Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's reasoning, and I agree to accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished majority leader must know that the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule to allow him to offer an amendment to increase the funding for State and local law enforcement, which was dramatically reduced in this bill. It only exists in the bill because the chairman has restored several hundred million dollars to States and locals which the President asked to cut. So the distinguished majority leader must know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) went to the Rules Committee and that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to get at the inadequacy of the funding for State and local law enforcement levels from the Federal Government, and the gentleman is not at all interested in cutting NASA. But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is left in a position now that his amendment, which proposes to offset the high income tax cut in order to fund additional State and local law enforcement, was denied. The gentleman was not able to offer that amendment, so he is getting at the issue of the inadequacy of the funding of State and local law enforcement by having, in a tight bill where we do not have many offsets, offsets against NASA. That is difficult. That is tough. But it does get at the issue of the inadequacy of State and local law enforcement, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) really has no choice if he wants to raise the issue, but to take a route like this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished minority ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, much for the same reason I rose in opposition to the previous amendment. It is not that the additional funding is not needed in the program, it is that the money that is the funded to the Census Bureau is needed in the Census Bureau. The chairman and I have worked very hard in trying to balance these accounts. They are delicately balanced because of the bad allocation that we received. The Census Bureau in order to do its job has to prepare early. It looks like a lot of money. It is a big job. It is extremely important that it is done right. While I am totally supportive in increasing these local and State law enforcement assistance programs, the offsets are just untenable, this one included. I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, what was the unanimous consent request stated by the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has put together a good bill for us this year in the face of some really large reductions and legislative proposals that were contained in the President's budget request. He has crafted a bipartisan bill, and, during the process, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) took into consideration all concerns that the minority expressed. He has been as accommodating in that process as he could be within the allocation that this committee was given, and the minority, Mr. Chairman, are really appreciative of that. He has done an excellent job, and his staff, likewise, has worked cooperatively with the minority genuinely to craft this bill. Our allocation for the Science, State, Justice and Commerce bill, as the chairman indicated, is $57.45 billion, an increase of 2.1 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but a decrease from the President's fiscal year 2005 request. It certainly sounds like a lot of money, but this year's increase does not keep pace with inflation, and it is not adequate to meet the varied needs of the important Federal agencies contained in this bill. I am concerned that when we look at funding trends for these crucial programs over time, we are systematically reducing the Federal investments in our communities. For example, the chairman has restored about $1 billion over the President's cuts to the State and local law enforcement, but the bill is still about $400 million below last year's level. Now, that is a crucial fact. As we face terrorism, as we continue to fight crime, as we have been successful with it over the last 10 years in large part because of the Federal contribution to State and local levels, this is no time to back off of this support; but this bill is $400 million below last year's level for support to State and local law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went before the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked to be made in order an amendment to restore some of this funding and to have an offset, that would have been particularly appropriate, to offset just a small part of the tax cut that the most wealthy 1 percent in this country have received over the last 4 and 5 years, to support State and local law enforcement. I cannot think of a worthier program to support, a more important program to support in this time of national emergency and terrorist threats, and I cannot think of a more fair offset from a percentage of our population, the most wealthy, who have enjoyed the benefit of the tax cuts greater than anyone else in our country. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to offer an amendment on the floor to address this issue, and I would hope that there would not be an objection against it. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has also restored $200 million to the Economic Development Administration's grant program. This was eliminated in the President's proposal. However, that restoration of $200 million is approximately two-thirds of last year's enacted amount for an extremely important program, the Economic Development Administration grants. They help the most needy communities in our Nation, and that is an area that did not need to be cut in the President's request, and we appreciate the chairman restoring it partially. Smaller programs that are important to our States and our local communities were also zeroed out in the President's budget and could not be restored. The Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning Account, the Advanced Technology program, and the SBA Prime program were not funded. The President has also proposed zeroing out the Steel Loan Guarantee program. And I very much appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) restoring $15 million to the Steel Loan Guarantee program so that we can argue in conference for this valuable program, which has been so important to significant steel producers in the past. For some agencies, this bill is a mix of good news and bad news. In the Department of Commerce, the President's so-called Strengthening America's Communities proposal was rejected, and some funding was restored to EDA, but we were not able to include requested funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for construction of new facilities. In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, funding was increased for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, but the National Marine Fisheries