Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for yielding me this time. I agree with the points that he has made. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has been a very valuable member of the Ethics Committee. I know that his amendment is sincere. We just disagree as to what would be the most efficient way and the fairest way in which to operate the Ethics Committee. One thing I would like to point out is that there are underlying changes that we have made in the rules that will deal with many of the problems that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] brought to our attention. Let me try to explain. Before we have reached the point of expanding the scope of an investigation, there will have been at least three votes in the committee or by the chairman and ranking member, to protect, to make sure that this is a serious matter and certainly one that is proceeding in a nonpartisan or a bipartisan manner. First, the chairman and ranking member have already determined that the information that was submitted is a complaint. Either one could have stopped it, but they have mutually agreed that we have a legitimate complaint that complies with the rules. Second, the chairman and ranking member will have completed the initial factfinding and will have determined that it either should go forward for investigation or have taken it to the full committee, and the full committee has voted for it to go to investigation. So we have had a second opportunity to make sure that there is bipartisan support to proceed with an investigation. Third, the subcommittee will have had to take action to initiate investigative powers. It cannot do it by two, it has to do it by a majority. It has to be a bipartisan issue. At each phase of that process, the respondent will have gotten written notice. I underscore that because the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] pointed out, and rightly so, the procedures that were available when the rules were applicable against the former Speaker Jim Wright. When those rules were in effect, there were no notice requirements to the respondent. We have put in these rules that the respondent will know at every stage, including when a complaint is determined to be a complaint, when it goes to investigation, when the investigative powers are going to be used by the subcommittee, when the scope is being expanded; at each of those times, the respondent is entitled to written notice. That is part of the due process that has been written into these new rules. During the Wright investigation, we did not have a bifurcated process. There was nothing to be lost by the full committee being involved in that process. Members really need to ask themselves, what are they achieving by placing another obstacle into the subcommittee's work? What are they achieving? And what are they risking? If they require full committee action to expand scope, they risk the bifurcation. The bifurcation means that those who investigate is a different group than those who judge. A Member is entitled to have an independent jury make the final determination whether the rules were violated or not. The members that do the investigation cannot participate in that determination. But yet if we require the subcommittee to go to the full committee, those who are going to make the decision as to innocence or guilt on the rules violation, the subcommittee, by necessity, is going to have to disclose information that should not be disclosed and we are not going to have an objective pool in order to make judgment. That is what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has brought out, and it does violate the bifurcation process and the due process to the Member. The second is that when we involve more people, we run the risk for confidentiality problems. The third risk is, it is a delay. Particularly, you have to bring the full committee back, you may be in recess, you do not know, but it is a delay. We have been talking on the floor over and over again, we do not want complaints hanging over Members' heads. You want us to move more rapidly in resolving these issues. I think the Bunning amendment, as well intended as it is, runs the risk of jeopardizing bifurcation, runs the risk of compromising confidentiality, and runs the risk of delay. What do we achieve by it? Very, very little. Yes, there is some protection to go back to the full committee, I would grant that. But at this point, when we have already had at least three opportunities with the full Ethics Committee to have done some action on this in a bipartisan way, I think the time has come that the risks involved in confidentiality, in expediting the matter, and in protecting an independent jury pool outweigh the gain that it would be to go back to the full committee. For all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to reject the Bunning amendment, and let us go forward with the process that we have put into place. It will allow for a more timely consideration. It does protect the due process of a Member. We have provided much more due process to the Member than we had before these rules were adopted. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] who has been a valuable member of the task force and added great expertise to the work of the product that is before us.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, staff just pointed out, and let me just clarify again so it is clear, under the amendment that we have before us, although it does not directly deal with it, it is our understanding that if the committee votes to carry over a complaint, that that complaint would be considered properly filed. It would then proceed under the new rules in this Congress in the status it was at the adjournment of the last Congress.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the cochairman's interpretation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the bipartisan task force.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman and ranking member already have that power under the rules to take whatever motion they want to to the full committee. I assume that the chairman and ranking member supporting it were not going to have a partisan deadlock in the committee, so therefore they will be able to resolve it through whatever motion they want to take to the full committee. If they want to dismiss without prejudice, the chairman and ranking member can take it to the full committee without prejudice.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CARDIN. I reluctantly oppose the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit will return the rule to the original resolution approved by the bipartisan task force. It would include the manager's amendment, but none of the other amendments. It will give this House a chance to vote on the rules package that was approved in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, this will be the last opportunity that this House will have to reform the ethics process in a bipartisan manner. We have had a good debate on the floor. I think the issues have been well debated. I would hope that in the end the Members of this House would understand that it is not in our interests to amend the rules when the amendments are being passed by such a lopsided, partisan majority. That does not further the process. Ethics changes should be worked out in a bipartisan manner. There is a lot of good in this resolution. The original report is what should be approved by this House. I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can pass a bipartisan change in our rules package. