisan proposal. One of my best friends in life, not just that served here in this House, is Senator Ben Cardin. Many of you know how close he and I are. He and Bob Livingston worked on the last major ethics reform together and came together in a bipartisan fashion.

I am one who works in a bipartisan fashion. Ask Bob Ney and the Help America Vote Act. Ask Steve Bartlett on the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe in operating that way. I wish this were a bipartisan product.

If we had the vote on the Republican alternative, I would vote against it. Why would I vote against it? Because it has within its framework submitting to the Justice Department after 45 days a complaint that the Ethics Committee has not dealt with. I don't think that is appropriate for a violation of the rules. It should be within the bosom of this body. This proposal copies it there.

This does not give subpoena power to people to go on fishing expeditions. It gives to six people, selected jointly by Mr. Boehner and Speaker Pelosi, who I hope and believe that they will agree upon people of very high integrity and good common sense. Because when they say, and somebody comes along and says in a press conference, Steny Hoyer has violated the rules, none of us can protect ourselves against that. That's the business we are in. We are all targets and we are all vulnerable.

But it is my belief that this body will be composed of the kinds of people that I think Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Boehner will appoint, and not Members.

I am a lawyer. I will tell you, the public is not too convinced that lawyers are good at self-regulation. Some of you are doctors. The public is not particularly convinced that doctors are good self- regulators, or CPAs or other professions.

That's what we are talking about. We are talking about to the American public we do act properly, we do keep the faith. We are honest, and we are prepared to answer for our conduct and give confidence to you, the American people, that it is the people's House, not our House, the people's House.

I suggest to you, my friends, that whatever can happen, whatever could happen, whatever scenario you fear can happen right now with the existing process, all this does, it adds a complementary body, hopefully, and I believe, of citizens of very high repute who will, in turn, be able to say to the American public, yes, this group of Americans is honest, hardworking, and serving you well.

Are there, from time to time, exceptions? There are. But let us have the confidence to tell to the American people our conduct is, and we want it to be, above reproach, and we do not fear the oversight and accountability that this proposal suggests. I urge my colleagues, have confidence in those that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi will appoint. Have confidence in yourselves and in your colleagues, and let us this night give confidence to our constituents and the American people.

Vote for this proposal.