and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program are both reduced. The National Science Foundation overall fares well. The cuts this agency faced last year have been restored, and this bill provides $170 million more than last year's enacted level. But within the Education and Human Resources Directorate, many of the education programs are flat-funded, including EPSCOR, Informal Science, Advanced Technology Education, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. NASA, Mr. Chairman, is funded slightly above the President's request. The Space Shuttle's Return to Flight is fully funded, and the chairman has restored aeronautics funding to last year's level, and has increased the Science Accounts to $40 million. However, I am concerned that crucial science and aeronautics programs are being reduced, deferred, and ultimately will wither. The Science Account, including programs such as Solar System Exploration, Universe Exploration, and the Earth Sun System would receive less than a 1 percent increase over this budget proposal; yet the most recent successes have come from this program. The clear winner in this bill is Federal law enforcement. The FBI received $50 million above the President's request, including funding for drug agents that the President proposed to transfer into organized crime and drug enforcement task forces. DEA and the Marshal Service are both funded above the President's request. The bill rejects the President's proposal to tax the explosives industry by adding new fees, and rejects the proposal to transfer the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the HIDTA program, into the Department of Justice from ONDCP. We certainly can have a discussion on the merits of locating a program in one agency versus another, but, in this instance, when the HIDTA coordination efforts are going well, I think we can all agree that the program should be fully funded wherever it is located. I hope the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies is looking at this issue as they prepare their bill. The bill before us overcomes many deficits in the President's budget, but, over the long term, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the constraints placed on the Committee on Appropriations through the budget resolution are continuing the systemic reduction of domestic discretionary programs that are crucial to our State and local communities. I would, as the chairman did, like to recognize and thank our staffs for doing such an outstanding job. They are dedicated, and they have been very dedicated to efforts on this bill. To Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia Alvarado with the majority, I express thanks; and to David Pomerantz and Michelle Burkett, Dana Polk with the minority staff, and Sally Moorehead and Julie Aaronson on my personal staff, have put in a great deal of time, a great deal of hard work into the bill, and I know that the chairman and I share his deep sense of appreciation for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just want the gentlewoman to understand it. I do not think she did understand it.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I oppose the COPS program, because I know the chairman does not oppose the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. As he indicated, his family understands how important community policing is. But I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the offsets. As Chairman Wolf has pointed out, the gentleman makes unacceptable offsets here. I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington really think that a $50 million cut from the FBI, including funding for counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs, is something that the FBI can do without?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution which will repeal the unfortunate ethics rules changes that the majority included in the House rules package that was adopted on January 4 of this year. For those of us who have opposed these rules changes from the outset, it has been a long, difficult effort and it is gratifying to see it finally succeed. I have maintained from the outset, Mr. Speaker, that what is at issue in these rules changes is in fact the fundamental question of whether the House is going to continue to have a credible ethics process, a credible ethics process that will command the respect and confidence of both the Members of the House and the public. And I 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. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 1 of this year I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 131, that would repeal the ill-conceived amendment to the House ethics rules that were included in the rules package adopted at the beginning of this Congress. Although this resolution has now gained 208 co-sponsors, the Committee on Rules to which it has been referred has not yet taken any action on it. Accordingly, it now becomes necessary to begin to invoke the procedures provided by House Rule 15, to discharge a measure from the committee. To that end, today I am introducing a resolution that provides terms for the consideration of House Resolution 131 by the full House. Under House Rule 15, a discharge petition may be filed with regard to this resolution after 7 legislative days. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that what is at issue with House Resolution 131 is, in fact, whether the House of Representatives is going to continue to have a credible ethics process that can be effective in protecting the reputation and the integrity of this great institution. And for at least two reasons, the House will not and cannot have a credible ethics process unless the Republican-inspired rules changes made earlier this year are repealed. First, there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House unless it is genuinely bipartisan. By definition, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was created as a bipartisan organization within a very partisan body, and its rules have always been fashioned through a bipartisan task force. Until this year, the House clearly and repeatedly recognized that bipartisanship must extend to the creating of the rules under which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conducts its business; and in the past, changes in those rules were made in an open, in a thoughtful, and in a genuinely bipartisan manner. But this year, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to past tradition, the rules changes were drafted solely on the recommendation of the majority, in a partisan, in a closed, in a secret process in which no one on the Democrat side of the aisle was even consulted. So the rules were adopted on a strict party line vote: all the Republicans voting for; all the Democrats voting against. Mr. Speaker, this is the most partisan vote we cast in the House of Representatives. Never in the history of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has there