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. They do not need the amendment. They already have the power within the rules package to do it. Mr. Chairman, for all the reasons that we have said, this well- intended amendment would only add more likelihood rather than less likelihood that we will run into a partisan deadlock. We have provided in these rules that the chairman and ranking member have the power that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary would like to now reemphasize by an additional amendment. It is not necessary. The power is within the committee to so act. We have provided a lot more tools for them to be able to do it. We do not wish to put an arbitrary deadline. It will only encourage gridlock and a problem. The last point I want to maintain, and I know the gentleman from Louisiana is well intended in his amendment, frivolous complaints have been handled quickly by this committee. To refer otherwise is just not accurate. Many of the complaints have been well debated. We came back and reached conclusions. We have not been deadlocked in the committee. In each case it may have taken too long, but we were able to reach conclusions. If we had an automatic dismissal, it would have prevented us from continuing to do our work until we were able to reach a conclusion. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the underlying resolution makes it much less likely that we are going to have a deadlock vote in the committee. We have given the chairman and ranking member a lot more ability to manage the work load of the committee. So I think the prospect of a hung jury, in all due respect, is much less under the procedures that we have in the underlying resolution. I might also point out, as a result of the last amendment that was adopted, we are now talking about complaints filed by Members. We showed a mistrust for the public in the last amendment that we adopted. Now we are saying we cannot even really have confidence that our Members will bring proper complaints. Therefore, we have to have some automatic dismissal process. Enough is enough. We have not had a hung jury in the work of the Ethics Committee since I have been on it in the last 6 years. Did we take too long to resolve issues? We did. The rules package before us deals with those concerns. On frivolous complaints, we handled them quickly. There has not been a problem there. The ranking member is right. If you have a 6-month deadline, if you have a complaint filed against a highly visible Member of this House, that Member is not going to find it difficult to convince the Members from his or her party to delay matters in order to get a dismissal. We may say it is a dismissal without prejudice, but he has this letter to wave, and the person is going to believe that the matter has been resolved. If it is not resolved, we have not done a favor to the Member.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, we are not turning over anything to anybody outside of this institution. We are not turning over anything. The resolution before us restricts the rights of non-Members to file complaints. It is more restricted than the current rules. So let us please stick to what the facts are. We have, we think, imposed reasonable standards on what non-Members should have to comply with in order to file a complaint with our committee. We used as precedent the rules of the other body, and in the other body non-Senators can file complaints based upon personal knowledge. They cannot be based upon newspaper accounts. We think that is the appropriate way. We believe it is an improvement over the current system. Mr. Chairman, we have been operating under these procedures since we adopted ethics rules in this House. Every time we have had a bipartisan effort to reform the process, we have tried to improve the process. If this amendment is adopted, I will make two observations: It will be the first major change in our ethics rules that will be done on a partisan basis because it did not go through the bipartisan operation that we had agreed with. And it will be the first major retreat, the first major retreat and pull-back of ethics procedures in this House. That would be, I think, a sad day for the House of Representatives. I understand the frustration that the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] expressed on the floor of this House. It was not an ethics complaint that caused this frustration. But I understand his frustration to be unjustly accused. All of us have gone through being unjustly accused. All of us who serve in public life have subjected ourselves and our families to unjust accusations because, just because, of our public service. That is wrong. The Constitution gives us the right to judge our own Members. We should require non-Members to pass a certain knowledge test before they can activate a complaint. But how we conduct the ethics process in this House is very important. And for us to say that we are going to reform it by denying direct filings, to me, is a major mistake. I would urge each Member, as they come over to vote, to please consider what is in the best interest of this institution. We have worked in a bipartisan manner to try to reform this process. It is important that that bipartisanship continue. A vote for this amendment, I regret, will work against the bipartisan cooperation that we have had on our task force. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Murtha amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hate to correct the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment does not take us back to status quo. It does not. Currently there are procedures for non-Members to file complaints. That is eliminated. The three-Member refusal is gone. The transmittal by a Member automatically is gone. These changes move us backward. They do not maintain the status quo. If this amendment maintained status quo, I would not have anywhere near the objection that I have. But it takes us backward, before the beginning of any rules in this House, as to the access that non-Members have in filing complaints with Congress. It is for that reason that I am so much opposed to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate the comments of the chair of the committee, but I think it is a bit naive to expect that if we close the door to direct filing of complaints that we are going to all of a sudden not get newspaper articles or not get matters that are brought to the public's attention through press conferences or the like about the conduct of Members of this body. That is just plain naive. I also think we do a disservice to the Member if we do not have a reasonable process to be able to resolve the issue within our ethics process. By closing the door we tell the public we do not want to hear from them. We are a restricted group and we will take care of our own problems. That is just going to make it worse for the Members of this institution and worse for the institution. My friend from California, Mr. Thomas talked about the process that we have for the violation over employee rules. That is fine, but a person who has gone through this matter should have a choice of forum. If they want to bring the matter as an ethics issue, that employee should have the opportunity to do it, and for us to say no is just plain wrong. Or to say that that employee has got to shop to find a Member of the House to certify is putting an unreasonable requirement. Please look at the underlying resolution. We changed the current rules significantly in this regard. We made a lot of progress. I just urge my colleagues who think that this will provide better protection against unwarranted complaints, I think just the opposite will occur, that they will be closing the process, removing the public confidence, and making it more likely than less that scandals will go unabated. We have an obligation to listen to all parties. We made a reasonable requirement for additional standards for non-Members to file complaints. It is reasonable. Please accept the bipartisan results. Let us try it. It is in the best interest of the House.