On the recordJuly 21, 2011
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. And the reason for it is this: As I watched the structure of the OCE be set up--and I'd say to the gentleman, for over 200 years we've had the Ethics Committee to take care of this business. If we want to amend the rules of the House, let's go back to what the rules of the House are. But the OCE has crossed the line over and over again. And I would make this point: that they have gone on witch hunts. They have taken pieces of information that came from political opposition on either side and embellished that into things. And they have violated Roman law, English common law, and the decency of the House by this: Classified confidential information used against Members of Congress who don't have an opportunity to face their accuser, whose reputations have been damaged by sometimes--I'll just say certainly leaks to the press, sometimes, I suspect, willful leaks to the press. We need to go back to the Ethics Committee dealing with this business as it has been for over two centuries. This bill only passed by one vote a few years ago, and now we have a whole machinery out there whose sole purpose it is is to ask activist organizations on both sides to come in and send information in that would be used against Members of Congress. I support the gentleman's amendment.