been an attempt to impose rules in this manner on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. Speaker, the second concern about these rules changes is there has been an attempt to impose them on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a very partisan way, but the rules in and of themselves are extremely damaging. The fact is that, at a minimum, these rules changes will seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key responsibilities of investigating and making decisions on allegations of wrongdoing. These rules changes fall into three categories. First, there is the so-called automatic dismissal rule under which a complaint against a Member that is filed with the committee can be dismissed solely with the passage of time, no consideration of its merits. Under this automatic dismissal rule, that period of time can be as brief as 45 days from the date that the complaint is deemed to satisfy the procedural requirements of the rules. Previously, a complaint could be dismissed only by majority vote of the committee. The effect of this automatic dismissal rule will be to give the committee members a means by which they can avoid their responsibility to give thoughtful, reasoned consideration to every complaint and to all of the charges in every complaint. Its ultimate effect will be to provoke partisanship and deadlock among committee members as they wait for the clock to run out. Does the majority really want this result? Another of the rules changes is that it grants certain so-called due process rights to Members. One of those rights is the right to demand that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conduct a trial on a matter on which it has not even conducted a formal investigation. This so-called right would place the committee in the position of having to hold a trial on a matter in which it has not issued a single subpoena. Does the majority really want this result? The third rule change, Mr. Speaker, is the so-called right to counsel provision which might be better characterized as the right to orchestrate testimony provision or the right to allow collusion among the accused and the witnesses. It would provide that one lawyer can represent the accused and all of the witnesses. Does the majority really want this result? Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to look closely at the rules changes and the partisan manner in which they were adopted. By adoption of House Resolution 131, the House can begin to undo the damage that has been done to the ethics process, and we will be able to have once again an ethics process that commands the confidence and respect of both the Members of this body, and Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the American people, who, I believe, on a bipartisan basis want a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that opportunity exists with H. Res. 131, the resolution that I introduced on March 1, that is now pending before the Committee on Rules. Last week I wrote the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and respectfully requested an opportunity to testify before the Committee on Rules in support of H. Res. 131, to raise some of the questions that have been so eloquently and capably discussed here tonight. I think the gentleman's point is very well taken: the rules package was an omnibus rules package. These are three ethics rules embedded in the rules package, so it did not get the kind of visibility, the kind of attention that it would get if H. Res. 131 were brought to the floor of the House. Then we would have an opportunity to fully debate all of these issues and, more importantly, our colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, would have a chance to vote on these discrete rules, understanding how important they are to ensuring a credible ethics process and restoring it to a bipartisan basis.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is exactly where we are today. There, in fact, has not been such a moment, and we have this process that is offensive in and of itself, that is a serious break with all tradition with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct when its formation was conducted in a bipartisan manner. The subsequent rules changes, as both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) have described in considerable detail because they were involved, all those processes were bipartisan. They brought us bipartisan rules, and they brought us rules that were voted on by the full House of Representatives as a bipartisan package. The process was not offensive. Neither were the rules offensive. In this case, the process breaks with that tradition. It is patently partisan. The most partisan vote we have in the House of Representative is a party-line vote, and that is a vote that attempts to impose these rules upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a party-line vote. All the Republicans voting for them; all the Democrats voting against them. So the process is tainted. So it is no surprise that these three rules are extremely offensive. If they had been fashioned in a bipartisan process, they would have been vetted. They would have been challenged. They have would have been compromised in that task force format, and they would not have come to the body flawed as they were. When we undertake a partisan process, we cannot create a bipartisan entity. It is definitionally impossible to do. So now we have three rules. We have had to suffer under a partisan process established to affect a bipartisan committee. But we also have three rules that are terribly flawed. And the bottom line here is tonight and the message that we want to get across to our colleagues and to the whole Nation is that if we are going to have a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we have to have a bipartisan process to fashion the rules and to constitute the committee, and we also have to challenge these three rules that are brought to us in a partisan process. Automatic dismissal of a complaint after 45 days is extremely mischievous to the process. As all of my colleagues have pointed out, rules should exist to help people do the right thing. An automatic dismissal rule in 45 days incentivizes Members in a highly charged partisan institution to sit on their hands for 45 days and let this responsibility pass to have an automatic. The same sort of undermining is taking place with regard to a rule that will automatically allow an accused to get their lawyer to represent all of the witnesses that the committee is trying to investigate. The gentleman from Massachusetts was a prosecutor for 25 years or however long it was, and the gentleman, I know, understands how mischievous that would be to an investigative process.