Under that same principle, though, is there not a difference between matters that might be under consideration by the Ethics Committee and matters and allegations dealing with any particular Member that are important before the body, particularly if the body or some of the body is pressing for the appointment of a counsel to remove it from the Ethics Committee? Finally let me add to that parliamentary inquiry, I thought the principle of this House as expressed by the Speaker of this House on March 8 in a press conference was, essentially paraphrasing, anything can be spoken about on the House floor?
Bob Wise: “Under that same principle, though, is there not a difference between matters that might be under consideration by the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the principles of debate regarding matters before the Ethics Committee.
Share
More from Bob Wise
I think it ought to be pointed out that as we hopefully wind into the final week of this Congress, we are today at October 6. October 1 is the beginning of the Federal fiscal year, and I think it is time that the American people understand…
there are 37 members of the Committee on the Judiciary, about 8 percent of this Congress. That leaves 398 Members of the House that could be working on some other matters. Yet today, September 16, 2 weeks before the end of the Federal…
I am one of the one-third of the Democrats that voted for the bill, but it seems to me it is the Republican leadership that is responsible for appointing conferees and moving it to conference. Why has that not happened?
I prefer that major pieces of legislation be worked out on a bipartisan basis, but it is clear that it is the Republican leadership that controls this House; and it is clear that it is the Republican leadership, regrettably, that is…