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I support the effort as it relates to the legal aspects, but that committee has no authority to discipline the Member as far as that Member's activity on the floor of this House. Only the body can do that.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have the deepest respect for the author of this amendment. He is a person who has fought long and hard to improve the credibility of this institution. I disagree with this amendment. I think it moves in the wrong direction. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] mentioned a couple of points that I would like to directly respond to. First, he says it takes too long for us to consider complaints. I agree with him. That is why, in our resolution, we have provided to the chairman and ranking member to have but 14 days to determine whether a matter is a complaint or not, while we have 45 days of initial factfinding, and then they must do something with the complaint, so it cannot sit there indefinitely. I agree with the sponsor of the amendment in that regard. The problem is that his amendment does not fit into the work of our committee. There are some additional powers that we gave the chairman and ranking member that quite frankly would not have been there but for the fact that we have direct filing of outside complaints. Those provisions are unaffected by the Murtha amendment. The amendment does not fit. It is going to cause problems for the process. The sponsor mentioned newspaper accounts. We have a specific resume which adopts, by the way, the practice of the other body that says a newspaper account cannot be the basis of personal knowledge. So an outsider cannot use a newspaper article as the basis of filing a complaint. We specifically provide for that. Since we have had a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, since we have adopted the ethics rules in this House, we have permitted nonmembers to file complaints. If this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the history of this Chamber since we have adopted ethics procedures that we will close the doors to outsiders. I think that is wrong. During general debate I mentioned an example of a person, staff person, and this is just a hypothetical, who has been solicited by her boss to do sexual favors for promotion. Does any of us want that person to have to shop a Member of the House in order to bring that complaint? Should that matter not be directly able to come to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a complaint? Where is the dignity of a person who has a problem with a Member of being able to present it to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct? I know that they can present and they have other legal recourse here. That is legal recourse. We are talking about the ethical standards for Members of the House and we want our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to be able to judge the conduct of Members of the House. As well intended as this amendment is, it denies that ability for us to be able to adequately judge our Members. The Murtha amendment not only takes away direct filing, but it changes the current rules of the House where outside groups can have one of two ways of getting a complaint filed. One is eliminated, the other is changed by the Murtha amendment. The three-Member refusal is gone. This amendment stops it. And even the transmittal by a Member of a non-Member's complaint is changed if the Murtha amendment is adopted, because under the current rule a Member can transmit a complaint by a non-Member. Under these rules, under this amendment it would require the certification of a Member. Once again, is it right to demand that a person who has a legitimate problem have to search out and find a Member of the House? Let me give my colleagues one more example. A constituent receives a mailing from a Member on official stationery soliciting money for a campaign. Clearly against our rules. Now, if that constituent goes, if that happens to be a Democratic Member of Congress and it goes to another Democrat to try to transmit the amendment, we put a Democrat in a very difficult position. Goes to a Republican, it is partisan. Why should they have to get the stamp of approval before they transmit to us and then we make the judgment? What are we afraid of? We have given the power to the chairman and ranking member, why should we close the doors after all these years? I urge my colleagues, in the sense of fairness, we have raised the bar for non-Members filing complaints, and properly so. We have reached a fair compromise. Let us not slam the door totally and pretend that we only can present information against a Member. That is wrong. We will lose the confidence of the outside world, and rightly so. I urge my colleagues to reject the Murtha amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I agree with my cochairman's interpretation. Complaints that carry over by an affirmative vote of the committee would be considered as being in the same status as they were in the previous Congress when it adjourned. They would then proceed under the new rules in this Congress, which I believe is our understanding.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of my colleague, does this amendment resolve the issue of whether or not the new rules will apply, in whole or in part, to those complaints filed in prior Congresses that may be carried over to this Congress?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, once again I encourage Members to please review the work of our task force. I agree with the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], please look at these amendments carefully. We have a bipartisan product. Ethics reform must be done in a bipartisan manner. The amendments that will be offered will not be supported in a bipartisan way. I can give you the policy reasons why the task force rejected them. I have already done that. But I think it is important for this institution, for the credibility of this institution, for us to move the ethics process as far as we can in a bipartisan manner. As the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] knows, there are many provisions in this package that I would have liked to have seen differently. I did not offer amendments to change the package to meet my individual agenda. I did that because of the respect for our product and the process that was used, a fair process. It is now important for this House to ratify that process. Today we can make major progress in improving the ethics procedures in this body by supporting the work of the task force and by resisting the amendments that will be offered. I urge my colleagues to reject the three amendments, to support the final report, and to let us move forward to move the ethics process and improve the credibility of this institution in the eyes of the public. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.