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the point that in the case that he worked on, and it is unnecessary to mention it by name, but that his investigative subcommittee, he and his colleagues, did an excellent job. And one of the reasons they did is because they were able to keep that information between the witnesses apart. They were not able to have coordination. Their testimony was not contaminated in that way. And that is why they came up with such a clean, hard decision, which was adopted unanimously by the investigative subcommittee and was adopted unanimously by the full committee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Maryland alike, who, based upon years of commitment to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct process in the House and lots of experience with different cases and the fashioning of different rules, for their very insightful comments. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a Member who has a very long history, a distinguished career in law enforcement as a District Attorney in his home State of Massachusetts, who in the last Congress served extremely admirably the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as he was called off the investigative subcommittee pool to review one of the most unusual cases that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has looked at. I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by three distinguished colleagues. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 101st, 103rd, and 104th Congresses. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) cochaired with Congressman Bob Livingston at the time the 1997 ethics bipartisan task force created to review and propose changes to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules and procedures and was the ranking minority member of the subcommittee that investigated the complaint against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. Second, I am joined by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who was ranking minority member on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 105th, the 106th, and the 107th Congresses and for the first 2 months of the 108th Congress until my appointment as ranking member. Additionally, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) was the ex officio member of the 1997 bipartisan task force created to review and propose changes to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's rules and procedures. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who prior to coming to Congress served as the Norfolk County District Attorney for a considerable period of time, from 1975 to 1996. In the 108th Congress, he was a member of the ethics pool appointed by the minority leader and was a member of the investigative subcommittee formed to look into the allegations made by then- Representative Nick Smith arising out of the events occurring during the Medicare vote taken on November 2, 2003. Collectively, these gentlemen have a tremendous amount of experience serving the House of Representatives on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over a long period of time. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, that is the topic of our Special Order tonight. The subject that we will be discussing this evening under the Special Order concerns the rules that govern the ethics process in the House of Representatives. This discussion, I think, will highlight the clear need to repeal the changes in those rules that were included in the rules package that was adopted when the House convened in January of this year, a rules package that was adopted on a strict party line vote with all Republicans voting for and all Democrats voting against. While a discussion of the rules of this nature necessarily involves a number of technical points, Mr. Speaker, there should be no mistaking the overriding importance of what we are talking about. Because of the ethics rules changes that were included in the rules package I mentioned, the House of Representatives is now at a crossroads in its ethics process. The issue now before the House is, in fact, whether the House will continue to have a credible ethics process that can be effective in protecting the reputation and the integrity of this institution. Mr. Speaker, this is my 9th year as a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and my third year as ranking minority member of that committee, and I have studied the ethics process carefully during that time. My firm conclusion is that the House will not and cannot have a credible ethics process unless the rules changes that were made earlier this year are repealed. There are at least two reasons why this is so, Mr. Speaker. First, there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House of Representatives unless changes in the ethics rules are made, as they have always been made in the House, Mr. Speaker, in the past years, in an open, thoughtful and, most importantly, in a genuinely bipartisan manner. But these rules changes were the result of a closed, secret process in which no one from this side of the aisle was ever consulted; and the votes of the rules package were, as always, strictly party line votes. Second, the fact is that, at a minimum, these rules changes, the specific changes that are attempting to be imposed by the Committee on Rules, will seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key responsibilities of investigating and making decisions on allegations of wrongdoing. It is for these reasons that I have introduced House Resolution 131, which would entirely repeal two of the three rules changes made earlier this year and would repeal as well the objectionable provisions of the third rules change. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to elaborate on each of the reasons for the resolution that I have introduced, turning first to the closed, partisan manner in which these rules changes were adopted this past January. Mr. Speaker, the ethics process in the House of Representatives dates back to the late 1960s, nearly 40 years ago. It was recognized at the very outset that there could not be a meaningful ethics process in this body unless it is a genuinely bipartisan one. This makes perfect sense because an ethics process that is dominated by the majority party in the House will become simply another tool of partisan warfare and will have no credibility whatsoever. So both when the committee was created and the ethics rules were established in 1968, as well as when the rules changes were made in the rules in 1989 and again in 1997, those actions, those creation of the rules, fashioning of the rules, recommending the rules to the House, that whole process was the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process that was, in fact, genuinely bipartisan in nature. The task force, created with an equal number of Democrats, an equal number of Republicans, whether the Republicans were in control of the House at the time or whether the Democrats were in control of the House at the time, all of the rules changes and their adoption and their recommendation to the House of Representatives came out of a genuinely bipartisan process. The process that was used earlier this year stands in stark contrast to those earlier efforts. Those rules changes were drafted in secret, and their text was publicly released literally only hours before they were to be voted on on the House floor. At no time was anyone on this side, on the minority side, of the aisle ever consulted about those changes. Likewise, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct itself was not consulted about those rules changes; and, indeed, it is not at all clear who was consulted about them or whether their proponents really fully understood the meaning and the implications of the changes which they wrought. