So here is the key excerpt from Rep. Jean Schmidt's (R-Ohio) maiden speech on the floor of the House on Sept. 6:

"This House has much work to do. On that we can all agree. We will not always agree on the details of that work. Honorable people can certainly agree to disagree. However, here today I accept a second oath. I pledge to walk in the shoes of my colleagues and refrain from name-calling or the questioning of character. It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime. This great House pays the price."

I kid you not. She actually said this near the top of her first appearance on the House floor--her only speech until the week before last. So the excuse that she is just a freshman, and didn't know what she was saying, goes by the boards.

I can come up with only two possible explanations for Schmidt's Nov. 18 speech on the floor, in which she openly and directly trashed Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), calling him a coward who cuts and runs. The first, and most plausible, is that aliens abducted her and replaced her with a look-alike automaton to aid them in their invasion from Mars. The second is that she is the most insensitive and obtuse lawmaker to come down the pike in modern memory.

Schmidt now represents the district that gave us former Rep. Bill Gradison (R), one of the best legislators of our lifetimes, and former Rep. Rob Portman (R), who was on his way to being a great legislator until he was named U.S. Trade Representative. So maybe I should pick a third explanation: Aliens took over the minds of the voters of metropolitan Cincinnati and removed all of their judgment.

Of course, Schmidt is not the only lawmaker to cover herself in embarrassment that night. There is a cast of hundreds, including those who hatched the idea of coming up with a quickie resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq, just to embarrass Murtha. This was exceeded in the cringe factor by the lawmakers who tried to call it the Murtha Resolution, and the presiding officer who tried to let them get away with it.

But none of them wins the prize. It goes to the Republicans who, after Murtha's speech, quickly called for an ethics investigation into his relationship with his lobbyist brother. It's a great way to send the signal that if you take a position out of line with that of the president, we will hit you with ethics charges. What a wonderful way to shore up the credibility of the House.

What were they thinking? Was anybody thinking? Before I go further, let me offer a couple of disclaimers. First, I think Murtha is wrong. I do not believe it is a good idea to set a firm timetable for U.S. withdrawal--it would let our adversaries know what to plan for.

Second, I have no idea if he is either guilty of ethics transgressions or if the charges even pass a threshold for a full investigation--but I am happy to have one occur, as I am happy to have anything occur that shows a pulse over at an ethics committee that has been comatose for the entire Congress, ever since the Speaker pulled the plug on its chairman and strongest Members.

Having said that, Republicans had a great opportunity to clear the House floor for an extended and gratifying debate on Iraq and even on the broader war on terror--taking on Murtha directly for his policy views, and letting him and his colleagues give their reasons right back.

The nation needs this debate. More and more Americans are becoming disillusioned and disgusted with what is happening in Iraq. It is necessary to have a debate that underscores why, even if we made a hash of the aftermath of the initial invasion, we have to follow through, and how we can adjust to make it work better. There are lots of ideas on how to do so, coming from constructive figures such as Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). A real debate could have showcased the House at its finest--and even been a real debate, rather than just a succession of speeches. Instead (and typically, I am afraid, of the contemporary House) it became another example of the House at its cringe-worthy worst.

Murtha's comments resonated with many Americans not just because they share his views--he is a genuine hero, a thoughtful man who has spent his considerable career in Congress focused on building bipartisan coalitions to strengthen the military and to forge constructive policies. He, of all people, deserved the respect of having a real and meaningful debate. Of course these issues cause passions to rise to the surface; it is up to leaders to channel those passions into constructive directions, rather than into malicious and destructive ones. Where are such leaders?

As for ethics, I will reiterate that we desperately need to revamp our ethics process. We need to have an independent investigative arm, populated by former Members and staff, to consider complaints about ethics violations and even to initiate their own investigations, removed from the partisan cross-currents of the current membership and leadership. The need is desperate now, not just because of the Speaker's shameless demolition of the committee and its credibility but because we are going to see a flood of cases that need to be dealt with, thanks to Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. Every Member mentioned in The Associated Press story, written by John Solomon and Sharon Theimer, who took in a bundle of money from Abramoff's firm and American Indian clients just before or after asking the government to block the Jena Indians from opening a casino should be investigated by the ethics committee. This includes lots of Democrats and Republicans.

How can the committee not now do a full-bore investigation of Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and every other Congressional figure who went on one of the golf outings to Scotland with Abramoff and Scanlon, as well as those who went to the Super Bowl or on other fun jaunts? I do not believe most lobbyists are anything like Abramoff, but his sleaze has rubbed off on a lot of people who came into contact with him. The basic credibility of the House itself will probably be under intense siege over the next year. This is a time for building some protection for the body, by having a real legislative process and a meaningful ethics committee. Please.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.