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the rules changes resulting from such a closed, summary process, it will come as no surprise that they are seriously flawed; and that leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the second reason why these changes must be repealed. As I have mentioned, the rules changes were passed by the majority earlier this year. They fall into three categories. The first rules change relates to the automatic dismissal of complaints that are filed with the committee, automatic dismissal of complaints the first rule allows; the second rule granting certain so-called due process rights to Members, a cynical characterization of due process I might add; and the third so-called right to counsel provisions are contained in the last rules change. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the automatic dismissal rule. The automatic dismissal rule of the complaint, it constitutes a radical and particularly destructive change in the rules. Up until now, a complaint filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and keep in mind that under the rules no one other than a Member of the House may file a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but under the old rules a complaint could be dismissed only by a majority vote of the committee. Under the automatic dismissal rule which the majority is trying to impose upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in its rules passed earlier this year, a complaint can be dismissed just by the passage of time. A period as brief as 45 days from the date of the complaint is deemed to satisfy the procedural requirements of the rule; and if it is not disposed of any other way, the passage of that 45 days will result in automatic dismissal of the complaint. Members of the committee could have during that period sat on their hands, or they may have been engaged in the August recess because it is not legislative days, it is calendar days. One wonders if the drafters of this rule were even aware that in 1997, the House strongly rejected an automatic dismissal rule that was far less restrictive than this one. The proposal considered at that time applied where a motion before the committee to refer a complaint to an investigative committee did not pass, and it provided in that instance for automatic dismissal of the complaint after 180 days from the date of the vote, a lot longer than 45 days under this automatic dismissal rule. But even with the 180-day automatic dismissal, this House of Representatives in the only recorded vote in the full House on a bipartisan basis rejected the idea of a complaint being automatically dismissed that is pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct simply by the passage of time. Even that proposal was defeated on a bipartisan vote because it was recognized that any automatic dismissal rule simply promotes deadlock and partisanship on the committee. It promotes inaction. It encourages members not to fulfill their responsibility. This is especially so in those controversial, high-profile complaints that come before the committee, and it is in the handling of complaints of that kind that the committee's credibility is most at stake. Mr. Speaker, if the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to be worthy of its name, its members must give thoughtful, reasoned consideration to every complaint that comes before it; and any rule that would truncate that responsibility, that would provide for an automatic dismissal of the complaint based on the inaction of the members cannot be allowed to stand if our credibility is going to remain intact. The rules changes that grant certain so-called due process rights to Members apply whether the committee or an investigative subcommittee proposes to conclude a matter by issuing a letter or other statement that references the conduct of a particular Member. While statements of that kind do not constitute and are not characterized as a sanction, the committee has been very cautious about issuing them; and, of course, like any other committee action, such a statement cannot be issued without the bipartisan support of committee members. It is also important that statements of this kind are issued only where the conduct involved has not been the subject of a formal investigation, and a determination has been made that the issuance of such a statement in an appropriate way to resolve a complaint or other allegation of misconduct is an appropriate disposition. Where a Member is going to be the subject of such a letter or similar statement, it is not, I agree, unreasonable to grant that Member certain rights, such as prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, but the rules changes go well beyond this for they also grant such a Member the right to demand that the committee create an adjudicatory, a trial, if you will, subcommittee that is to conduct an immediate hearing, an immediate trial, on the conduct in question. Where the committee proposes to resolve the complaint by issuance of a letter, this trial would take place without any formal investigation of the matter ever having been conducted, without a single subpoena ever having been issued or a single deposition ever been taken. It gives the Member the right to jump immediately to the trial stage. No committee that is at all serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in such a situation. It emasculates that part of the committee's power and ability to, in proper due process order, develop the factual basis for a disposition perhaps involving a trial. It may well be that this immediate trial provision was included in the rules in order to force the committee, whenever a complaint is filed, to decide between two alternatives: either dismiss the complaint without having any comment whatsoever on the conduct of the respondent, or refer the complaint to an investigative subcommittee for formal investigation. But there is no valid reason to hamstring the committee in this manner. The resolution I have proposed would repeal the right to demand an immediate trial but would substitute instead the far more reasonable right to demand that the committee commission a formal investigation of the conduct in question. Mr. Speaker, the third rules change, the so-called right to counsel provision, is particularly mischievous, and it might be better characterized as the ``right to orchestrate testimony provision.'' This rules change prohibits the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from requiring in any circumstances that a respondent or witness in a case retain an attorney who does not represent someone else in the case. This change is particularly egregious in that two separate investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had raised the concern that an attorney's representation of multiple clients in a case may impair the fact- finding process, and those investigative subcommittees recommended to the full committee the adoption of a rule or policy under which multiple representation could be barred. In short, the ethics process in the House has been seriously damaged by both the substance of these rules changes and the summary partisan manner in which these changes were adopted. In the case of the latter rule, imagine the lawyer that is representing the accused having the absolute right to represent all of the witnesses that are going to be interviewed in the case, certainly undermining the ability of the committee to do its job. But we are still in the early months of this Congress, and it is not too late to undo the damage that has been done. We can once again have an ethics process in the House that commands the confidence and respect of both the Members of this body and the public. The first step, Mr. Speaker, is to repeal those rules changes and to affirm that any changes in either the substantive ethics rules or the rules governing committee procedure will be made as they have always been made in the past, only in a deliberative, open and genuinely bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank my friend from Maryland. I would like to invite our colleague from California (Mr. Berman) to join this discussion.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, how long did it take them to come with that investigation?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, exactly. Under the new rules, to be perfectly clear about it, the 45-day period would toll once an investigative subcommittee were appointed. But the point here is that the effort of any of those who did not want to have to fulfill their responsibilities and actually consider the merits of the case, anyone, any party, any five members who had that attitude could simply avoid the question of creating an investigative subcommittee and easily do it. There are two clocks that run when a complaint is filed, a 45- day clock and a 30-day clock to answer it; and then you would have 15 days to actually dispose of the matter

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank you tonight for overseeing our Special Order. I express special appreciation to these three distinguished Members of the House, my colleagues, for their participation. I think this has been an extremely reasoned, hopefully informative and persuasive prayer to the Republican leadership to look at this issue, to take a second look at it, be impressed by the fact that we are not operating in a bipartisan process, and we must if we are going to have a credible Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and then to look substantively at these three rules, how they undermine, create mischief, make it impossible, really, to conduct the oversight, the ethical oversight of the House of Representatives in a way that will make the institution proud and make us credible to the American people.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress's rules package, which was adopted this past January on a straight party-line vote, included provisions that made major unfortunate changes in the rules governing consideration of ethics complaints by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I am today introducing a resolution that would amend or repeal those provisions. There cannot be a credible ethics process in the House of Representatives unless the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is able to consider complaints against Members and staff in a thorough, efficient, and nonpartisan manner. I am concerned that those provisions of the rules package, if allowed to stand, will seriously undermine the committee's ability to perform this critical responsibility. The rules package made essentially three changes in the rules governing ethics complaints. The first change is the Automatic Dismissal Rule, which requires the committee to consider an act on any complaint within a period as short as 45 days or else the complaint will be automatically dismissed. The second is a set of changes that applies where the committee, or an investigative subcommittee, decides to conclude a matter by issuing a letter, notification, or a report that refers to the conduct of a particular Member. These changes provide a number of so-called ``due process'' rights to such a Member, one of which is the right to demand that the committee establish an adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct an immediate trial on the matter. The third change concerns the matter of a single attorney representing more than one respondent or witness in a case before the committee. Under this change, the committee is prohibited from requiring that a respondent or witness retain an attorney who does not represent someone else in the case. Mr. Speaker, turning first to the Automatic Dismissal Rule, the Automatic Dismissal Rule constitutes a radical change in the rules governing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's consideration of complaints. From the time the committee came into existence until the adoption of this rule, there was only one way that a complaint filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct could be dismissed, and that is by a majority vote of the committee. Because under the prior rules a complaint could be disposed of only by a committee vote, committee members were required to analyze the claims made in a complaint, to collect and consider additional information on the conduct in issue, and to discuss complaints among themselves in an effort to reach a resolution. With the enactment of the Automatic Dismissal Rule, the need for this study, fact gathering, and discussion within the committee will be significantly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, in any instance in which five committee members are initially inclined to vote to dismiss the complaint. What incentive would those members have to give genuine consideration to the complaint? Under the new rule, they need do nothing more than sit on their hands and the complaint will disappear. Of course, this rule change will have its greatest impact on the controversial high-profile complaints that come before the committee, but it is in the handling of complaints of that kind that the committee's credibility is most at stake. In short, while the long-term interests of the House require that committee consideration of all complaints in a reasoned, nonpartisan manner be made, the effect of the Automatic Dismissal Rule will be instead to promote partisanship and deadlock within the committee. Why was the Automatic Dismissal Rule included in the rules package? The sole rationale that was offered for the Automatic Dismissal Rule was that it would ``restore the presumption of innocence.'' Yet how does the Automatic Dismissal Rule restore the presumption of innocence? If a complaint against a Member is dismissed automatically because of committee inaction over a period as short as 45 days, is that Member in any position to claim vindication or that his conduct has been cleared by the committee? The far more likely effect of a dismissal in those circumstances is that there would continue to be a cloud over that Member. So this rules change, in fact, does no favor for any Member who is the subject of a complaint. And no matter what the impact of the particular Member involved, any automatic dismissal of a valid complaint would do incalculable harm to the image and reputation of the House of Representatives as an institution. It is also very pertinent to note that about 7 years ago when the report of the House bipartisan task force on ethics reform was before the House, Members had a meaningful opportunity to consider an automatic dismissal rule and they rejected such a proposal on a strong bipartisan vote. At that time the proponents of the rule argued that it would be unfair to a Member to have a complaint pending indefinitely before a deadlocked committee and that the proposed rule was akin to a judge declaring a mistrial when a jury was deadlocked. The fallacy of that argument was exposed when it was pointed out that a judge, in sending a case to the jury, never gives a set number of days for deliberation before a mistrial will be declared because to do that may guarantee that the jury will be deadlocked. It is also noteworthy that the Automatic Dismissal Rule that was considered and rejected in 1997 gave the committee a far longer period of time to attempt to act on the complaint. That proposal was key to a committee vote on an unsuccessful motion to refer a complaint to an investigative committee, and it provided for automatic dismissal only if the committee failed to dispose of the complaint within 180 days after that vote. The sheer unreasonableness of the Automatic Dismissal Rule that was enacted in the rules package for this Congress in January is shown in that the amount of time allowed for committee consideration of a complaint is as short as 45 days and cannot exceed 90 days. Because under committee rules a Member is allowed 30 days to file an answer to a complaint, that means the committee may have as few as 15 days to consider a complaint and answer, as well as whatever other facts it is able to gather in that brief period of time, before the complaint is automatically dismissed. This Automatic Dismissal Rule must be repealed, Mr. Speaker, and it would be repealed upon approval of the resolution that I am offering. Regarding the provisions of the rules package that provide certain so-called ``due process'' rights to Members, the resolution that I am proposing does not repeal those provisions in their entirety, but it does make a significant change in them. Where the committee or an investigative subcommittee proposes to issue a letter or other document that includes comments that are critical of a Member's conduct, it is reasonable to provide that Member with certain rights, such as prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. But the so-called ``due process'' provision of the rules package goes well beyond this, for they also provide a Member with the right to demand that the committee create an adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct an immediate trial on the conduct in question. As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, the effect of granting this right to Members is that the committee no longer has the ability to resolve a complaint by means of a letter that is issued in lieu of undertaking a formal investigation. In other words, under the due process provisions as now in effect, the committee, as a practical matter, now has only two options regarding each of the allegations made in a complaint: send the matter to an investigative subcommittee for a formal investigation or dismiss it. Why is this so? It is important to understand that the committee would propose to resolve a complaint by the issuance of a letter of the kind referenced here only where it determines that a formal investigation of the matter is not warranted. While these letters are based on and reflect the information available to the committee on the conduct alleged in the complaint, the fact is that as of the time that the committee would propose to issue such a letter, not a single subpoena in the matter would have been issued and not a single witness would have been deposed. Yet these due process provisions confer upon the respondent Member the right to demand an immediate trial regarding that matter, a trial that would take place with no formal investigation ever having been conducted. No committee that is at all serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that position. The other due process provisions that confer this same right with regard to certain notifications issued by the committee and certain reports issued by investigative subcommittees suffer the same flaw. The resolution I am proposing corrects this flaw by deleting the Member's right to demand an immediate trial and providing instead that the Member has the right to demand the establishment of an investigatory subcommittee to conduct a formal investigation in the matter in question. Possibly that investigation would conclude that the Member did not violate any law, rule or standard. But if instead the subcommittee determined that there was substantial reason to believe that a violation had occurred, then there would be a trial before an adjudicatory subcommittee. Under the resolution I am proposing, a Member would also continue to have the rights to prior notice and an opportunity to respond to a letter, notification or report that references that Member's conduct. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third change in the rules that was made by the 109th Congress rules package concerns the matter of a single attorney representing more than one respondent or witness in a case before the committee. The rules package added provisions to the rules labeled ``right to counsel provisions'' that absolutely prohibit the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from requiring a respondent or witness retain an attorney who does not represent anyone else in the case. My resolution would repeal those provisions. The committee has had no rule that prohibits a single attorney from representing more than one respondent in a case and neither the committee nor any subcommittee has ever prohibited a party or witness from retaining an attorney who represents someone else in the case. But two separate investigative subcommittees, including the subcommittee that investigated House voting on the Medicare legislation in 2003, specifically raised the concern that multiple representation may impair the fact-finding process and recommended that the committee adopt a rule or policy that addresses this concern. The reasons for these subcommittees' concern is very clear: Representation of multiple respondents or witnesses by a single attorney potentially seriously undermines any effort by an investigative subcommittee to sequester witnesses and thereby to obtain their full and candid testimony. In fact, in the other case in which the investigative subcommittee raised this concern, the Member who was under investigation had arranged for his own attorney to represent nearly a dozen of the witnesses who had been called before the investigative subcommittee. We see the problem clearly. Yet the right to counsel provision of the rules package entirely disregards the experience of and the recommendations made by these investigative subcommittees, and they absolutely preclude the committee from taking any action to address this problem. Almost certainly those provisions of the rules package will serve to encourage respondents and witnesses to employ the same counsel in cases before the committee and will thereby make the problem identified by the investigative subcommittee far worse. In short, Mr. Speaker, no matter what the intent of any of these provisions of the rules package might have been, their effect will be at a minimum to seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to consider and act on complaints in a credible way. In particular, the practical effect of the so-called due process provisions now in effect is to substantially eliminate the committee's ability to resolve a complaint short of a formal investigation and thus to force the committee to decide between either dismissing a complaint entirely or sending it to a formal investigation. Under the new automatic dismissal rule, where there are five committee members whose initial inclination is to vote to dismiss the complaint, the likely result will be an automatic dismissal in a month and a half. Even if a complaint does make it to an investigative subcommittee, the right-to-counsel provisions will make it far more likely that the respondent and witnesses will be represented by the same counsel, and thus will have an opportunity to undermine the subcommittee's work by coordinating their testimony. Approval of the resolution I am introducing will undo the harm done by these provisions of the rules package. Approval of this resolution will also provide a clear and desperately needed signal to our constituents that the House is firmly committed to protecting its reputation and integrity and that the House does intend to have a fair and effective process for considering and acting upon credible allegations of wrongdoing. Approval of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is also necessary for one other reason, and that is to affirm the long-standing principle in the House that major changes in the ethics rules and procedures must be made on a bipartisan basis. When the House revisited its ethics rules and procedures in both 1989 and 1997, the work was done through bipartisan task forces that gave thoughtful consideration to proposals from all Members. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, the changes made in the rules package adopted in January were made on a party line vote, with no input whatsoever from anyone in the minority. Approval of this resolution will be a critical step in restoring the bipartisanship that is essential if there is to be a meaningful ethics process in the House.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening, the German Embassy here in Washington will pay tribute to a man of extraordinary talent, a native son whose artistry with a camera has opened the eyes the world over. Today I rise to salute this remarkable gentleman and his distinguished career. Volkmar Wentzel had an unusual introduction to photography. His father was a photochemist and built a darkroom at the family home in Dresden. He would send his boys there when they misbehaved. One day young Volkmar happened to hit the switch that turned on the red inspection light. There in the darkroom he saw the magic of photography for the very first time. When he was 9, he and his father built a pinhole camera. It was another defining experience. In his words, ``My camera became the passport to a fascinating life.'' Two years later the Wentzels left Germany, escaping the turmoil that followed World War I. They started a new life here in America, in New York. As a young man, Volkmar set off in search of adventure, but his grand vision to travel to South America stalled in Washington, D.C. By chance, he made new friends who steered to him to Aurora, West Virginia. A colony called the Youghiogheny Forest had been started there by a mix of artists, musicians, writers, doctors and others. It is where they spent slow periods during the Great Depression. They hired Volkmar to look after their property and studios. To our great pride, that is where his career began, in the mountains of Preston County. The first images he captured were the breathtaking beauty of the countryside. Soon he focused his lens on the people. He gave farm families pictures of their children in exchange for vegetables from their gardens. One day Eleanor Roosevelt stopped in Aurora for lunch. She was on a trip to Arthurdale, a New Deal Homestead community that she had taken under her wing. The First Lady bought a few of the postcards Volkmar had made. The real profit was not the price she paid, rather, it was the encouragement that Volkmar felt. He was inspired to come back to Washington to pursue a professional career, and what an amazing career it has been. I am sure that many of my colleagues have been dazzled by his book, ``Washington by Night.'' It gives a dramatically different view of the city's best known landmarks. Even today, more than 60 years after he captured those images, they still enhance our sense of wonder. The same is certainly true of Volkmar's long and distinguished career with the National Geographic. From the Himalayas to Newfoundland, his work gave us rich new perspectives, and new understanding, of the world around us. And that is what makes him such a compelling artist. His keen eye, his technical skill, his respectful nature, his gracious manner, all of these things are evident in every photograph he takes. Of course I have a special affinity for his award-winning work in West Virginia, and I am always proud to tell people that Volkmar and his wife, Viola, consider Aurora to be their home and are active in the local historical society. The Wentzels recently celebrated his 90th birthday at their Washington residence. Tomorrow's reception will allow his friends and admirers to mark the happy occasion and to salute the work of this outstanding talent and true gentleman.